“Historical amnesia then greases the skids for moral revolutions in all matters of State. But apparently this is also true in the Catholic Church hierarchy. Even a growing number of non-traditionalists will admit that a document like Fiducia Pooplicans could have only been possible following “the changes in the Church” of the 1960s. Why? Because “the Council” re-created Divine Revelation in so-called “ecumenism” and then revamped the Church’s liturgical history in overhauling not just the Mass, but all seven sacraments. At the beginning of the 1960s in Rome, the message of the “progressives” was: “Please let us try the experiment of ecumenism and the Novus Ordo.” But by the end of the 1960s, the progressives would not let any of the traditionalists (priests or brothers or nuns) remain in the congregations they hijacked. Strange that this liturgical revolution in Rome took place in the exact same decade as Mao’s cultural revolution in China—the 1960s.
“Not only was doctrine and liturgy changed over the past 70 years, but the history of the Catholic Church was revamped. From numerous saints being removed from the calendar to the modern-myth that “the new Mass is older than the old Mass” (re-read the last part in quotes to see if you’re part of the brainwashed flock) the truth is that all of Catholic history got overhauled in the minds of most Catholics since the 1960s. Why? So that we might forget our own history and believe in a new one. Even better: “You must believe in the new, fabricated history of the Catholic Church or you’re disobedient.”
“The pinnacle of this brainwashing is that the one currently squatting in a major Catholic Church today is allegedly the “merciful one” crushing all intellectual opposition, especially that small faction of Catholics who maintain the true history of the Catholic Church. Through this squatter, the errors of Russia have been put on turbo overdrive in Rome over the last eleven years. One aspect of this is the document Traditiones Custodes, allegedly limiting the use of the Latin Mass. Is the name Traditiones Custodes (Guardians of Tradition) ironic as it attempts to destroy tradition? No. It is intentional. Remember: Mao had to destroy his own country’s culture in order to create a new history, claiming to be the guardian of all history in China.
“Now does the title Traditiones Custodes start to make sense?”
And this is why I can’t agree with Lefebrve or those who accepted basic premise (like 1958 sedes). I don’t know how to reconcile that with this (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm):
‘Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
‘The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” (Epistle 54). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ’s promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet “errors of addition” may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ’s words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an “error of addition”.’
I can only see a possibility that a church built on an antipope has no pope, is not protected by the Petrine promise, and can err in matters of faith/morals. The Catholic Church would be eclipsed but still have an apostolic hierarchy even without a pope for several years. 1958 sedevacantism appears impossible because it defected when the last bishop appointed by Pius XII/Cardinal Siri died, as there is no apostolic succession left.
The ‘58 Sedes have valid bishops with apostolic succession. That is why they think they ARE the Church.
Is it formal apostolic succession? Material succession is not enough according to Catholic theology from before Vatican II.
Theology before Vatican II never considered the possibility that such an event as Vatican II was actually possible. Consider Vatican I’s treatment of a heretical pope. The then-Archbishop of Cincinnati (I forget his name) commented that there was a discussion on the topic at Vatican I…after it had been demonstrated from experts in Church history that such a thing had never happened. The first thing they thought of was that it was impossible. Then, after discussing it, it was determined that even THINKING such a thing was possible was offensive to the Office of the Papacy.
If the idea that a pope teaching error in the course of his Magisterium was something shocking, how could they conceive of the Conciliar Revolution?
We are faced with a conundrum: either the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, and thus error has been codified (Unitatis Redintegratio says non-Catholic religions are salvific by their natures, which is a heresy, Lumen Gentium says the Catholic Church is not the same as the Church of Christ, which is also wrong) and officially taught as true (co tary to the dogmatic definition of VaticanI that what has been taught cannot be interpreted in any other light that how it was originally taught)…but we have a pope and hierarchy, OR the Conciliar Church is NOT the Catholic Church, and the Faith remains intact, the Liturgy remains untouched…but we don’t have a pope or a visible hierarchy.
Vatican 2 was not dogmatic. So error has not been “codified”. This is the problem with Sedes, they think it has been codified. The devils in the Church act as if it is codified and this leads cowards like Benedict XVI to act like it is codified and that allows Bergoglio to wield a false power. It’s all fake and I’m tired of all the pu$$ies in the Church who either retreat into the fake sede movement or throw their hands up.
What is wrong with all you people?
If Vatican II taught heresy there are two possible consequences: the Church defected (if Vatican II was not infallible, you still have a hierarchy promulgating it for 60 years) or the hierarchy ipso facto fell from office at the time. If the latter, it defected when formal apostolic succession ceased. Either way, dogma, as expounded before Vatican II, was contradicted. Dogma cannot fail.
Then the assumption that it taught heresy must be wrong somewhere, since assuming it leads to dogma being contradicted. Maybe the heresy we see today did not come from Vatican II itself but from its implementation.
The Council of Constance taught heresy 600 years ago re Conciliarism and it was promulgated by the hierarchy for a hundred years. So there are possibilities beyond the two you mentioned.
Either horn of the dilemma leads to the conclusion that dogma is wrong. But both horns depend of the assumption that Vatican II taught heresy. Is there some way to reconcile Vatican II with what happened before?
I have reconciled a few putative heresies with what the Church taught before. For example, invincible ignorance implies there are non-Catholics in the Church. Or that there was not always a Christian state before Constantine (hence such a condition cannot be essential to the Church’s mission).
☝️☝️☝️
VII is the prophesized great apostasy and abomination of desecration.
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-novus-ordo-abomination-of.html?m=1
But was the Council of Constance ratified by a pope or an antipope? Councils ratified by a pope require accepting their decrees with Catholic and divine faith. If the former we have serious problems.
As for Vatican II being the time of great apostasy, which signs given by Jesus about the world at end times can you mark out back then? Even many Protestants claimed that the great apostasy happened at/after the time of Constantine. If the end times can last 70 years, we in fairness should agree that the end times can last centuries or even millennia. Otherwise if there are time limits, what are they.
I can point to signs happening in our times. There are wars and rumors of wars. We are told to avoid meat and families to “save the planet”. From Rome Agenda 30 is blessed. Men want to be women and women want to become men. People are given poison and told it is medicine. Homosexuality is widely accepted. So is fornication. It would be by a special grace of God if any children are not corrupted before adulthood. People want to augment themselves and put chips in their brains and upload themselves into computers. People see nothing wrong with engineering the genetic code of all life. Elites are telling us we cannot participate in society by 2030 without a biometric digital id, or buy or sell with digital money without one. The Mandela Effect is affecting history.
Which are your signs for 1960? The beginning of the sexual revolution?
The conciliar error of the Council of Constance was ratified and promulgated by MULTIPLE valid popes. Google Haec Sancta.
I tried to find more information on it and could not. Based on my reading, there are two things I noted. First, the council was convoyed by an antipope and second at that point in history concilliaridm was not yet officially a heresy, which is different from claiming what VII taught already condemned heresy. I think that is this distinction that allowed John XXXII to muse on if the dead are in heaven.
But I admit if John XXIII was an antipope it is possible that VII can be retracted for lack of authority. I’m just not convinced that he was.
Yeah, but they’re not. They just…aren’t.
Answer: the errors of Russia does not refer to “communism” or the Chinese. 1 Thessalonians 2:15 and John 8:44 tell you who.
One doesnt lose his job for criticizing the Chinese.
Politicians don’t have to pledge allegiance to China, then go pay homage at the Great Wall.
ChinaPac doesnt boast that 98% of their backed candidates win election.
China doesn’t have over 130 Chinese working in the Biden Administration.
It isn’t a Chinese US Attorney General who persecutes Catholics. Nor a Chinese Director of Homeland Security who leaves th borders wide open.
Seems that for a long time now, Francis has not been celebrating the Mass. Only attending. And it is not because of health impediments.
Francis Has Given up Presiding at the Novus Ordo Eucharist
https://www.gloria.tv/post/jM49Ut2gUEjd6WC33cqkEA8YA
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/why-doesnt-pope-francis-celebrate-mass/