Vatican II is a poisounous gateau. Part I of the interview Stephen Heiner did with Bishop Richard Williamson in London last month. His Excellency was in good spirits. Part II of the interview will be …More
Vatican II is a poisounous gateau.
Part I of the interview Stephen Heiner did with Bishop Richard Williamson in London last month. His Excellency was in good spirits. Part II of the interview will be available in the coming weeks.
This interview was done to commemorate the publication of (and help launch) the final two volumes of his four-volume Letters from the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary.
truerestoration.blogspot.com/…/video-interview…
Part I of the interview Stephen Heiner did with Bishop Richard Williamson in London last month. His Excellency was in good spirits. Part II of the interview will be available in the coming weeks.
This interview was done to commemorate the publication of (and help launch) the final two volumes of his four-volume Letters from the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary.
truerestoration.blogspot.com/…/video-interview…
FSSPX Strikte Observanz.
Sammlung der besten, wichtigsten Beiträge auf Gloria.tv zum Thema: Widerstand in (und außerhalb) der FSSPX gegen ein Abkommen mit Rom ohne vorausgehende doktrinelle Bekehrung Roms zur Lehre wie sie bis zum II. Vatikanum unveränderbar festgeschrieben war.More
FSSPX Strikte Observanz.
Sammlung der besten, wichtigsten Beiträge auf Gloria.tv zum Thema: Widerstand in (und außerhalb) der FSSPX gegen ein Abkommen mit Rom ohne vorausgehende doktrinelle Bekehrung Roms zur Lehre wie sie bis zum II. Vatikanum unveränderbar festgeschrieben war.
Sammlung der besten, wichtigsten Beiträge auf Gloria.tv zum Thema: Widerstand in (und außerhalb) der FSSPX gegen ein Abkommen mit Rom ohne vorausgehende doktrinelle Bekehrung Roms zur Lehre wie sie bis zum II. Vatikanum unveränderbar festgeschrieben war.
sanctus333
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Papal infallibility is limited to a very specific circumstance when the pope defines a teaching of the Church that must be believed by ALL. Papal infallibility does not extend to every written or spoken word nor does it extend to every action of a pope. This is one of the huge errors of our modern world and this new heresy that says the pope can do anything is what is leading many ignorant and …More
Papal infallibility is limited to a very specific circumstance when the pope defines a teaching of the Church that must be believed by ALL. Papal infallibility does not extend to every written or spoken word nor does it extend to every action of a pope. This is one of the huge errors of our modern world and this new heresy that says the pope can do anything is what is leading many ignorant and apathetic souls in the Vatican II/Novus Ordo Church deeper into error.
From the First Vatican Council this is the dogmatic teaching on infallibility, and it is very limited as you can see with the 3 conditions necessary:
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
3.
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."
Also what is important to note is that the Pope can not make known NEW doctrine (i.e. this new ecumenism - like the sacrilegious idolatry that took place as Assisi). Vatican I stated that the pope was not given the Holy Spirit to make know new doctrines:
"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors..."
www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
From the First Vatican Council this is the dogmatic teaching on infallibility, and it is very limited as you can see with the 3 conditions necessary:
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2.
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
3.
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."
Also what is important to note is that the Pope can not make known NEW doctrine (i.e. this new ecumenism - like the sacrilegious idolatry that took place as Assisi). Vatican I stated that the pope was not given the Holy Spirit to make know new doctrines:
"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors..."
www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
Have you watched and listened to CathPresbyter's video, the priest talks about the myth of Vat II? he explains it quite well. With all the ambiguities in the documents, which were purposely written as such, should there be any wonder as to the confusion it has allowed to permeate within our churches? It may not have been intended as such, but it is obvious that the other side had its share in it. …More
Have you watched and listened to CathPresbyter's video, the priest talks about the myth of Vat II? he explains it quite well. With all the ambiguities in the documents, which were purposely written as such, should there be any wonder as to the confusion it has allowed to permeate within our churches? It may not have been intended as such, but it is obvious that the other side had its share in it. Look at its fruit...What is it?
Even Father John Corapi said he had to read the documents over and over again, he couldn't believe how they were written and the tremendous amount of ambiguities within. Our Catholic Faith is not one which is filled with ambiguity and confusion.
Even Father John Corapi said he had to read the documents over and over again, he couldn't believe how they were written and the tremendous amount of ambiguities within. Our Catholic Faith is not one which is filled with ambiguity and confusion.
Gosh... one can never really get one's head around the premise that, in this movement, the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Rome, etc. are all truely oecumenical and therefore genuine, BUT the second Vatican Council is not, which was an incredible oecumenical council, is not and therefore canot be taken seriously! On the one hand, they say that 'Peter's' authority is continous from the first …More
Gosh... one can never really get one's head around the premise that, in this movement, the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Rome, etc. are all truely oecumenical and therefore genuine, BUT the second Vatican Council is not, which was an incredible oecumenical council, is not and therefore canot be taken seriously! On the one hand, they say that 'Peter's' authority is continous from the first Peter down to Benedict XVI, and that he is infallable, etc. But, on the other hand, they say the Pope (Peter) is "infected"... and so vatican II is "a poisonous gateau...". Rather curious indeed!! 