38 years after the interreligious coven of Assisi - Related: 1. FROM ECUMENISM TO SILENT APOSTASY. - 2. BERGOGLIO INSISTS ON HIS HERESY. - 3. "2013-2022: Nine Years With Francis" - 4. MONS. VIGANO ON BERGOGLIO'S APOSTASY. - 5. THE FALSE ECUMENICAL RELIGION OF VATICAN II. - 6. The Vatican promotes apostasy and a global religion - 7. The Paul VI Hall in the Vatican is Diabolical. - 8. "Ecumenism: The Original Sin of the New Mass" - Jo… - 9. IS THE NEW MASS CATHOLIC? - Related: 1. "Ecumenism… - 10. DIEZ AÑOS CON FRANCISCO. - 11. A 38 AÑOS DEL AQUELARRE DE ASÍS - Relacionado: 1. … - 12. 38 ANS APRÈS L'APOSTASIE INTERRELIGIEUSE DE JEAN-P… - 13. 38 anni dopo la congrega interreligiosa di Assisi … - 14. EL FALSO PROFETA DEL VATICANO - Miles Christi - 11… - 15. “Misterio de iniquidad: la abominación desoladora … - Source: youtube.com/watch?v=niDpQx43K3w
Super Omnia Veritas and one more user link to this post
John Paul II kann unmöglich Heiliger sein, nachdem er diese antichristliche gotteslästerliche (da er Ungläubige aufrief, zu ihren Götzen = Teufeln zu beten) Bewegung ins Leben rief, nie wiederrief sondern lebenslang fortsetzte.
“The journey of the spirit towards God emerges from the depths of creatures and from the intimacy of man. (...) The modern mentality is based on the experience of man and on the affirmation of the transcendence of the human person. Man surpasses himself. Man must surpass himself. The drama of atheistic humanism (...) consists in stripping man of his transcendental character, in destroying his definitive personal significance. (...) The Trappist or the Camaldolese confess to this God in their life of silence. The Bedouin turns to Him in the desert, when the hour of prayer arrives. And perhaps also the Buddhist who, concentrated on his contemplation, purifies his thought preparing the way to nirvana. (...) The Church of the living God brings together all men who, in whatever way, take part in this marvellous transcendence of the human spirit. And all of them know that no one will succeed in fulfilling their deepest desires. The manifestation of this transcendence of the human person is found in the prayer of faith, but also at times in profound silence. This silence, which at times seems to separate man from God, is nevertheless a special act of the vital union between God and the human spirit. The Church of our time has become particularly aware of this truth and, in its light, has succeeded in redefining, at the Second Vatican Council, her own nature.” Sources: 1. KAROL WOJTYLA Y LA NUEVA IGLESIA CONCILIAR - Ver t… - 2. KAROL WOJTYLA AND THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH - See a… - 3. Juan Pablo II profesaba la herejía de la salvación universal.
I never realized that the Inter religious Prayer for peace at Assisi took place on October 27, 1986 and the sacrilegious closing "mass" after the Pachamama debacle took place on October 27, 2019. The Tradition Feast of Christ the King occurs on the last Sunday in October. The closing mass was on a Sunday, the Feast of Christ the King in 2019. The prayer meeting occurred on a Monday in 1986. In any case, this is absolutely NOT a coincidence. It was absolutely planned that these two demonic events should occur on the same day.
@Adrien As soon as someone starts demanding that a post be censored because they don't like it, they alienate everyone and nullify their position. After much study and continuing prayer and with sadness and anger, I concluded that Sedevacantism is the only logical answer. I don't really care what the Dimond Bros are doing, such a ridiculous point. And to latch onto one detail like "subsists in" and make that the entire point, or even all of the clearly heretical (in light of previous magisterial declarations) statements and praxis regarding ecumenism, means you don't have the big picture of what the conciliar "church" is all about.
Maybe you need to do some further research and praying regarding this topic, rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalal.
@spinmeister
Post: 38 years after the interreligious coven of Assisi …
I acknowledge you took some of your time to write two comments directed to me, following my exchange with Super Omnia Veritas/Miles - Christi - English.
As far as apologetic is concerned, one of the easiest things, is to have an exchange with a Sedevacantist. It's even easier than talking with a Protestant. I have one here with the Sedevacantist pope Leo XIV (but not in English, Échange sur la confession des péchés avec Léon XIV).
Why? Because all the Sedevacantist premises are flawed.
To be honest, I didn't expect to convince Super Omnia Veritas of anything, the same way I didn't convince him that the earth is not flat despite the fact I had hard evidence, and that my demonstration was short, simple and perfected.
Refuting a sedevacantist may be an easy task for you, but believing that this man could be the legitimate Vicar of Christ on earth is less so: Anathema sit Bergoglio - Miles Christi - 2016 - Se…
To understand what is the "conciliar church": The Paul VI Hall in the Vatican is Diabolical.
I did meet and talk with people from other denominations and religions. Does it mean that I'm an apostate? Absolutely not!
This Sedevacantist propaganda is a call to apostasy. Please, remove this post.
The Apostasy does not consist in talking to people of other religions, but in encouraging them to persevere in their false cults and making them understand that their false religions are valid and legitimate ways to approach God... - See: 1. BERGOGLIO INSISTS ON HIS HERESY. - 2. GOD INSPIRES ALL RELIGIONS. - 3. François : "Gardez vivant l'esprit d'Assise". - 4. Conférence sur François - (Version longue)- Versio… - 5. Juan Pablo II profesaba la herejía de la salvación universal.
@Super Omnia Veritas Meeting with them is not apostasy anymore? Wow! Thank you for that! Too bad you're not binding all Sedevacantists, because it would be a great leap in the right direction!
If you allow me an observation: "the right direction" is not precisely that of modernist "ecumenism" and apostate "interreligiosity" promoted by the "conciliar popes." I know it is not a pleasant thing to hear, but that is the reality in which we find ourselves since Vatican II...
@Super Omnia Veritas It is not enough to put a negative qualifier in front of ecumenism. You see, like everything else, it is possible to do a good thing imperfectly or even badly.
Therefore, we must make the distinction between good and bad ecumenism. If you condemn Pope John Paul II for his ecumenism every step of the way and in all occurrences, it means that so far, you can't make this basic distinction.
The Church has been practicing the good form of ecumenism since 33 AD. Christ tells the pagan Centurion who asks Him to heal his servant, that no greater Faith is found in all of Israel. Moreover, think of St. Paul on Mars Hill in Athens where he meets to discuss philosophy and Theology with the Epicureans and Stoics.
@Adrien - It seems to me that you do not understand that the "bad ecumenism" is the one practiced since Vatican II: 1. FROM ECUMENISM TO SILENT APOSTASY. - 2. Pierre M'ames Tu? | PDF | IIe concile œcuménique du Vatican | Jean-Paul II - 3. SOLVE ET COAGULA: LA STRATÉGIE CONCILIAIRE. - 4. LE VATICAN PROFESSE LE MODERNISME.
If by "ecumenism" we mean the unity of those who consider themselves believers in Christ, the only orthodox way of practicing it would be to preach to these "Christians" the integrality of Catholic doctrine in relation to the true nature of the Church founded by Our Lord, so that the lost sheep can understand that they must return to the only fold that will lead them to salvation. And this is precisely what is not done since the Second Vatican Council. If you read the material I have attached, where this aspect is analyzed with precision, you will be able to understand what I am explaining to you. With regard to common prayer, joint participation in sacred things is prohibited by Catholic doctrine (I am referring to the true one, that is, that of before Vatican II), since it favors religious indifference, and this is precisely what characterizes the heterodox conciliar ecumenism, as can be seen in the convocation of the false religions of the world to Assisi to "pray for peace in the world"...
@Super Omnia Veritas
''the only orthodox way of practicing it would be to preach to these "Christians" the integrality of Catholic doctrine''.
What you describe is not ecumenism.
You are proving one of my points. Ecumenism doesn't exist in your Sedevacantist Church.
You only have either a caricature of Catholic ecumenism or bad examples.
When we are practicing ecumenism, we can pour some pertinent Catholic apologetics at an opportune time.
If you were reading about the lives of the Saints, you would find out that sometimes just behaving in great charity among them or helping them in human situations, often produces better results than a whole session of debate and argumentation.
---------------------------
Although I must say, you seem to have a much bigger problem since you broke away from the Catholic Church.
That is why you believe that Mortalium Animos is still the rule, but it was not doctrinal (for the gatherings and talks), but disciplinary.
Theories and temptations to the likeness of Sedevacantism have existed since the early Church.
Since antiquity, many rigorists have left the Church for some separated sects.
They didn't care about the command to not break unity and to always stay within the Catholic Church. Such as the rigorist Tertullian, the first Latin theologian, who left to join the Montanists.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage said ''Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus'' for those leaving the Church.
To this day, Tertullian (155-220) is still not canonized, and for good reasons.
The Donatists in the 4th century was another rigorist breakaway group. Similar to today's Sedivacantists they believed that they could not be in union with the Church who had corrupt priests and bishops.
I do not belong to any "Sedevacantist Church," but to the only Church founded by Christ, the Holy Catholic Church. By the way, Vatican II denies the relationship of identity between the "Church of Christ" and the "Catholic Church", with the false doctrine of the "subsistit in". On the other hand, it is not a question of "rigorism," but of professing the Catholic faith, plain and simple. The argument is not that one cannot be in communion with morally corrupt priests or bishops, but with those who adhere to the modernist heresy, liberalism and religious indifference condemned by the Church. The conciliar "ecumenism" and the "interreligiosity" practiced by the "conciliar popes" fall into these heresies. I understand that it may be shocking to hear this, and that it may be very difficult to accept, but, unfortunately, that is the reality... - See more here: The Vatican promotes apostasy and a global religion
@Super Omnia Veritas
You do not belong to any Sedevacantist Church?
A well-known propagandist of Sedevacantism, one of the Dimond brothers, was exposed for discreetly going to a Catholic parish for his usual Mass attending.
When someone is promoting Sedevacantist doctrines, I first presume he is a member of one of the many sects claiming to be the Catholic Church.
Right now, I would say that you are not a member of the Catholic Church. Church = Ecclesia, that means assembly. Jesus founded His Assembly, and this Assembly can be identifiable by those that are in relation with the nonschismatic successors of the Apostles.
As for having bishops (plural), it is Our Lord Jesus Christ who gives us the guarantee of this in Matthew 28:20.... And behold, I'm with you always, until the end of the ages. The 11 Apostles have been dead for more than 1900 years, so the Lord is not speaking of them alone, but He is including their successors, the bishops. Therefore, we will have bishops until the end of time.
---------------------------------------------------
Not understanding the order of priorities, is a major defect in Sedevacantist doctrines. Like what you are saying about the subsistit in.
You think you can reject the Catholic Church because of this type of detail.
First, if it is an imperfect statement, it is not completely wrong like saying the opposite; the Church of Christ doesn't subsist in the Catholic Church.
Secondly, it was not that easy for them (in the 1960s) to define better, because they had to compose with the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church and that at the same time, the Orthodox Church had valid Sacraments, priests and bishops benefiting from the apostolic succession.
Instead of falling into speculative theology, not having at hand a specific revelation of what is the spiritual place of a valid clergy in relation to the Mystical Body of the Lord but outside the Catholic Church, they opted for a more prudent statement.
I personally firmly believe that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, but I would never become a schismatic for this reason. I also believe we have a revelation from a recent prophet who transmitted the solution. The Orthodox Church is not a part of the Church of Christ, but it is a ‘’house’’ that belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ.
That was from me, but there is this explanation from Cardinal Ratzinger in the year 2000, from the declaration Dominus Iesus:
With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth,” that is, in those churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”
------------------------------------------------------
''As far as the bad clergy in the Church is concerned, remember that Judas coexisted with the 11 Apostles, and that Jesus said to the Apostles:
''Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)
We must not reject the successors of the first 11 Apostles because of the presence of Judas' successors.
The number of Judas in today's Church must not be an excuse to break away from all the Lenga, Gracida, Viganò, Müller, etc.
He who rejects globally the successors of the Apostles, rejects Jesus Christ Himself and is therefore separated from His unique Church.''
-----------------------------------------------------
You may think that Pope John Paul II was a ''conciliar pope'', but it doesn't change the fact that he was a genuine successor of the Apostle Peter.
Despite all the pressure against him, John Paul II stood fast, and never gave up on the interdiction of using contraception, he didn't accept the ordination of female deacons, neither the local abolition of the Sacrament of penance, nor the Blessed Sacrament for the remarried divorcees. There is much more, but I will leave it there.
--------------------------------------------
You ended your comment by a link concerning the action of Francis Bergoglio. Francis Bergoglio is not a spiritual member of the Catholic Church, and he is definitely with the Judas' team. I believe he is the biblical main false prophet (Revelation 13:11).
Don't you see, he is the opposite of Pope John Paul II. Francis is teaching that remarried divorcees can go to ''communion'' and that a blessing can be granted to irregular couples.
One of the two is definitely not a ''liberal''.
Fair enough, that is your view of the situation. If you believe that Vatican II teaches Catholic doctrine without any mixture of error, and that the magisterium of the "conciliar popes" is exempt from the pernicious errors of liberalism, religious indifferentism and modernist Gnosticism, infallibly condemned by the magisterium of the Church, then that is up to you. For my part, I consider that there has been an essential and unbridgeable break with the pre-conciliar magisterium, which leads me to conclude that the "conciliar popes" are deprived of the power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, which they would have received together with the charisma of infallibility in teaching on matters of faith, something that, in my opinion, they lack. It follows from this that the nature of the "conciliar crisis" belongs to a unique and unrepeatable genre, that of the Great Apostasy predicted by Saint Paul, prior to the public manifestation of the Antichrist. Needless to say, such a crisis escapes any attempt at a human solution, and that only the Second Coming, the return of Our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and majesty, after the Judgment of the Nations -the "Day of the Lord" or "Dies Irae"-, will put a definitive end to it. And I don't think we are very far away from that...
What I don't get from some trads, and I am an orthodox Catholic who rejects modernism and appreciates the classical forms of liturgy, is how is it that they themselves recognize that there was a sizable constituency of conservative traditional bishops at the Second Vatican Council, including such men as Ottovani and Marcel Lefebvre who all signed the Vat 2 documents- all of them! Moreover, there were traditional Catholic philosophers and theologians such as Dietrich Von Hildebrand who was a strong opponent of modernism and liberalism accepted that the Council documents were if read in the light of the Apostolic Tradition are in continuity and harmony with it.
Very good question indeed. There is really something to be surprised about. In my opinion, it did not occur to anyone, during the Council and also for the first years of the post-conciliar euphoria - what was considered to be a new "springtime of the Church", the marvelous outpouring of a "new Pentecost" -, that an assembly called and promulgated by those who, to all outward appearances, legitimately occupied the throne of St. Peter, could result in something harmful to the Catholic faith, and would enable an endless series of reforms in all areas of the ecclesial life, infecting them more or less subtly with the deadly poison of the liberal, ecumenical and modernist ideology previously condemned by all the popes before Roncalli - to set an arbitrary date -, the "French Revolution" onwards. However, as unimaginable as this state of affairs may be to the ordinary mentality of a Catholic from any previous era, this is what has happened, and in fact, it is only continuing to develop without interruption, like a malignant metastasis of a patient who, on a purely human and natural scale, has reached the stage of terminal illness. It is by virtue of this diagnosis totally outside of what has been known until now, disconcerting to the extreme and devastating in its consequences, that I find no other satisfactory reading than the eschatological one, namely - as I have already said previously - that we are witnessing, live and direct, the great biblical apostasy announced by Saint Paul, which must precede the public manifestation of the Antichrist and his ephemeral but universal reign, which will be finally destroyed by Our Lord on the occasion of his glorious Second Coming... - I recommend reading the following article in this regard, which provides an interpretation that I find quite appropriate of the conciliar period in which we live: EL CONCILIO VATICANO II INICIÓ LA PASIÓN DE LA IGLESIA.