Bp. Zendejas says again Novus Ordo errors are from reforms
Mar 7, 2019 15:39:10 GMT
Post by Admin on Mar 7, 2019 15:39:10 GMT
In a November 2015 publication written by then-Father Zendejas, called the Blue Paper, there was some concern in traditional circles that Fr. Zendejas was deviating from the clear teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre with respect to Vatican II. The Archbishop always taught that the errors of the Conciliar Church were to be found in the very same Council that that 'church' was named for.
Thus, he [Archbishop Lefebvre] resisted the Post-Vatican II ecclesiastical orientation (religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality), in order to remain in the one Church of Jesus Christ. [emphasis mine] www.therecusant.com/zendejas-blue-paper-nov2015
Throughout that same Blue Paper issue, there are multiple though ambiguous references to errors after the Second Vatican Council, such as:
- the present ecclesiastical orientation…
- ...resisting the new ecclesiastical tide
- ...but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period
We never really heard any clarification from Bp. Zendejas after this issue was raised in 2015, that perhaps he spoke incorrectly, he was taken out of context, there was a language barrier, etc. So we were left to assume that our understanding of his meaning was correct, that we should take his words at face value.
Not much more has been heard on this since 2015.
But then in February of this year [2019], it appears the same preaching on the errors of the Novus Ordo coming from the post-Conciliar reforms was repeated by Bp. Zendejas:
Bp. Zendejas sermon on February 9, 2019 – Avrille, France
“At the contrary, we are in the deepest of an extraordinary crisis within the Church. It is evident for us that the New Evangelization of today’s Pope, coming as consequence of the Vatican II reforms, is diametrical opposed to the Catholic Magisterium of all time; it is a “New Gospel,” which Saint Paul has warned us to let it be an ANATHEMA! […] “With integrity and fidelity to the Traditional doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, we resist the “novelties” preached since the Second Vatican Council, those novelties were wanted, both encouraged and imposed by the highest Roman authorities. www.dominicansavrille.us/category/our-seminary/
“At the contrary, we are in the deepest of an extraordinary crisis within the Church. It is evident for us that the New Evangelization of today’s Pope, coming as consequence of the Vatican II reforms, is diametrical opposed to the Catholic Magisterium of all time; it is a “New Gospel,” which Saint Paul has warned us to let it be an ANATHEMA! […] “With integrity and fidelity to the Traditional doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, we resist the “novelties” preached since the Second Vatican Council, those novelties were wanted, both encouraged and imposed by the highest Roman authorities. www.dominicansavrille.us/category/our-seminary/
At first glance, the distinction on whether or not the errors of the Novus Ordo are found in the Council or whether they are found in the post-conciliar period might not seem terribly important. But the errors contained right in the Vatican II documents don't allow us to belittle this distinction.
Only two of the more pernicious errors right in the Vatican II documents [with analysis by Fr. Gregory Hesse] are the following:
Gaudium et Spes 12
This whole document was indirectly written by the founder of Opus Dei, “Saint” Jose Maria Escriva. He wanted the Church to conform to the modern world and he wanted a one world government. Section 12 of this document utters blasphemy when it says:
Fr. Hesse:
This whole document was indirectly written by the founder of Opus Dei, “Saint” Jose Maria Escriva. He wanted the Church to conform to the modern world and he wanted a one world government. Section 12 of this document utters blasphemy when it says:
“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be directed towards man as their centre and crown.”
That should sound familiar to anyone who has read about the plans of Freemasonry, about blasphemies uttered at the United Nations. All the efforts of the Church are directed towards God. All our efforts here on earth should be directed towards God. The old Mass made that clear; the new Mass on the other hand...
Gaudium et Spes also postulates a peaceful government of the whole world under one body of government. This is to say the least naive, in 1965, when most governments on the earth were anti-Catholic and anti-clerical. I actually think it is far worse than naive.
+++
Dignitatis Humanae 2
This is perhaps the best known error of Vatican II, perhaps because its consequences are so visible, or because is an error which so many Popes fought against right up to the Council. Here’s what the document actually says:
This is perhaps the best known error of Vatican II, perhaps because its consequences are so visible, or because is an error which so many Popes fought against right up to the Council. Here’s what the document actually says:
“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."
Fr. Hesse:
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” The supposed reason or grounds for this error, human dignity, is also itself wrong. As Pope St. Pius X said “The only dignity of man is in his being a Catholic.”
If I really thought that I had religious liberty, I would find an easier religion to belong to. Why not be an Anglican? They have nicer churches, they are more musical, their laws are not as strict... But I am not an Anglican, I am a Catholic because I do not have ‘religious liberty’, I have no choice: I am bound in conscience to be a Catholic if I want to save my soul. G.K. Chesterton said “If I were not a Catholic, I would have a harem.”
“Religious freedom” or “religious liberty” has been condemned by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius X. You are not free to choose your religion. You are bound in conscience to become a Catholic and to join the Catholic Church in order to save your soul. If you choose not to, you go to hell. Nobody can coerce someone into thinking something they do not want to think or believing something they do not want to believe. But the laws of a Catholic state can prevent the followers of a false religion from practising in public, from trying to make converts, from trying to spread their false doctrine and false morals, etc. Look at the catastrophic numbers of millions of souls today leaving the Church to join ‘evangelical’ protestant sects in countries where before the council everyone was Catholic: South America, the Philippines, etc. These formerly Catholic countries were forced to change their constitutions so as to no longer give the Catholic religion pride of place. All this disaster as a result of just two paragraphs in one of the sixteen documents of this robber council. As noted above, just one error is enough. One heresy makes the whole document heretical, and one heretical document makes the whole council heretical. thecatacombs.org/thread/2/errors-vatican-ii-fr-hesse
If I really thought that I had religious liberty, I would find an easier religion to belong to. Why not be an Anglican? They have nicer churches, they are more musical, their laws are not as strict... But I am not an Anglican, I am a Catholic because I do not have ‘religious liberty’, I have no choice: I am bound in conscience to be a Catholic if I want to save my soul. G.K. Chesterton said “If I were not a Catholic, I would have a harem.”
“Religious freedom” or “religious liberty” has been condemned by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius X. You are not free to choose your religion. You are bound in conscience to become a Catholic and to join the Catholic Church in order to save your soul. If you choose not to, you go to hell. Nobody can coerce someone into thinking something they do not want to think or believing something they do not want to believe. But the laws of a Catholic state can prevent the followers of a false religion from practising in public, from trying to make converts, from trying to spread their false doctrine and false morals, etc. Look at the catastrophic numbers of millions of souls today leaving the Church to join ‘evangelical’ protestant sects in countries where before the council everyone was Catholic: South America, the Philippines, etc. These formerly Catholic countries were forced to change their constitutions so as to no longer give the Catholic religion pride of place. All this disaster as a result of just two paragraphs in one of the sixteen documents of this robber council. As noted above, just one error is enough. One heresy makes the whole document heretical, and one heretical document makes the whole council heretical. thecatacombs.org/thread/2/errors-vatican-ii-fr-hesse
To insist that the errors of the Conciliar Church are NOT in the documents but in the interpretation and reforms of those documents do a grave injustice to Our Lord Himself wherein He is 'uncrowned' as our sovereign King an instead the focus is now re-centered on man! We cannot acquiesce to this! We cannot ignore these blasphemies and focus only on the 'reforms'. The error must be axed at the root. Not at a branch.
This is why Archbishop Lefebvre always referred to the Council itself as the source of the bad reforms. Here are only a few examples of his words on this:
- Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
- “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
- And, so I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger],
"What is the source of these bad fruits? For me, it is the Council of aggiornamento; that signifies the Council of the changes. What changes? Changes in the sacraments, changes in catechisms, changes in the Bible, so that we are no longer Catholics [but] are like Protestants. ...
And he said, "No! No, no, no, that does not come from the Council; it comes from bad interpretations of the Council; it comes from abuses of the reforms."
I said, "That is not true. That comes from the new orientation of the Church in the Council, especially by ecumenism." thecatacombs.org/thread/1902/changes-sacraments-protestants-198
- We [Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Archbishop] fought together to prevent the errors of Liberalism, which are a cancer in the doctrine of the Church, spreading themselves in the texts of the Council. ... Unfortunately, this Liberal principle has been adopted by Vatican II. ... If one does not want to believe that these texts are Liberal, one has just to see the consequences: ecumenism (all religion on an equal footing), and the laicization of the states. thecatacombs.org/thread/1926/prepared-fight-ordination-sermon-jun
- ... let us take careful note that in the letters from Rome calling upon us to make a public act of submission, the Council and its subsequent reforms and orientations are always presented as being three parts of one whole. Hence all those people are gravely mistaken who talk of a wrong interpretation of the Council, as though the Council in itself was perfect and could not be interpreted along the lines of the subsequent reforms and changes. Clearer than any written account of the Council, the official reforms and changes that have followed in its wake show how the Council is officially meant to be interpreted. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1975)
- "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." www.angelus.online/en_US/8362/120253/a_matter_of_principle.html
- "Finally the Pope is more ecumenist than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy." laportelatine.org/publications/entret/1991/mgr_lefebvre_fideliter_janvier_1991.php
- That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory. --Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned" angeluspress.org/products/religious-liberty-questioned-dubia
- "Vatican II is profoundly wrong. This fight between the Church and the liberals and modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple of that. And the consequences are far-reaching. The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism...So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution." archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
Let us earnestly entreat Bp. Zendejas to clarify these points, out of a great love of Truth and for the guidance of souls.
Imagine all the good that would be done if there were no compromises on the part of the traditional bishops - sheep would no longer be scattered, there would be confidence in solidly founded seminaries, and we would see a uniting and strengthening of the priests under good traditional bishops. What a beautiful thought! Let us keep praying then that all the bishops of Tradition clearly teach, as Archbishop Lefebvre clearly taught, the great dangers of the errors, novelties, and changes emanating from the Council, without compromise.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]