The Truth about The Great Helmsman (Paul VI) of Vatican II
Nov 3, 2019 4:12:05 GMT
Post by QMaryLArmy on Nov 3, 2019 4:12:05 GMT
Paul VI beatification exposed by Father Lui....pdf (2.22 MB)
Since his time at Milan, many already called him 'The man of utopias, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous dreams, yes, yet unreal!' ...Which brings to mind what Pius X used to say of the 'leader' of the Sillon: '...The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed, with a measure of Illuminism, have carried them towards another Gospel, which they thought was the true Gospel of our Savior...
Paul VI and Vatican II, instead, pushed things in a manner that, by degrees, God has almost disappeared to make room for man. In this picture, Christianity has become 'religion of man', and although the name of God remains and the 'religion' may be still called 'Christian', in reality, however, it is nourished only by the second Commandment...But this is in radical opposition with the Gospel that teaches, instead, the 'supremacy of God' and of His Love. Therefore, if we are to love and serve our neighbor, too, we are to do it because God the Father loves him in the person of His Own Son Jesus Christ, and thus without the love of God, even the love of man has no sense anymore.
This is the essence of the thought of Paul VI. He believes in the power of man, even atheistic man, anti-Christian, and Satanic, as is the United Nations.
I make brief mention of Paul VI’s “antithetical parallelism” to
the Pontificate of St. Pius X, who had erected “barriers” against
Modernism, which Paul VI, however, knocked down with obstinate
decision, one after the other.
Here they are:
– Pius X, with the Motu Proprio “Sacrorum Antistitum”
(September 1910) had imposed the “anti-Modernist oath”; but
Paul VI abolished it.
– Pius X, against the ecclesiastics that contested “Decreto
Lamentabili” and the encyclical “Pascendi”, with the Motu Proprio
of November 18, 1907 inflicted the excommunication “Latae
Sententiae”, reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but Paul VI destroyed
it, ruling that he would not hear of excommunications anymore
(And why, then, the excommunication of Monsignor Lefebvre?).
– In order to confront the “synthesis of all heresies”, Modernism,
Pius X had reorganized the Holy Office through the Constitution
“Sapienti Consilio” of June 29, 1908; but Paul VI, with
grave incipient counsel, destroyed it, abolished it, stating that of
“heresies” and widespread disorders, “thank God there are no
more within the Church” (“Ecclesiam Suam”) and that “the defense
of Faith, now (?!) is better served by the promotion of
Doctrine than by condemnation” (1965). (Perhaps the promoters
of “heresies” are not lacking in “doctrine”, other than in “good
Faith”? Perhaps the Church is no longer called to the gravest duty
of employing Her coercive power, which Jesus has bestowed upon
Her, against the obstinacy of the heretics?).
– Pius X, in order to protect the “catechesis” from the manipulation
of the Modernists, had wanted a basic catechism, one for the
entire Church; but Paul VI ostracized St. Pius X’s catechism, and
wanted “pluralism” in the catechesis, too; and he proved scandalously
tolerant with the heretical “Dutch Catechism”, making it the archetype of all catechisms, more or less bizarre, which then
mushroomed throughout the dioceses of the Church.
And while Pius X had foiled the insidious tactic of the Modernists
– whom presented their errors, “scattered and linked” – denouncing,
with his “Pascendi”, those dangerous “novelties” as “an
authentic, well-organized system of errors”, Paul VI, instead,
brutally revealed his Modernist side, when there came the LXX anniversary
of that great Encyclical of St. Pius X, through the Mass
Media (Vatican Radio of September 4, 1977 and the Osservatore
Romano of September 8, 1977), which defined “Pascendi” a “revelation”
of Modernism, “not altogether historically respectful”.
But Paul VI didn’t stop here! He let denigrate the anti-Modernist
battle of St. Pius X, stating that “there lacked the knowledge or
the will or the respectful courage of reading distinctions and differences
in their own reality”. Hence St. Pius X would have been
an idiot and a pusillanimous charlatan!
That was thus the “commemoration” of that great Pope and
Saint, which revealed, however, Montini’s soul, all his bitterness
and his ever well-known typical Modernist trademark.
Since his time at Milan, many already called him 'The man of utopias, an Archbishop in pursuit of illusions, generous dreams, yes, yet unreal!' ...Which brings to mind what Pius X used to say of the 'leader' of the Sillon: '...The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed, with a measure of Illuminism, have carried them towards another Gospel, which they thought was the true Gospel of our Savior...
"One thought that after the Council there would come a shiny day for the history of the Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig abysses instead of filling them». «How has all this come about? We confide to you our thought: there has been the intervention of a hostile power. His name is the Devil; this mysterious being who is alluded to even in the letter of St. Peter.”
"We wish to make our own the important words employed by the Council; those words which define its spirit, and, in a dynamical synthesis, form the spirit of all those who refer to it, be they within or without the Church. The word 'NOVELTY', simple, very dear to today's men, is much utilized; it is theirs..That word...it was given to us as an order, as a program..."
"We wish to make our own the important words employed by the Council; those words which define its spirit, and, in a dynamical synthesis, form the spirit of all those who refer to it, be they within or without the Church. The word 'NOVELTY', simple, very dear to today's men, is much utilized; it is theirs..That word...it was given to us as an order, as a program..."
"We bring to this organization the suffrage of our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced as we are that this organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace… The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with our own, their tribute to honor and of hope."
I make brief mention of Paul VI’s “antithetical parallelism” to
the Pontificate of St. Pius X, who had erected “barriers” against
Modernism, which Paul VI, however, knocked down with obstinate
decision, one after the other.
Here they are:
– Pius X, with the Motu Proprio “Sacrorum Antistitum”
(September 1910) had imposed the “anti-Modernist oath”; but
Paul VI abolished it.
– Pius X, against the ecclesiastics that contested “Decreto
Lamentabili” and the encyclical “Pascendi”, with the Motu Proprio
of November 18, 1907 inflicted the excommunication “Latae
Sententiae”, reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but Paul VI destroyed
it, ruling that he would not hear of excommunications anymore
(And why, then, the excommunication of Monsignor Lefebvre?).
– In order to confront the “synthesis of all heresies”, Modernism,
Pius X had reorganized the Holy Office through the Constitution
“Sapienti Consilio” of June 29, 1908; but Paul VI, with
grave incipient counsel, destroyed it, abolished it, stating that of
“heresies” and widespread disorders, “thank God there are no
more within the Church” (“Ecclesiam Suam”) and that “the defense
of Faith, now (?!) is better served by the promotion of
Doctrine than by condemnation” (1965). (Perhaps the promoters
of “heresies” are not lacking in “doctrine”, other than in “good
Faith”? Perhaps the Church is no longer called to the gravest duty
of employing Her coercive power, which Jesus has bestowed upon
Her, against the obstinacy of the heretics?).
– Pius X, in order to protect the “catechesis” from the manipulation
of the Modernists, had wanted a basic catechism, one for the
entire Church; but Paul VI ostracized St. Pius X’s catechism, and
wanted “pluralism” in the catechesis, too; and he proved scandalously
tolerant with the heretical “Dutch Catechism”, making it the archetype of all catechisms, more or less bizarre, which then
mushroomed throughout the dioceses of the Church.
And while Pius X had foiled the insidious tactic of the Modernists
– whom presented their errors, “scattered and linked” – denouncing,
with his “Pascendi”, those dangerous “novelties” as “an
authentic, well-organized system of errors”, Paul VI, instead,
brutally revealed his Modernist side, when there came the LXX anniversary
of that great Encyclical of St. Pius X, through the Mass
Media (Vatican Radio of September 4, 1977 and the Osservatore
Romano of September 8, 1977), which defined “Pascendi” a “revelation”
of Modernism, “not altogether historically respectful”.
But Paul VI didn’t stop here! He let denigrate the anti-Modernist
battle of St. Pius X, stating that “there lacked the knowledge or
the will or the respectful courage of reading distinctions and differences
in their own reality”. Hence St. Pius X would have been
an idiot and a pusillanimous charlatan!
That was thus the “commemoration” of that great Pope and
Saint, which revealed, however, Montini’s soul, all his bitterness
and his ever well-known typical Modernist trademark.