Fifty years after V2: Why Catholics never fought for their Church (T. S. Benns)

Message
Auteur
Avatar de l’utilisateur
InHocSignoVinces
Messages : 805
Inscription : dim. 26 août 2018 11:43

Fifty years after V2: Why Catholics never fought for their Church (T. S. Benns)

#1 Message par InHocSignoVinces » jeu. 15 août 2019 12:42

Fifty years after V2: Why Catholics never fought for their Church (T. S. Benns, 2012)


It will soon be 50 years since the false Vatican 2 council convened and in many respects Catholics still do not know what this bastard council really cost them — those who are left, that is. Most who initially objected to the changes wrought by the council have since passed on. Those remaining were either children or teens when it first began or were born after the death of Pope Pius XII. At the time, few knew what was really happening, what they were required to do and the true implications of what they were witnessing. Apparently none of the priests who left the Church in the wake of the changes knew either. Had they known, their work would have lived after them, and nothing permanent has survived the early groups who exited the false V2 church with priests retaining their jurisdiction.

Why is this so? Because none of those who left the Novus Ordo really knew the Catholic faith or set about to learn it. They relied on those at the “top” (?) to resolve the crisis — petitioning the bishops, petitioning Rome — never realizing that by the very virtue of their compliance with even one item proposed at the false council, these men already had forfeited their membership in the Church. But the truth was out there, advanced as early as 1970 by authors such as Francis Panakal, in his “666 – Beast of the Apocalypse Unmasked,” and Robert Bergin’s “This Apocalyptic Age.” Although these books were made available at precisely the time most were exiting from the Novus Ordo church, they seem to have been largely ignored by the faithful, then desperately trying to make sense of the chaos. Even though the unreleased Fatima message could be guessed to have predicted it, Catholics in general were not ready to make the Antichrist connection, or to believe that the Mass had ceased. It was far too frightening and already they were frightened enough. The changes in the Church split families apart, left those daring to reject these changes without any sort of Catholic community or spiritual direction and isolated them from the community in general. Even worse, it threw them into the most disastrous spiritual and moral times the Church had ever experienced in the course of her existence.


To be continued...
ImageImage

Avatar de l’utilisateur
InHocSignoVinces
Messages : 805
Inscription : dim. 26 août 2018 11:43

Re: Fifty years after V2: Why Catholics never fought for their Church (T. S. Benns)

#2 Message par InHocSignoVinces » ven. 16 août 2019 12:05

Traditionalists in denial

The false V2 council set the faithful adrift in the turbulent seas of the 1960-70s, when the changes in the Church were dramatically reflected in the penchant for innovation, rampant immorality and the anti-authoritarian stance among young and old alike. All this led to a desperate reaction from those seeking to keep their faith, and failure to realize where they stood theologically as well as psychologically prevented them from avoiding many pitfalls. Most were unaware that they were trapped in an intense grieving process for what they had lost, although many of those posing as their leaders fully realized and cashed in on this advantage. Their only thought was to somehow revive and keep alive what they believed was the faith and hang on to the Mass and Sacraments for dear life. They were mistakenly led to believe the Church hinged on these externals, not the doctrines that created and supported them. They knew little of the internal life and familiarity with Catholic truth that was necessary both to understand the situation and move forward in a constructive way, in full accordance with Canon Law and Church teaching. Many could not decide if John 23, Paul 6 and their “successors” were evil popes who yet needed to be obeyed or antipopes, and they had precious little help in making this determination from the Traditional “priests” who pretended to lead them. It would take another 12 years for some to make that decision, and even today many Traditionalists still believe John 23 was a valid pope, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. The grief cycle stalled in its first stages and never progressed through all seven steps. When the clergy weighted in on the Antichrist issue, the focus was Paul 6, and again the theme was Antichrist.


Rev. Joaquin Saenz Arriaga was a Mexican priest and theologian who was personally excommunicated for his anti-V2 stance by Cardinal Miranda and the Roman Catholic bishops’ conference of Mexico. Saenz y Arriaga’s belief that Paul 6 was the Antichrist was a theory already suggested in part by a theologian writing in 1955 in Ecuador, after Montini was first appointed Archbishop of Milan. Saenz promoted the 1960s book “Plot Against the Church,” (ghost written by the Mexican Trent Union leader Anacleto Gonzalez-Flores under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay), and later, under his own name wrote the “New Montinian Church,” (1971). The book was not translated into English, however, until 1985, and those learning of its contents and conclusions did so only piecemeal. In his book, Saenz referred to “The Plot Against the Church,” distributed to the bishops in Rome during the false council, as the ages-old Judaeo/Masonic drive to destroy the Church. Where Panakal had used the number 666 to make his point, Saenz instead cited Montini’s many heresies and Jewish ancestry to prove he was the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the Man of Sin. The idea was to convince others sufficiently that this was the case, and possibly rally support to arrive at a solution. Some believed Saenz based only on reviews of the book. But no solution to the problem was ever proposed or adopted. And following Saenz’ death, they unwittingly ran with the ball that slipped from his hands to the other team’s goal line.


To be continued...
ImageImageImage

Avatar de l’utilisateur
InHocSignoVinces
Messages : 805
Inscription : dim. 26 août 2018 11:43

Re: Fifty years after V2: Why Catholics never fought for their Church (T. S. Benns)

#3 Message par InHocSignoVinces » sam. 17 août 2019 20:19

Saenz was the one who first introduced the term “sede vacante” in his book by this title, explaining why Paul 6 was not a legitimate pope. It was never translated into English. In the early 1980s, following the consecration of the Mexican bishops by Bp. Thuc, the breakaway group under Thuc referred to itself by the name sedevacantist. And so ended Fr. Saenz’ work to educate Catholics to the fact that we had no pope because Antichrist had taken the See. Relying on donations from their followers, Traditionalists managed to keep their mass operations afloat, but unbeknownst to their flocks, they acted invalidly. As Canon Law and papal teachings show, nearly all these men were vitandus and only appeared to offer Mass and administer the Sacraments; in reality their actions were null and void because the Church had removed from them the power to act. The earth-shattering truth that Panakal and Saenz actually had identified in the flesh the dreadful antagonist of our Lord and the Church He established on earth — long predicted in Holy Scripture — was irrelevant and inconvenient. Fr. Saenz was certain about his findings from a doctrinal standpoint; he had even sent Fr. Buckley to England to obtain a copy of Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, where Pope Paul IV infallibly interprets the abomination of desolation as a pope usurping the papal see. While the actions of Montini were more easily identifiable, since the Mass was visibly withdrawn, Saenz focused on this and did not delve much into Roncalli’s role as John 23, author of the false V2 council. Only after Saenz’ death would the bulk of the evidence against Roncalli surface, showing that he could never have been validly elected, and also exposing the active role Montini played as his personal advisor.


The implications of the Antichrist theory are staggering and have not been drawn out sufficiently, even some 45 years later. In the 1960s, the speculation concerning his identity was little mentioned and today it has grown to fever pitch, with any and sundry pegged as a candidate for this iniquitous role. Like so many topics today, meant to be judged totally by Catholic standards, all manner of sects have misinterpreted Scripture in this regard, wresting its words to their own liking and fashioning a Man of Sin to suit their own whims. Given this fact, it is difficult for us to appreciate today the absolute disbelief, the incredulity that those exiting the Novus Ordo would have met had they believed Panakal or Saenz and acted accordingly. I was reminded of this fact recently while watching the controversy over presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann’s departure from her church. One commentator scornfully observed that it was no wonder Bachmann would leave, since her church taught that the pope was antichrist — as if this was the most ridiculous suggestion he had ever heard. Who has studied the history of this belief and the many twists and turns it has taken throughout the centuries? Who would be willing to believe today that a pope who ruled in the mid-1500s taught infallibly on this matter, indicating precisely what Michelle Bachmann’s church believes as indeed possible; or that St. Bernard himself, as well as many other approved theologians advanced this idea consistently, right into the 19th century? For good reason, the Church’s teaching on this matter is not generally known or sufficiently explained, to prevent scandal among the faithful. But seeing that it has already taken place, there is no reason to hide from it now.


In his declaration, Bp. Thuc made reference to the Antichrist theory as a justification for appearing to consecrate bishops and declared that the papal See was vacant. Had the faithful carefully digested the actual significance of a sede vacante, this should have placed them on a completely different track. This information was readily available from Canon Law and in Pope Pius XII’s Constitution, “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis,” and would quickly have informed those who read it that nothing can be done outside Canon Law by anyone until a new pope is elected. According to all we know about the end times and the coming of Antichrist, those at least entertaining the idea that the anti-popes could be Antichrist and/or his system should also have realized that Holy Scripture predicted that Antichrist himself would abolish the Mass and the sheep (the bishops) would be scattered. The onus on the remaining clergy should have been to prepare the faithful for persecution and perseverance in the faith without pastoral assistance. This was never done. All expected the crisis to end at some point and a savior to appear to rescue everyone, a role fulfilled in part by those presenting invalidly for consecration. Neither remaining clerics nor educated laity had the proper recourse to Canon Law and Church teaching to work out a truly Catholic course of action. Had the comprehensive study of these subjects been demanded by those guiding the faithful, it soon would have become clear that Mass centers and continued efforts to perpetuate the hierarchy were not permitted by the law and were actually forbidden under pain of excommunication.


To be continued...
ImageImageImage

"Saenz was the one who first introduced the term “sede vacante” in his book by this title, explaining why Paul 6 was not a legitimate pope. It was never translated into English. In the early 1980s, following the consecration of the Mexican bishops by Bp. Thuc, the breakaway group under Thuc referred to itself by the name sedevacantist. And so ended Fr. Saenz’ work to educate Catholics to the fact that we had no pope because Antichrist had taken the See. Relying on donations from their followers, Traditionalists managed to keep their mass operations afloat, but unbeknownst to their flocks, they acted invalidly. As Canon Law and papal teachings show, nearly all these men were vitandus and only appeared to offer Mass and administer the Sacraments; in reality their actions were null and void because the Church had removed from them the power to act."

(...)

"In his declaration, Bp. Thuc made reference to the Antichrist theory as a justification for appearing to consecrate bishops and declared that the papal See was vacant. Had the faithful carefully digested the actual significance of a sede vacante, this should have placed them on a completely different track. This information was readily available from Canon Law and in Pope Pius XII’s Constitution, “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis,” and would quickly have informed those who read it that nothing can be done outside Canon Law by anyone until a new pope is elected. According to all we know about the end times and the coming of Antichrist, those at least entertaining the idea that the anti-popes could be Antichrist and/or his system should also have realized that Holy Scripture predicted that Antichrist himself would abolish the Mass and the sheep (the bishops) would be scattered. The onus on the remaining clergy should have been to prepare the faithful for persecution and perseverance in the faith without pastoral assistance. This was never done. All expected the crisis to end at some point and a savior to appear to rescue everyone, a role fulfilled in part by those presenting invalidly for consecration. Neither remaining clerics nor educated laity had the proper recourse to Canon Law and Church teaching to work out a truly Catholic course of action. Had the comprehensive study of these subjects been demanded by those guiding the faithful, it soon would have become clear that Mass centers and continued efforts to perpetuate the hierarchy were not permitted by the law and were actually forbidden under pain of excommunication."

Répondre

Revenir à « Texts in English »