Dubious Council

The fact that a pope calls a council makes it a council: error number one. Take that position and you obliterate the Church’s first eight ecumenical councils. V2 memeThe First Nicean Council was called by the Emperor, so was the Second Council of Constantinople, and half a dozen others. On certain occasions the pope wasn’t even there. This and what follows are according to the late Father Grigor Hesse, as posted by faithful Catholic Y/T Channel Christus Rex (Link at sidebar). With hat tip to Gateway reader Mar for the idea, times seem propitious to continually call this disaster what it is. Further, with due deference to the Episcopal Offices of Holy Mother {many illegally occupied by apostates}, as well as reverence for the See of Peter at her head {1 pope or 2 popes – which one be true pope?}; time is nigh to state that this catastrophe has as its recent manifestation a certain Council whose actuality Catholics may doubt.

Father Hesse instructs that Vatican II lacks matter, form and intention of a council, thereby providing a sacramental basis and a commonsense, Thomistic foundation for denying that the gathering was a valid council of the Catholic Church. Such knowledge is very beneficial for recognizing the distinctive markings of the cancerous anti-Church, metastasized and attached to Holy Mother as a tumor overwhelms healthy tissue. Furthermore, such a decisive and Catholic assessment liberates the Catholic mind from its insidious captivity to the novus ordo religion’s double-think. This mental prison camp is formed by those habits of mind whereby the wickedness of the council is perceived by the mind on the one hand; but because of constant conditioning and fear of being stigmatized as schismatic, Protestant, or disobedient on the other, its presumed validity is outwardly affirmed.  If Vatican II was a valid Council, and its proponents are actually Catholics, then charity compels the pastors of the Church to answer valid lines of inquiry, and provide a sound resolution to the question using Thomistic principles.  If a Catholic errs in doubting or denying the Council’s validity, then fellow Catholics have the duty to offer fraternal correction. If the doubter errs by way of intellect, then that same error ought to be resolved by intellectual means. Doing so is not optional for the Vatican II-asserting novus ordite. Catholicism is not some Gnostic cult in which the initiated can simply cut off those who present honest questions, and treat them as freemasons regard so-called profane men.  These people must make answer, and yet they never do.

Of course, now in the sixth decade following Vatican II’s uncloaking of the erstwhile crypto-Judaic Catholic-Kabbalism, there is no answer. This lack of candor and instruction exemplifies what Tradition in Action has rightly pointed out: a fundamental lack of legitimacy on the part of the progressive regime. The only tools the illegitimate usurpers possess are the weapons of shunning and shaming. Now where do they go from here? Father Kramer has indicated recently that their intent, manifested in the protracted and heretical absurdities of Siscoe and Salza, is to drag everyone along under the false aegis of obedience to the Magisterium, to the practical denial of every aspect of the Holy Faith. No matter what they do, be it cocaine fueled orgies of sodomy; the ongoing psychological warfare in the form of the steady stream of Bergoglian blasphemies; the balloon-necked glutton of a parish priest who comes out of the closet; the Archdiocese of New York’s being controlled by an enormous and oafish stooge to the worldly harlot; the continued cover-up of child sex crimes; that you must follow that church.

 

     You must obey them, no matter what they do or say! Right, Rihanna?

You must obey them no matter what, because they have the authority. The opposite is the truth. Those who contradict Christ have zero authority and not the slightest tinct of legitimacy. We must not follow them because they have no authority whatsoever. They march souls to satan’s snarling maw. If Vatican II was a valid Council, then there should be neither fear nor hostility directed at those who seek to know more deeply.

Catholics must cease the habit of mind of constantly squaring the circle for the benefit of Christ-hating clerics and in-house apostates. There is no hermeneutic of continuity. There is no basis for changing the mass.  Above all, there is absolutely no intention for the Catholic Church to continue to exist in this regime of the new satanic religion.

mask
New circle to square: Big Timmy D. wuz here!

Vatican II: Lacks Necessary Intention & Makes Contradiction Unto Its Very Self

According to the eminent Canonist, the late Father Grigor Hesse, the understanding of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church as analogous to a simple board meeting is a formalistic and insufficient definition and description of a council. If the gathering were for the mere purpose of casting a vote, there would be no need to pray and dress liturgically. Bishops dress liturgically to perform a holy sacrament, or confect a sacramental. A council is closer to a sacramental than a board meeting. With the ritual invocation of the Holy Ghost, a council is holy liturgical act. If it is anything, then it is higher than a sacramental. Among the purposes of the Catholic Church, one is to safeguard the truth. A council is put on the same level as any decision of the magisterium. A council has to be considered infallible. Such a rare occasion as the convoking an ecumenical council, is not ordinary, but a rare and special occasion. To call a council a board meeting is to trivialize its importance. We could be justified to say that in case of doubt, that we consider council under similar terms as a sacrament: that it can be understood by the principles of matter, form and intention. For example, in holy Mass bread wine are the matter of the sacrament, the form is words of consecration and the necessary intention is to do what the church does. Now whatever the church has always done is what the church does. If the intention is lacking, the sacrament will not be valid. If Vatican II is a valid council, then the mere fact that the pope called it is not sufficient. We have to see if there was the right intention, form and matter for the council.

The word ecumenical, (disregarding today’s bastardized meaning of gathering with heretics) derives from the Greek words oikos + mene meaning, everything belonging to the household. Just like a family and all within its household: father, mother, children, grandparents, aunts and uncles, all who belong there. A council is ecumenical not because of heretics. Rather, its ecumenical character means to make sure that no heretic or schismatic was permitted in. All the bishops in union with the pope are called. Vatican II was not a gathering of all who belong to the household. John XXIII, agreed not to condemn communism for the great privilege of having two Russian Orthodox KGB Agents as observers. Now that is absurd but it does not invalidate the council. Now we must ask what is the intention of the council? What is the right intention? Whatever you think of Fr Hesse, the intention of Vatican II was not an ecumenical council at all. Some time ago, after reading an excellent series of articles, I started to understand that we were all mistaken thinking Vatican II would be an imperfect council or a council containing errors. In fact, it was not a council at all because there has to be intention, matter and form. The proper intention is to do what the church does: what does the church do when a council is called? Most sources agree that the intention, or purpose of council is to condemn errors and define doctrine. John XXIII said that nothing will be condemned, that Vatican II shall be pastoral. This is a contradiction in terms. All previous councils were convened to clear up doctrine and condemn error. In 1786, the pseudo council of Pistoia gathered to decide about reforms in the Church. Pius VI published Auctorem Fidei, an exceptional document.  Most of the time encyclicals are addressed by the pope to prelates, patriarchs and bishops. Auctorem Fidei was addressed to all the faithful. The purpose of a synod (council) syn+odos (with + the way) in Greek is to clarify terms, not to complicate them. God is infinitely and absolutely simple. You can’t pronounce the truth if you complicate it. Pius VI condemns absurd theories of Pistoia. In Auctorem Fidei certain theories are condemned that are reintroduced at Vatican II. Now there is a hierarchy of truth. Not like Vatican II says: that higher truth one has to believe but lesser truth you can choose whether to believe or not – that is absurd. Christ did not say that. Christ said I am the Truth. Until 1958, popes have repeated that we have to believe everything the Church teaches, or none of it. We can never concede a single point of doctrine. However there is an actual hierarchy of truth in terms of its certainty. For example De Fidei Revelata is divinely revealed truth, then De fide definite – defined truth, also Fidei proxima – closest to the truth of the Faith, but has not been defined due to lack of need; (because everyone believes it to be logically connected to faith) these levels of certainty form the hierarchy of Truth. There is more. This is Faith of the Church, just like it has always believed in the Immaculate Conception -Our lady the purest human of all. Sententia certa – not the closest but everyone believes it. Then we have Sententia probabilis – probable. Then Sententia communis – some think that way and are certain and others are not.  There is also a hierarchy of non-truth  denial of a de fidei truth is heresy, then something close to a denial is heresy proxima. Denial of sententia probalis or communis would put the offender in error. Now pertaining to Aucturem Fidei–  and everything that has been censured by Pope Pius VI, by that very fact that he has censured the psuedo-Council of Pistoia, elevates the matter over which he censures to sententia certa. Pistoia demanded a simplification of liturgical rites. Pius VI called this offensive to pious ears. Then, later at Vatican II, Sacrosantum Concilium wanted to simplify liturgy – thereby and because of Pius VI’s censure of Pistoia – denying a Sententia certa truth.

With one exception, every other council of the Church has condemned error or defined doctrine. That exception is the 1st Council of Leon, which was to condemn the actions of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, comprised of a few statements about his errors. The intention at First Leon was to rectify everything pronounced by Frederick, his followers, or their bad fruits; the intention to condemn error was there, it was called to fight heresy.

This was the common intention, always. John XXIII wanted the contrary: no condemnation of error, no definition of any doctrine. Let’s say that I, Father Hesse, go to say Mass, but on the way I tell someone that am going to pull a show. That is, that I will say the Mass devoid of the intention to confect the Holy Eucharist via transubstantiation. That someone, whomever I told, would be the only one to know that there was no mass. As if fraud was a new thing! John XXIII was the first Pope who had contradictory intention to call a council without defining doctrine or condemning error. All twenty previous councils always did those things.

Vatican II Lacks Matter and Form: What is Hylomorphism?

As students of Aristotle and Aquinas already well know, hylomorphism is the ontological principle upon which the commonsense and Catholic philosophy is founded. Simply put, things that exist are a composite of matter, and immaterial, hylemorphinvisible essence. Jim Larson at War Against Being provides a good explanation of this principle that being itself is comprised of  ὕλη hyle, “matter”, and μορφή, morphē,” form.  Below Father Hesse applies the principles of matter and form to the objective existence of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, and then to Vatican II which lacks the existential principles by which a council exists.

Back to Father Hesse: Consider the form of a thing. Take a drinking glass, for example, which might be a cup with a stem or base, or cup with no stem. Anyone who knows wine knows that the glass with a cup and a stem is a wine glass. The form makes it a wine glass. The form/shape decides it. The essence of this is that it is a wine glass.  Form is essence. Essence is where something is what it is.

What is the essence of a council? The essence of a council is the extraordinary magisterium, resulting from extraordinary magisterium given to the bishops, coming from pope on such an occasion. Extraordinary, means that this clearly is not an every day happening. What is extraordinary? By contrast and for example, a Bishop has ordinary magisterium in his diocese, where he is supreme judge, pastor and teacher by Divine Law. The Bishop of Rome, however, has universal jurisdiction, and not just the Diocese of Rome, Italy or the West, but the entire world. A Papal encyclical is ordinary (normal) magisterium. A Bishop has it only in his diocese. But when the world’s bishops are in Rome, they do not have ordinary magisterium. They can’t carry their crosier there, because they’re not the bishop of Rome. Now if Pope calls a council, the council cannot have ordinary magisterium. A council has no authority unless signed by the Pope. The Pope is not bound by bishops, but he requests that they consider things and he decides. The ordinary is bishop in his own diocese. There is yet another sense to extraordinary magisterium, because a mere bishop can not bind infallibly, while the pope can. An ecumenical council is not the ordinary magisterium of pope and the bishops, because those bishops don’t even have ordinary jurisdiction in Rome. A Council by its very nature has extraordinary magisterium, not ordinary. This understanding is universally agreed to by almost all theologians. Vatican II itself declares that it has ordinary magisterium. If a council, which by nature has extraordinary magisterium, then declares it has ordinary magisterium, how can it be a council at all? This is a contradiction in terms. We see in Lumen Gentium, the  Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican II, with its declaration by Fellici: that the Second Vatican Council does not pretend infallibility or extraordinary magisterium, unless otherwise stated. There is no otherwise, there was not a single statement of the Extraordinary Magisterium. How can you say that this was a council if it does not correspond to its essence? This essence, once again, is the binding authority of Extraordinary Magisterium signed by the pope.

Matter

The last matter is the matter. What is the matter of a council? Whatever is published. One could burst out in laughter at what is put forth as doctrine, Lumen Gentium I, for example, tells us that the Church is a sacrament. Whereas Trent defined a sacrament to be sign that confers grace invisibly by visible means particular to that sacrament: baptism washes away original sin, confession gets rid of sins, anointing at confirmation, in marriage man and woman enter the bond by exchanging rings. Sacraments confer grace through sense perceptible signs. The Church is not a sign. The Church is a perfect society, teaching and saving souls by the sacraments. So at Vatican II we now have a sacrament that confers sacraments! Again from Lumen Gentium, this time LG VIII. “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” Subsist is word appropriate to describe the existence of the legs of a table in relation to the top of a table. Use of the verb subsist allows for other churches to also exist as the Church of Christ. Cardinal Ratzinger even said so in writing and interviews, and in his books and John Paul II never contradicted him. Vatican II manifests a lack of understanding what the Church is. John Paul II’s Redemptor Hominis {although not a Vatican II document} never mentions the Church of Christ. It mentions conscience of the church, the church of new advent. Returning to Lumen Gentium and Vatican II’s lack of valid matter comprising an ecumenical council is the heretical statement that Holy Spirit is found in non-Christian religions. “Muslims pray together with us to one merciful God.” “Jews pray together with us to one merciful God.” Jews see even the Old Testament through a veil, how can they see one merciful God, when they deny the trinity? Muslims call the trinity excremental. Muslims together with us adore one merciful God, this is absurd. How is it possible that anyone sane could say that this is Tradition? Either the Holy Spirit was wrong,  or Vatican II was not a council. Next point regards religious liberty, specifically condemned by Pius IX, and Vatican II makes it a civil right. We go to Gaudium Et Spes XII in which the Spirit and Founder of Opus Dei tells us that all our activities as Catholics are directed at man as center and summit. This is the second step in Satanism. The first step in Satanism is to say that there is no devil is step one. Step two is to worship man as god. Step three is to actually worship the devil. Is there anyone who could say this is inspired?! No, it is utter blasphemy. All the efforts of man are directed toward the glory of God. Either the Holy Spirit was wrong or Vatican II was not a council.

HG wrong or no council


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s