"Diabolically Disoriented" Michael Matt Reveals His True Colors as a Pied Piper Leading "Traditionalists" (i.e., real Catholics) Back to the Conciliarist Counterfeit Church of Heretical Doctrine and Evil Practices. Archbishop Lefebvre Explicitly Rejected Pan-traditionalism and the Real Sister Lucy NEVER Wrote about "Diabolical Disorientation."
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4578-lefebvre-was-right-for-god-s-sake-unite-the-clans
Here we go again. Another Frankenherring! In the above linked article by the endlessly disoriented Michael Matt, he cites the now scientifically disproven idea of "diabolical disorientation" --- of Francis and his confreres in NewChurch --- and, pretending that he has had a new thought, decided to argue for a "Pan-Traditionalists" Large Tent in response to the Great Apostasy. The question is this, however, is Matt simply using the endlessly "surprising" heresies and anti-Catholic pronouncements of Francis and the coming "surprising" contents of the Amazon Synod to again tune up the pipes to lead a procession, with fleur-de-lis banners no doubt in the lead --- of "traditionalists" through the Gallican Gate of NewChurch, just as he has been planning and endlessly doing with Chris Ferrara for the past generation.
He simply reads like a suddenly disillusioned Latin Mass goer of New Church. Nothing that he proposes in his article listed above would be intelligible to any Catholic pre-1960. His conclusions would have infuriated Archbishop Lefebvre. His theology separates the pope and the magisterium from the Church and advocates a Gallican Solution to the Great Apostasy. This is not doctrinally, psychologically, or even practically plausible for faithful Catholics. No "High-Church" solution can deal with the situation which is epitomized by the disappearance and substitution of Sister Lucy and 50 years of fake letters, fake interviews, and fake theological positions, "diabolical disorientation" being one of them.
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/05/the-term-diabolical-disorientation-must.html
I agree with Michael Matt on Vatican II. It is the Vatican II Church that is in schism with Traditional Catholicism. Vatican II has been a catastrophe, the worst ever in the Church, where the keys of the Kingdom were handed to the devil. Vatican II must be abrogated in its entirety. In the meantime SSPX is clearly the most truly Catholic place to receive the full truth of Traditional Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteClearly, Mr Matt, although well intentioned is frustrated. He, Ferrara et al are having a hard time dealing with facts. Still crickets from the "Traditionalist" on your outstanding work on the Sister Lucy Imposter. This is now a basic scientifically proven fact which has negative implications for the Conciliar Church and the successive Popes...ie "What did they know and when did they know it.?" In my opinion the Sister Lucy Imposter scam is a key to everything that happened after 1957 to this very day in 2019. Yet...still no comment(s) from our brothers. "Truth" is the elephant in the room. It's being ignored. Til it's addressed the efforts of Matt et al will be get louder but continue to be just that...clanging bells. Our Lady Fatima and her legitimate seers deserve better. If anyone should know better than to Ignore Our Lady, it should be the "Traditionalist"
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church cannot teach evil in her essential doctrines and disciplines. If you believe that Vatican II consists of even one, let alone, several, evil teachings, that contradict the perennial Magisterium of The Catholic Church, then it is not possible to believe, that the Vatican II religion, is Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX teaches that the organization, that practices, the Vatican II religion, is The Catholic Church. Therefore the SSPX, is sadly, not the best place to learn anything about Catholicism.
And if you consider the evidence presented here, that this organization, perpetuated a massive fraud against everyone, who wants to be Catholic, when it employed an imposter, to pervert the message of Fatima, then the SSPX's desire to be a part of this organization, is puzzling.
These are clearly, evil and ruthless people, who will do anything to destroy Catholicism. Why would you want to put yourself at their 'mercy'?
But if the SSPX stopped messing about, embraced sedevacantism, and declared irrevocable opposition to the Modernists, until Vatican II is revoked in its entirety, and all the popes of the Conciliar era, starting with John XXIII, are declared to be anti-Popes, then it would be the best place to learn about Catholicism and fight for it.
And in the midst of this crisis, I think that happening, is the one thing that frightens Francis and his Marxist Modernist cronies, because it would unite Traditionalists.
A few, closet neo-conservatives, might see this as a step too far, but after the Amazon Synod, which the SSPX has been quiet about, all bets are off, because even other Modernists (Muller, Burke, etc.), consider it to be apostacy. In other words, I think the Vatican II ship is going to explode, and no one, who doesn't want to go to Hell, should want to be anywhere near it.
Exactly! Well Spoken
DeleteBravo!!
DeleteModernists bank on the deception that the magisterium only has 2 infallible levels as a means to pretend their infallible when they contradict their predecessors on the 3rd fallible level of the magisterium. Armchair Sedevacantists pontificate, or at least imply, the Church only has 2 levels of the magisterium which are infallible, and not a 3rd fallible level, so they can feel good about subjectively and sinfully judging popes, though admittedly, as I understand it, the SSPV avoids that, by presenting theological support for their position without making the final judgement.
DeleteThe SSPX has gone against the principles on which it was founded. One example is the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration where it says in the second statement of the preamble, "We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)" They have compromised the great Archbishop Lefevbre's principles and reasons to resist modernist Rome. Also, sedavacantism is not the answer, it only presents more problems. Even though we have been dealing with scandalous popes for over 50 years, doesn't mean they are anti-popes. A drunken father who is abusive is still the father of the household. The children must resist him and his abuses but still acknowledge him to be their father. Plus I didn't know sedvacantists were the outright authority to judge the popes. The SSPX has been infiltrated just like the rest of the traditional groups either by compromise (promise of a personal prelature, false obedience, or personal economics). It is best to stay with those priests of Catholic tradition who still uphold the old teachings of the SSPX.
ReplyDeletesource:(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
To Anonymous (August 25, 2019 at 10:30 AM):
DeleteIf you read the 1988 Protocol that Archbishop Lefebvre signed, you will find an identical reference to No 25 of Lumen Gentium of Vatican II. The following day he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, whom he had been dealing with since the early 1980s, and said "it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol". So you cannot say the SSPX had gone against its principles in 2012 when they did exactly the same thing in 1988, at the hands of the "the great Archbishop Lefebvre" himself. The only thing that made Archbishop Lefebvre renege on the deal was that the Vatican was stalling for time on a date for the episcopal consecrations, and he complained that the hotels were booked and the tents rented for the ceremonies. If JP2 was truly pope, that’s not an appropriate excuse one makes to the Roman Pontiff.
The drunken father or "bad dad" analogy is yet another excuse made up by the SSPX. Your father is always your father as it’s a biological relationship. There is no biological relationship with popes. A heretic can never be pope, and certainly can never be your spiritual father. The SSPX use St Robert Bellarmine’s teaching of resisting an evil command and apply it to everything the (man you call) pope does, which makes your comment about sedevacantists judging popes laughable, because the SSPX has been doing it on a daily basis for 40+ years. In any case, the SSPX are looking at the wrong part of St Robert Bellarmine’s work "De Romano Pontifice" on the Roman Pontiff. If they go to the next chapter ("book") they will find his treatment on what happens if the pope should fall into heresy. Bellarmine believes it is impossible that it could ever happen, but if it ever could he says that he falls from office immediately without the need of a declaration, and that all the ancient Fathers held this. He said this is *true*. And that he described the opinion that an imperfect council of bishops be called to depose the pope "indefensible", an opinion largely held by the SSPX and the Remnant, etc. Read that again: *indefensible*. This is a canonised saint and Doctor of the Church. But the SSPX and the Remnant know better, don’t they.
However, I do agree with you and believe that the SSPX has been infiltrated, but it was done a long time ago, perhaps in the 1970s, by clergy who are still there (and in the "Resistance") and who still hold much influence.
“The SSPX has gone against the principles on which it was founded. One example is the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration where it says in the second statement of the preamble, "We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)" They have compromised the great Archbishop Lefevbre's principles and reasons to resist modernist Rome.”
DeleteI mostly agree, although I don’t agree with quoting Lumen Gentium, whether what it says, in that particular instance, is true or not, because I don’t accept Vatican II.
(This is perhaps emblematic of the great Archbishop Lefevbre's great problem, which was how to respond, to a situation, that I think, was unthinkable, to him, and other faithful priests at the time, that ‘the bad guys’, won at Vatican II, and had almost ‘suckered’ him (remember he signed all the council documents and it took him some time to realise, as Mgr. Fenton observed at the time, what a terrible mistake he had made) , along with almost everyone else.
He shifted between, what we would call ‘recognise and resist’, and sededvacantism, but I’ll concede that he probably, fell more on the side of the recognise and resist position, but I won’t concede, that he was right to, because the moment you accept the Conciliar popes, as true popes, and recognise, Vatican II, as legitimate, the game is over, assuming you accept the traditional Catholic doctrine on the papacy, because the Pope, not the great Archbishop Lefevbre, is the ultimate theological authority, in the Catholic Church.
If you accept that these men are popes, you have to accept their teaching, just as you have to accept the teaching of all the popes and the councils.)
“Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)
“[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua)
“Also, sedavacantism is not the answer, it only presents more problems. Even though we have been dealing with scandalous popes for over 50 years, doesn't mean they are anti-popes. A drunken father who is abusive is still the father of the household. The children must resist him and his abuses but still acknowledge him to be their father.”
DeleteI disagree, completely. I shall address, your second point, first.
You are confusing being a ‘bad pope’ or an immoral pope, with a pope, who isn’t Catholic. The former, is perfectly possible, and there are numerous examples. The latter is a contradiction and is impossible, and officially, prohibited.
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define:
Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all.
Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way . . .
Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.” (Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559)
Yes, sedevacantism, does ‘create’ problems, in the same way, that ‘plucking out your right eye’ causes problems, but did Our Lord, not say, that (Mathew 5:29): “If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.”
DeleteI think Saint Robert Bellarmine had this passage in mind, when he wrote: “The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.”
Yes, there are numerous, very difficult problems, that arise, if one accepts sedevacantism, but none of these problems is impossible for God to solve and none of them entail contradicting Catholic teaching on the papacy, and there are even proposals like the Cassican Thesis, proposed by, former SSPX professor Fr. Gerard de Laurier, which solves the problem of how you maintain the line of popes, that are worth considering.
This brings us to your final point:“Plus I didn't know sedvacantists were the outright authority to judge the popes.”
DeleteSaint Paul is rather clear, about what is expected of us, in this exact situation (Galatians 1:8): “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
If Bergolio said tomorrow, that it was no longer licit to ‘reject Satan and all his works’, because it was ‘a crime against ecumenism’, would you cease to ‘reject Satan and all his works’ or would you cease to accept that you are in communion, with Jorge Bergoglio, that you do not believe, what he believes?
I’m assuming, you would draw the line here. In other words, at a certain point, when a level of certitude is reached, everyone becomes a sedevacantist.
What you are questioning therefore is not me setting myself up as a judge of popes, which would be absurd, but whether there is certitude, that this conclusion is validly drawn. In other words, certain, and I think I have refuted the idea, that is lingering behind your thoughts, which is that someone, can be the Pope and a Catholic, while rejecting certain teachings of The Catholic Church.
Just in case, you don't think I have, consider the words of Pope Leo XIII (Satis Cognitum, 9):
"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)."
Saint Paul clearly, expects us to be able to recognise, what is Catholic, and what is not, and to reject, what is not Catholic, and anyone, who preaches anything, that is not Catholic. He expects us, to reject their authority (‘let them be anathema’), to place them outside the bounds of The Church, not because you are judging them, in the internal forum, which only, God can do, but in the external forum, their public utterances and actions. I am not judging a Pope. I am judging words, someone claiming to be a Pope and a Catholic ha spoken, and there is no doubt in my mind, that if Jorge Bergoglio, had said a fraction of less outrageous things he has said, let alone the worst statements, in the reign of Saint Pope Pius X or any pre-conciliar pope, that he would have been excommunicated, and that he would have placed the conciliar documents in the Index (of banned books).
R&R Anonymous, "A drunken father"?... Really?
DeleteYour drunken father is actually a demonic, pedophilic intruder. Did you see the pedophilic symbols he wore on his vestments at the WYD in Panama? He is worse than a pedophile. He boldly supports pedophilia in front of his sleeping followers. If spewing heresies isn't enough to make you wake up, how dare you still push Francis as a true pope when he displayed his immorality on Church vestments?
If anyone is claiming to have more authority than the Church, it is the R&R, who very casually contradict everything that is Catholic and holy. You don't seem to be aware that sanctity is an essential attribute of the true Church. The Church founded by Christ is holy in her origin, her purpose, her means, and her fruits. (De fide.)
Did you read the linked article? Your fellow R&R friend Michael Matt expresses clearly what the R&R believes. He makes a causal connection between the teachings of your "Church" after Vatican II and the Great Apostasy. He also admits that the man he calls "Pope" and the so-called "Catholic" clergy appear in the power of Satan, in order to lead men astray, into the falling away from the truth and into destruction.
This "Church" that you want to push on others is not one, not holy, not Catholic, and not apostolic. Go and try to convert non-Catholics into the "Catholic Church" as Michael Matt describes it.
"the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council"
DeleteIt's about time we traditionalists realize that the teaching contained in No. 25 of Lumen Gentium is 100% traditional Catholic teaching. You can find it taught throughout Franzelin's book, On Divine Tradition, and in most other pre-Vatican II theological manuals.
"If you believe that Vatican II consists of even one, let alone, several, evil teachings, that contradict the perennial Magisterium of The Catholic Church, then it is not possible to believe, that the Vatican II religion, is Catholicism".
ReplyDeleteVatican II is full of woolly and murky statements that can be interpreted traditionally or Progressively (Modernism). Sadly, the leaders of the council were Modernists especially Paul VI. As it turned out the Pastoral rollout of Vatican II was Modernist and is not Catholicism. It is effectively Protestant. Now with 70% of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence this is now confirmed in practice.
It is accurate to say that many V.II statements can be interpreted as one wishes. That is -in and of itself - simply another reason (in a very long list of reasons) why V.II is not the Roman Catholic Church. The Popes, Doctors and Fathers of the Church were always absolutely clear on what they were communicating. Their statements were completely unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. The V.II is the opposite. It is not the Roman Catholic Church; it is, as Patrick Henry Omlor labeled it, the "Robber Church".
DeleteIn the linked Remnant article Michael Matt writes: "Just fifty years after Vatican II, the Catholic Church is ceasing to be Catholic." Does he not realise how ridiculous this sounds?
ReplyDeleteAs for the SSPX, it certainly does not have the full truth of "Traditional Catholicism". They are the ones responsible for the Michael Matts of this world. They are the ones responsible for promoting rubbish theology like diabolical disorientation.
In the article, Michael Matt made it plain that his "Church" was under the influence of Satan. He describes the orientation of the "Catholic Church" after Vatican II as follows: "the Devil at work...examples of Satan's progress are legion...auto-destruction orchestrated from the bowels of hell itself...diabolical disorientation...downright Luciferian circumstances..."
ReplyDeleteIn spite of all this, the R+R continues to stupidly make the drunken father comparison. They say: "A father who is abusive is still the father of the household. The children must resist him and his abuses but still acknowledge him to be their father." If the R+R want to continue recognizing the Devil as the head of their family, then they should just go ahead. Nobody's stopping them. But some of us are getting downright tired of their whining.