|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 23, 2017 13:56:47 GMT -5
This thread will put together all available sources, books, documents and other evidence that's makes the case that Paul VI was a heretic.
There are two types of evidence, one that directly supports the accusation of heresy, the other that supports the the accusation of heresy, i.e. things not necessarily heretical or evil in themselves, but when linked together with other evidence further establishes moral certainty that such a person is a heretic.
For example, isolated acts of Paul VI such as the abolition of the Holy Office, the Index, and praying with sectarians are not in themselves strong enough proof to accuse him of heresy, but when put in the context of all of his teachings, statements, actions, and inactions strengthen the case of heresy against him.
This method of putting together all evidence, direct and indirect will be the method used the cases of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.
I am hoping that this will not be just a solo effort on my part, if anyone wants to post from books or internet sources, please do so. The only thing I ask is that only reputable sources are used.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 23, 2017 14:01:41 GMT -5
Two excellent books were published on Paul VI demonstrated his defection from the Catholic Faith. These books were written by pre-Vatican II trained and commsisioned priests, who both reacted against what they saw coming from Paul VI, so they should be treated as strong sources. Neither of these books have been challenged by defenders of Paul VI, all of the documentation and accusations remain to this day unchallenged. Fortunately these books are both scanned into the internet and free: Paul VI Beatified, Msgr. Luigi Villa:padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdfBook of Accusations Against Paul VI, Fr. Georges de Nantes:crc-internet.org/further-information/liber-accusationis/in-paulum-sextum/
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 24, 2017 14:35:43 GMT -5
On December 7th 1965 Paul VI ordered two things:
1. The Holy Office to change its name to the "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith," and also weakened its mission.
2. In that same order, he ambiguously implied the end of the Index of Forbidden Books, and by that all censures attached to reading forbidden books.
Here are my notes:
It is clear from these actions that although he left intact mechanisms for defense of the Faith, they were weaker mechanisms, thereby allowing the danger of heresy and error a greater chance of infecting members of the Church. In short, he weakened the Church's defense, leaving a token defense in its place.
Defenders of Paul VI may argue that it is within the power of the pope to make any change he wishes, and they are correct, that's why this as a piece of stand alone evidence is not enough. But, when looked at as a piece of a much larger puzzle, it adds to the context that Paul VI was destroying the Church and undermining the Faith.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 26, 2017 11:54:59 GMT -5
DIRECT LINK
January 5-6, 1964 meeting between schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras. Take note that Paul VI embraces Athenagoras as though he were a Catholic bishop, not one of a schismatic sect. Secondly, take note that through the visit both are given the status of equals, both have chairs set up side by side, and they publicly embrace. The scandal of this is that is gives the impression without directly saying it that Athenagoras has a legitimate status, that he is a leader that is to be viewed as an equal with the Pope. The second scandal is that Catholics may have incorrectly believed from these actions that that the schism is over, without even a submission and abjuration from the schismatics.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 30, 2017 13:28:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 1, 2017 13:47:01 GMT -5
This is the entire text of the joint declaration of Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras who he met with the year before. I will post some comments in between the sections of the declaration. This borders on heresy by implying that the Catholic Church is part of the problem with the schism. The "orthodox" are the only side with a difficulty, and that is their obstinacy in remaining in schism and not submitting to the See of Peter. The Church has always been willing to go as far as possible in making concessions on disciplinary matters, as has been shown over and over again with the eastern rites of the Church, many of which were once in schism but returned to the fold. So if not disciplinary matters, what else other than doctrinal matters stand in the way to "unity?" This is clearly what is being implied. Was the excommunication of Michael Cerularius wrong? This is just outrageous. He brought the sentence down on himself for his actions of schism from the Church. The excommunication of schismatics against Catholics have no legal force, so why bring them up? I will be posting some information about Cerularius and Catholics will see for themselves the truth of what reality happened. Information on Michael Cerularius found HERE and HEREThe Church did not obviously wish a schism, and the obligation of Catholics in the See of Constantinople wasto remain united to the Roman See. The fact that they followed their schismatic bishop is not the fault of the Catholic Church or the censure inflicted upon schismatics. This quote from Matthew does not apply here to the Catholic Church. The Church has always desired and has many times tried to end this schism. The fault of the schism remains completely on the side of the schismatics. Which specific words from Catholics are to be regretted? Why does Paul VI not name names and give their words? He falsely accuses and tarnishes the memory of Catholics of that time with vague aspersions. What reproaches against the schismatics lacked foundation? What reprehensible gestures were made by Catholics against the schismatics? Catholics have no need to concern themselves with the excommunictions from schismatics, so even the acknowledgment of their removal is an error. The removal of excommunications against the schismatics would need to be based on an error in fact which led to an incorrect judgment. Paul VI never justifies this by demonstrating that there was an error in the facts of the case, that there was some sort of misunderstanding. How could a Catholic ever regret the judgment of a previous pope on a matter which he was correct on? Paul VI never bothered to make his case, directly or through his underlings, since if he did so it would only have shown that the Pope and the hierarchy of that time acted correctly and defended the Faith against obstinate schismatics. The communion with the Church was broken only on the side of the schismatics. By breaking from the Church and refusing submission to the See of Rome, theynas a group formed a schismatic sect. The unity of the Church itself was never broken, the Church just became smaller, not broken ruptured by the schism. The only way that Patriarch Athenagoras had of ending the schism was his submission to God's one Church. There was and is no other way for the schismatics. It is blasphemous to invoke the Holy Spirit insinuating that His action caused the "regret for historical wrongs" of unnamed Catholics for their unnamed wrongs. Secondly, there is no common expression of Faith with those in schism, there is only the Faith taught by the Church. It is for the schismatics to submit, not for us to form agreeable formulations with them. As said before, Catholics don't need a pardon from schismatics for keeping and defending the Faith. The schismatics do not deserve a pardon unless they submit, so the pardon is useless for one who is not sorry and ready to amend. Catholics do desire the schismatics return, but this is not the way. The selling out of the good names of our forefathers, treating the schismatic leader as an equal, concerning ourselves with his "forgiveness" when we did nothing wrong, absolving the schismatic leader and his descendants when they were guilty and the Church acted rightly against them, and forging a path to water down the doctrine of the Church so we can have "unity," is built on perverse and unCatholic principles.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 2, 2017 12:30:55 GMT -5
1964 - Paul VI gives away the Papal Tiara, the symbol of the Pope's authority. Paul VI intended to sell it, but Cardinal Spellman was able to obtain and preserve it.
This is yet another area where this action in and of itself is not a smoking gun to make a case against Paul VI, but in combination with so much other evidence, his giving away the Tiara with the initial intent to sell it off, at least casts suspicion on him.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 3, 2017 11:58:48 GMT -5
Video Footage found HEREThis address is an "Ode to Man," just as the Novus Ordo is the elevation of man over God in the Mass. Over and over again Paul VI embraces the humanistic goals of this man-centered organization, nowhere mentioning the rights of God or the true path to peace which is for the wold to embrace the one true religion founded by God. Paul never claims the lawful rights of the Church in all states, and makes the Papacy out to be just a tiny weakling state, not God's moutgoiece on earth. Is the United Nations the last hope for mankind, is it God? Paul clearly implies the former. Lastly, look carefully at Paul VI's blasphemous use of Ephesians 4:23. St. Paul is clearly stating that we must shed the old man when we have our conversion to the Faith, becoming new as we are elevated into the supernatural life with Christ. Here, Paul VI is applying it to a new understanding about the nature of conversion, to a new humanistic way of seeing the world, to "get used to a new way of thinking about man, a new way of thinking about man's community life, and, last of all, a new way of thinking about the pathways of history and the destinies of the world." Is this the conversion that St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost, describes, which Paul VI applies here by quoting the passage? It's blasphemy to assert such, yet Paul VI, publicly before the whole world made such as assertion!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 3, 2017 17:22:49 GMT -5
This should cinch it right away....
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Jul 5, 2017 8:31:39 GMT -5
What makes you think that the conception of "religious liberty" outlined in the UN speech is any different from that of John XXIII, which you have defended?
And what makes you think that Paul VI's call for "interior renewal" is anything other than a call for conversion to the true Faith?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 5, 2017 11:13:48 GMT -5
What makes you think that Calling the Kingdom of Jesus Christ symbolic and tiny isnt enough to prove heretic status. If a bishop proclaimed the Eucharist symbolic there would be little debate.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Jul 5, 2017 11:30:36 GMT -5
Come on Voxx. He's saying that Vatican City is tiny and that its sovereignty is largely symbolic.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 5, 2017 18:57:43 GMT -5
Come on Voxx. He's saying that Vatican City is tiny and that its sovereignty is largely symbolic. Its sovereignty is NOT symbolic...come on yourself!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 5, 2017 19:58:45 GMT -5
What makes you think that the conception of "religious liberty" outlined in the UN speech is any different from that of John XXIII, which you have defended? And what makes you think that Paul VI's call for "interior renewal" is anything other than a call for conversion to the true Faith? To your first question, read the documents and see for yourself. To your second question, Paul VI says what he means, re-read it above.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 15, 2017 13:07:39 GMT -5
I have been posting numerous texts, videos, and commentaries on Paul VI, in this thread and in the resourse section. I have collected many commentaries from that time period, which document the Catholic reaction to his teaching, laws and activities.
I think it's worthwhile to keep in mind while reading that Catholics at this time did not have the internet, the flow of information was much slower and cumbersome, so some commentators did not yet have the "full picture." What they did all have in common was a growing awareness that Paul VI was teaching the Church to heresy and grave doctrinal error, that he did not defend the true doctrine against heretics, that he openly through words and actions allowed the world to believe that the unity of the Church was not built upon truth, or upon complete submission to the Pope. They all reacted to the devastating and heretical Novus Ordo Missae, recognizing the Protestant ideas in it, along with its doubtful validity.
I do eventually plan on moving on to John Paul II, but I cannot stress enough that this sect began with Paul VI, it was him that promulgated Vatican II, that began interfaith activity, that allowed for the first time intercommunion with heretics and schismatics, that imposed on Catholics false and heretical worship, that promulgated doubtful holy orders, a doubtful Confirmation rite, that punished the good and rewarded the enemies of the Faith, that tolerated immorality and did nothing to stop it, that scandalized the entire world, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, that put forth ideas for a man-centered world government not based on Christ the King, but on humanistic and Masonic ideals. In short, he was the the man who in an act of cunning schism broke away into a new sect, and led and deceived as many as he could in his pretended role as Pope in following him.
If you don't understand Paul VI and what happened in the 1960's and 70's you will not grasp fully anything after that time. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are the the continuation and expansion of Paul's legacy of schism, heresy, and scandal. They are the successors of the leadership of his new sect, who pretend to be Popes while at the same time continue to lead unaware Catholics out of the Church into schism and heresy.
|
|