Tuesday, April 29, 2014

what passes for a catholic apologist these days

It is amazing what passes for a catholic apologist these days.  It is beyond appalling!  Jim Smith of NoSacredCows has kindly allowed us to post another video on the blog.  This one concerns the newly sainted John Paul II, Jimmy Akin (senior apologist at Catholic Answers), and the mark of Shiva.   The excuses the majority of catholic apologists make today for Francis are just as ridiculous as the ones made in the past for John Paul II.

"Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye 
therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. But beware 
of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and 
they will scourge you in their synagogues."




Related :

The Curious Case of Fr. Paul Nicholson (What passes for an Opus Dei priest)


13 comments:

  1. So I think as far as establishing that Jimmy Akin was wrong regarding what the ceremony was, I think it does a good job.

    BUT, the rest is a sign that perhaps you are also lacking in apologetic skill.

    Why?

    Because the idea that the Pope is a heretic is automatically out of the question according to Vatican I declarations.

    (more info here

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4748

    )

    So I think we can conclude that canonizing JP II was not the most prudent thing given examples like the above. We could even say he committed a mortal sin that day in the ceremony from his behavior. But what we know from Vatican I makes it such that we must axiomatically hold JP II to have not held a heresy interior. So his exterior actions were merely a mistake (though scandalizing).

    At most, JP II will only be a heretic in the sense Pope Honorius I was a heretic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only your first sentence was correct, the rest is totally wrong and false. Vatican 1 teaches no such thing, in fact the theologians at the time actually discussed the idea of the heretic pope and concluded that a heretic pope ipso facto ceases to be pope when it is public and manifest, which is only the traditional teaching anyways. You have no clue what you're talking about and what you said was actually heretical.

      Delete
  2. The liberal modernist apologist does little more than apologise for the faith and for the awkward fact that Our Blessed Lord and Our Blessed Lady stand in the way of their pantheistic anthropocentric utopia in which there is no judgement; everyone is saved; all religions, atheism and agnosticism are equal; the pre-conciliar church was not really Catholic but just a minor stage in the process of evolution because now the church dialogues with everyone and has achieved a synthesis of all beliefs in accordance with the hermeneutics of the second Vatican Councils. These are irreproachable since they now have two saint popes who, although their philosophies are almost a direct and apposite contradiction of all previous papal teachings and instructions. All that remains is for the current pontiff to dot the "is" and cross the "ts" with the Illuminati and freemasons of the world to bring about the final one world religion and the concurrent universal government by them.
    Ladies and gentlemen - do not be fooled as this is no longer the Roman Catholic Church but a simulation managed by the enemies of The Faith.
    Read Pope St Pius X; fr Luigi Villa; St Maximilian Kolbe and Our Blessed Lady of Salette - among others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From William F. Strojie's pamphlet of June 1980 POPES OF THE REVOLUTION: A COUNCIL OF ALL BELIEVERS

    What has happened to the Catholic Church? In one form or another, this question is certainly asked innumerable times each day throughout the world, and the thought inevitably leads to the Council of our time, Vatican 2; or at least it must in the minds of older Catholics.

    It is now eighteen years since that disastrous Council was convoked by Pope John 23, so that children twelve years of age at that time are now thirty years old. Only a few of these young people will have much knowledge or experience of the Catholic Church as it was before the Council.

    Actually the Vatican 2 reform had been at work for years in Catholic schools, including universities and seminaries. According to the American Jewish Committee Yearbook of 1954, this Committee intended then to seek publication of revised editions of Catholic text books (my Letter No 28) in collaboration with the Committee on Citizenship of Catholic University of America, a papal institution.

    It is quite certain that such efforts were not restricted to American Catholic institutions. In his book JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN, Leon de Poncins quotes Elie Benamozegh's ISRAEL ET L'HUMANITE, page 36, as follows: "The Renaissance, the Reformation and the Revolution (French) constitute three attempts to rectify Christian mentality by bringing it in tune with the progressive development and science...."

    As far back as 1907 Pope St. Pius X had warned all the bishops against subversive elements within the Church. What then of Vatican 2? Whose was it? In my W.F. Strojie Letter no. 48 I fixed the origin of the idea, at least the first explicit mention of it in the year 1849, of a "General Council of the Church...that is, a Council of All Believers." So aptly does the statement of that intention correspond with what happened at Council Vatican 2, that it is quite impossible that its complete fulfillment in our time can be by chance.

    Because the program of Vatican 2 coincides so completely with the aims of what may certainly be referred to simply as The Revolution, I have decided to extend and fill in the picture begun in Letter 48, to which I shall occasionally refer. It is my hope and request that copies of this summary booklet will be passed on to Catholics and non-Catholics who do not welcome the present rapidly advancing revolution in the Church and the world.

    In Letter No. 48 I quoted historian E.E. Y. Hales in his book PIO NONO (Pope Pius IX), from the section on Mazzini and the Dogma of the People: "Those who contend, as many historians have, that the issue fought out between Mazzini and Pio Nono at Rome, 1849, was not a religious struggle between the Church and her enemies, because it was concerned only with the political fate of the Papal State, ignore the attitude of the principal antagonists on either side of the drama. These were the Pope, with Antonelli; and Mazzini, with Garibaldi. All four men were quite clear what was at stake."

    End of that paragraph. I omit here an extension of it which appears in my Letter No. 48, and repeat Mazziin's words about "a new consecration of eternal right; a third world arising upon the ruins of two worlds extinct..." The first world meant by Mazzini was the Roman Empire, the second the world of the Roman Church, what was once Christendom. Mazzini's Third World is surely that of which we hear on all sides today. It is not limited to that part which it is generally taken to mean - Africa, India, South and Central America, the so-called under-developed nations. What Mazzini and company had in mind is the New World Order which men are striving to establish in our time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks to Antonio for correcting the other person. Paul IV's papal bull Cum EX Apostolatus Officio says even if a man is unanimously elected to the Chair by all the cardinals, if he has held any heretical position before his election, the election is null and void and the Faithful are not to recognize him as a valid pope but rather to treat him as the warlock and heathen that he is. Bellarmine says the same in De Romano Pontifice in Chapter 30 - a man cannot be head of what he is not a member of. These "popes" have all engaged in serious crimes and mortal sins against the First commandment by engaging in masonic ecumenism - for which Roncalli AND Montini were both praised by a leading French mason, Yves Marsaudon, in his book on masonic ecumenism, saying the Light of the Great Architect now shines over the Vatican. Roncalli's Parisian chauffeur also confessed to having taken Roncalli regularly to masonic meetings in Paris, and a member of the Italian Orient Masons confessed in the Catholic magazine Thirty Days in the 1980s that Roncalli had been inducted into the Rosicrucians during his term in Turkey, which is discussed at length in Piers Compton's The Broken Cross. A mason cannot either be a Catholic, or elected validly as a pope. This is serious business. The masons bragged in the Alta Vendita docs that they would have their man in the chair, and they would have the Catholics marching under THEIR banner thinking they were marching under the banner of they keys. Padre Pio told Fr. Luigi Villa that it was his vocation to expose the masons in the hierarchy which he told Fr. Villa reached even into the papal shoes. Bernard Fay, mason hunter cop, supposedly found Roncalli and Montini's names in lodge rosters as members. The 'author' of the new mass (along with the two jewish Rabbis and six protestant ministers who don't believe in Transubstantiation) was thirty third degree - Annibale Bugnini. When presented with this information, I believe Paul VI sent him off somewhere like Iraq, where, according to Rama Coomaraswamy in his book THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION he died hanging himself - ala Judas Iscariot. Cardinal Manning in his sermons on Antichrist quotes all the Church Fathers and doctors saying the apostasy had to come from Rome from the usurped Chair of Peter - see his book now in reprint which can be obtained off amazon.com for six bucks - the Present Crisis of the Holy See. Also see Cardinal Newman's first sermon where he compares the end times with the situation in the Macchabees - I maintain the placing of the statue of Buddha by John Paul II on the high altar in Assisi is equivalent to the statue of Zeus Olympios in the Jewish Temple in the books of the Macchabees. Please realize we are in the Great Apostasy which refers to the apostasy of CATHOLICS - not just anyone who claims to be "Christian." God is concerned with those who used to have the TRUE FAITH. It had to come sometime - what else would fit the prophesied "Great chastisement" of Fatima? If Vatican II isn't people following a new thing with itching ears wanting to hear new things then honestly I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One should also mention Roncalli's encyclical Pacem in Terris became required reading for a lot of masonic lodges at the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is interesting, could you provide a source for this?

      "Pacem in Terris" was (and still is) also praised by Communists who better understood what it really said than most of the Catholics:
      http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cs-vert/id/9146

      Delete
    2. Most of the materials I know about came through reading various sources but I think Bill Strojie, who always cited where things he mentioned in his newsletters came from, said something about this. If I can find it I will post it later.

      However, you may find this interesting coming, again, from William F. Strojie's booklet THE LAST DAYS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH which he self published in Oregon in April, 1978. This is from pp. 58-59:

      Why do those who concern themselves much with prophecies pass over the works of Pope Pius X whose analysis and predictions can now be seen as having been frightfully accurate? A well digger in Bavaria, Sister X back in the 17th Century France, apocalyptic fantasy writers are sought out and given respectful attention while a learned and holy pope with vast resources of knowledge available to him, is ignored by all but a few faithful Catholics.

      Incidentally, about Popes Pius IX and Pius X as possibly the Two Witnesses of St. John's Apocalypse: It was Pius IX who by his Syllabus of Errors first squarely opposed the great modern heresy of man's self-sufficiency. Pope Pius X followed him in this, giving to the world his masterful analysis of the same errors in the encyclical Pascendi. Here are two major witnesses, of the highest authority, to Catholic Truth, against the error, the perennial heresy, of the modern Revolution. Let us hear from one of our enemies on this. From Fr. Fahey's "The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World," page 116: "The well-known French Freemason, Ferdinand Buisson, once declared: 'A school cannot remain neutral between the Syllabus and the Declaration of the Rights of Man'."

      We hear very little about the Syllabus in our time. It cannot be doubted that the Vatican II so-called progressives dumped the Syllabus with unholy haste. It is quite apparent that it and Pascendi, along with "Lamentabili" of Pius X (also called a Syllabus) contain that great witness against the modern heresy. Readings from the past show what a furore the Syllabus created more than fifty years ago, of which the above quotation is only a sample.

      Yes, I know: the Apocalyptic Witnesses are to be killed and seen lying in the streets of Jerusalem. Again I remind readers that St. John's Apocalypse was written metaphorically. The Two Witnesses were certainly killed as witnesses by Vatican II, and their witness lies buried in the New Jerusalem. I am not presenting these things positively as doctrine; I would suppose that no Catholic would accuse me of such an intention. I am trying to illustrate a truth, that St. John's Apocalypse depicts a spiritual combat. Surely to miss this is to be numbered among those St. Paul spoke of as spiritually blind. The influence of sectarian Bible literalists among Catholics shows quite plainly in this matter. It should be gotten rid of. St. Jerome, translator of the Bible from the Hebrew, our Latin Vulgate, wrote that St. John's Apocalypse contains as many mysteries as words. Much of this mystery could only become unveiled with the passage of time. This is the teaching of Revelation, the truth of which, as I firmly believe, has been made manifest since the beginning of Vatican II.

      Delete
    3. http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/11Jul/jul27ftt.htm

      In continuing from part one in which I established how the false popes of the conciliar era have fallen into heresy = public heresy no less, let us delve further in part two beginning with the man who began the ball rolling toward the abyss, one Angelo Roncalli, alias John XXIII. It didn't take him long to tear down the bastions. For example, the Freemasons hailed his encyclical Pacem in Terris:

      "Generally speaking, the encyclical Pacem in Terris, addressed to all men of goodwill, has inspired comfort and hope. Both in democratic and Communist countries it has been universally praised. Only the Catholic dictatorships have frowned upon it and distorted its spirit.
      "To us many concepts and doctrines it contains are familiar. We have heard them from illustrious rationalist, liberal, and socialist brothers. After having carefully weighed the meaning of each word, we might say that, the proverbial and typical Vatican literary rubbish notwithstanding, the encyclical Pacem in Terris is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine... we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading" (Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 147-148). [Emphasis in the original]

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous
      Thank you and God bless.

      Delete
  6. This is in fact the time of the prophecy written on the scroll and handed to Prophet Daniel but put away for the time when it would be appropriately applied during the era of abomination of desolation of the holy temple. The NO liturgy has done this repeatedly since 1969 but was already being piloted in varied experimental forms throughout the 1950s.

    Two factors from this are clear -

    Avoid the NO as it is invalid and most surely poisonous for The Catholic Faith - study the chief indicators of the church & its own surveys of beliefs. This is where the abominations are on a daily basis.

    Avoid any veneration of John Paul II since his conanisation is simulated - this is a pope whose papacy was ignored in the sanctification procedures. This was admitted by the Cardinal concerned in the process deconstructed in 1984 during JP II's pontificate to facilitate its abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear LeonG, could you provide a source or sources for your last paragraph above? I had read the same thing, but it was on other blogs, not a primary source. I also appreciate all your thoughts and insights. Your contribution is invaluable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Strojie made the most sense of all Catholic writers.

    ReplyDelete