- NEL SUO 1º «MAESTRO» ROMANO SI SVELÒ LA «GESTA DELL’ANTICRISTO BABILONICO»!L’EDITORIALE DEL VENERDI di Arai Daniele Qualcuno mi dirà, ma con tanti gravi problemi vissuti oggi, devi sempre tornare a parlare del chierico mediocre ed equivoco Roncalli divenuto «papa santo»? Sì, lo devo, perché dalla prima menzogna nel massonica nel Luogo Santo deriva necessariamente tutta la confusione morale nel mondo, fino al dominio della «grande m […]
Fátima e a Paixão da Igreja
«IS THE POPE CATHOLIC?» (Ed. 1979, 1988) By HUTTON GIBSON
setembro 21, 2015Publicado por em
- Quando vi a capa do Newsweek com Bergoglio sombreado e a curiosa pergunta em grandes letras: “IS THE POPE CATHOLIC?”, associei isto à entrevista de que estava tratando para fazer breves comentários justamente sobre a não catolicidade dele. Mas também ao fato que já havia um livro com esse título. Foi escrito por Hutton Gibson, pai do famoso Mel e sedevacantista de longa data, que me enviou um exemplar em 1988 atualizado.
- Segue o seu Prefácio e o seu Epílogo, para que se entenda com quanto atraso se contesta hoje Bergoglio, produto dos seus antecessores.
«This book was written before Paul’s death, which has caused changes in tense in a few verbs. But most have been left untouched because the conditions continue to exist. It could never have been written in normal times, not even as fiction. Some will insist it is fiction. More will criticize its bad manners and lack of charity, that improperly defined prime requisite for the new “Catholicism.”
Charity is not to be extended the deceiver or robber at the expense of the deceived or robbed. The higher the deceiver’s position the greater his chance to deceive. The greater the robber’s influence the more he can – steal. The corruption of the best is the worst. Refusal to recognize and fight evil, no matter how high its level, is condonation of evil — culpable, sinful, damning!
Subversives have provided the climate and constructed the seed-bed for the luxuriant growth of Modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies.” Both contributing to and proliferating from this climate is the notion that it is ill-bred to fight; gentlemen must talk; all must tolerate all views; no one may call error wrong or a thief a thief; gentlemanly methods and the diplomatic approach will accomplish more than a large club or the loud, unvarnished truth; one must be civilized; surely there is a workable compromise; a cool head deserves greater respect than a just cause; it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game; many subscribe to this heresy. To that extent they are victimized and influenced by subversives. Our “civilization” tolerates open sodomy and condones murder of the unborn, but shrinks in horror from burning incorrigible heretics – essentially a charitable act.
The Church canonizes those whose virtues it wishes to exemplify for the edification and emulation of the faithful. By current standards one would naturally consider the popes our likeliest candidates. Where would you find holier men than the vicars of Christ? Look, for example, at good Pope John and suffering Pope Paul! So not surprisingly our first thirty-five popes fit this category, most of them martyrs for the Faith. After Liberius (352-366) the procession of saints continued, interrupted only by Anastasius II ( 496-498), for another century and a half till the death of St Felix our fifty-fourth pope, in 530. Of the next fifty-one, to St. Nicholas I (died 867), twenty-one have been raised to the altars, including St. Gregory I, who first sent missionaries to the English, and St. Leo II, who condemned Pope Honorius I as a heretic for not settling a dispute over a matter of faith. Over the last eleven centuries only six popes have been recognized heroically holy enough to imitate.
St Leo IX, noted for sanctity from childhood, often mediator and peace maker, took up arms against the Normans in 1053. He lost, naturally, but sanctity had not prevented his engagement in a necessary war.
St. Gregory VII (1073 – 1085) was famed for stem measures against clerical abuses and uncompromising treatment of potentates, especially Emperor Henry IV (Canossa). His last words: “I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.”
St Gregory X (1271-1276) had such zeal for peace among Catholics that he excommunicated the city of Florence to stop a war. He also levied tithes on the Christian community for the support of the Holy Land and the prosecution of Crusades against Catholicism ‘s enemies.
St Celestine V (1294), an aged, uncouth hermit, soon realised his incapacity and had the rare good sense to resign.
St Pius V (1566-1572) infallibly standardized our then ancient Mass against the abuses of the Reformation. His zeal against heresy had procured his election as Inquisitor of the Faith in Milan and Lombardy. In 1557 Paul II gave him the red hat and named him Inquisitor-General for all Christendom. He successfully opposed Pope Pius IV’s attempt to make a cardinal of thirteen-year-old Ferdinand de’ Medici. As pope, he condemned the writings of Baius, excommunicated the English queen, and forged the last Crusade against the Turks, which culminated in victory at Lepanto.
St Pius X (1903-1914) was, if possible, even less tolerant of error. Against his own humble preferences, he upheld the honor due his position. He condemned Modernism in minutest detail, and demanded like condemnation from his hierarchy and clergy, ruthlessly removing those who refused to take the oath he prescribed against this synthesis of all heresies – the same oath that Paul VI violated and then consigned to oblivion.
We are all called to be saints. I cannot recall ever having heard of a cowardly saint, a compromising saint, a saint who placed expediency – before truth. I wish I could say the same of all popes, bishops, and priests, especially of my contemporaries. It is no doctrine of the Church that we should have fine manners, or that we receive our heavenly reward by coasting along without a fight. We must fight the battle we have not the war of 1812, not the Children’s Crusade. If we will not fight for salvation’s ordinary means, we scorn God!
The object of our war is victory. It is no game to win or lose. Shirked wars are irretrievably lost. Limited wars end like Korea or Vietnam. Compromise equals treachery, which requires neither intent nor even consciousness on the part of the traitor. More often it grows out of “normal” mistaken attitudes developed in the modernist climate fostered by subversives. Treachery, then, is not necessarily subjective, overt, or culpable; it remains treachery, nevertheless, in effect.
Why fight? The fight is here! The fight is now! It will not go away! And “He that is not with Me is against Me.” Can I leave room for doubt?
A friend fears that I shall eventually exclude myself from the Catholic Church. “How do you know you’re right,” he demands, “when so many in authority disagree with you?” When told I was about to read John – Eppstein’s “Has The Catholic Church Gone Mad?” the same man exclaimed: “Don’t waste your time! Of course it’s gone mad!” If the Catholic Church has been correct through the ages then I am correct, for I have changed nothing. To remain correct I need only adhere strictly to what the Catholic Church taught me.
I cannot wait upon the judgment of some historian half a millennium hence to decide whether I or these innovators are correct (obviously both can’t be correct); I have a soul to save now. I must make my own judgment on the evidence, and on the application of what intelligence God has given me for this purpose. Converts are familiar with this necessity. Born Catholics like me have seldom had to confront it.
It stares us in the face now, however, as ominously as during the fourth and
sixteenth centuries. In the fourth the laity opposed its own judgment to the Arians in power, and kept the Faith for us. In the sixteenth the laity of England and northern Europe opposed its heretics in high places too little and too late, and all their generations since inhabit a fools’ paradise bereft of the Faith and the ordinary means of salvation. I like the earlier example.
Paul VI’s Legacy. Catholicism?
OBJECTION : Why all the fuss? Paul is dead. Let us hope that life will become easier for traditionalists under his successors.
REPLY: “The evil that men do lives after them… “A successor to an antipope is another antipope. Conditions may appear to ease, but only to mousetrap the harassed traditionalist in the general apostasy. It would take a genuine pope only half an hour to straighten everything out– to proclaim again the decrees of past popes and councils, to wipe out new rites and institutions, to condemn Vatican II and its promulgators, to cancel appointments en masse. The possibly resultant turmoil could not begin to approach that created by John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II. When a man has held the papal office for more than half an hour and has not indicated even an intention to correct things we must consider him also an antipope – either a plant or a traitor. John Paul II has confirmed this estimate in his useless, unnecessary encyclicals, in his public commitment to continued implementation of the reforms of Vatican II, and in his treacherous, unnecessary approaches to Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Moslems, and Jews.
We can expect no change of direction from “popes” who assume office with even more innovations (two names– and what names! –.no coronation, to demonstrate personal humility and further downgrade the world’s highest office), who look as did Paul VI to the future instead of the Revelation for salvation, who continue the revision of Canon Law — a revision necessary only to the modernist apostasy. First John XXIII, then Paul VI packed the electorate with their own kind. Then Paul deprived the Catholic minority (too old) of its franchise. Who but modernists could have been elected?
Paul VI is dead, but that fortunate fact cannot by itself undo all his damage. It confers relevance, however, on the modernist argument that we may jettison definitions and pronouncements of past popes because they are past For now Paul has joined them in the past, and the authority for all his change has gone with him, depending as it did on just this argument Who are we to reject a classic modernist argument?
March 25, 1979 revised August 26, 1988