And he’s not a sedevacantist because…?

 The following are a few remarks written by an author I discovered only days ago. Just what was Vatican II?

 ^ The Dawning of Apostasy, p. xi

The immaculate Bride of Christ was despoiled and handed over to enemies at Vatican II? What is this “other hand” which wielded so much power at that Council? And how could the Vicar of Christ play pattycake with it to the bitter end?

  ^ From Some Fissure, p. ix

A quest to be united with the world? Was that the true aim of Vatican II? Plus: doubts about who was really “at the helm” at Vatican II (and, by extension, since it)?

  ^ From Some Fissure, p. x

Modernist pirates seized control of the Barque of Peter at Vatican II? And the saintly, misunderstood Pope Paul VI went along with the whole thing?

  ^ From Some Fissure, p. xi

Destructive Modernists succeeded in embedding anti-Catholic ambiguity in the solemn declarations of an ecumenical council? And Paul VI lent the authority of his name to it all?

  ^ From Some Fissure, p.xii

Paul VI envisioned a small remnant who would resist the “non-Catholic way of thinking” which triumphed at Vatican II? How odd….

 ^ From Some Fissure, p. xiii

You mean both Paul VI and John Paul II spoke of an apocalyptic confrontation between the true Chruch and an impostor Church, a conflict which was, by all appearances, ushered in during the time of Vatican II? But that’s crazy talk!

+ + +

I hope the problem is as evident to you as it is to me.

The author, David Martin, embraces all the popes since the Fecund Second Vatican Conchshell Council as genuine Vicars of Christ. And yet, at the same time, he regards the entire (papally ratified and promoted) Conciliar achievement as a scandalous corruption of Catholic teaching by way of ambiguous compromise at best, or as an outright Satanic coup d’état at worst. Lament though he may at how cunningly Paul VI was beguiled by Modernist/ Masonic/ Communist infiltrators, Martin ultimately concedes that Pope Paul VI ratified the Conciliar putsch with his sacrosanct signature. Much like Pope Honorius I, then, Paul VI will be forever regarded as a “helper of heresy” who followed the ecclesiological equivalent of Sergius in their subtle errors. Well, to be more precise, he’s to be so regarded only if one also regards the Second Vatican Council as the work of the enemies of the Faith. If, by contrast, one equanimously embraces the Conciliar novelties, then one can only applaud Paul VI for ratifying and enforcing them with such apparent zeal.

Either way, as I went to great lengths to show in my post about being “between a Rock and a dark place,” one must make a choice. One must either embrace the Conciliar reforms as the work of our legitimate pastors, whereupon one must render un-kvetching submission of mind and heart to the ongoing Conciliar Project, or one must recognize the patent rupture with Catholic Tradition which the Conciliar reforms embody, and reject them as the the perifidious fruit of usurpers of the magisterial and canonical machinery.

The two books by Mr. Martin which I have cited in this post were published in 2013, apparently while Benedict XVI was still pope. I’m curious to know how Mr. Martin, whose zeal for orthodoxy seems as genuine as it is deep, regards the pontificate of Francis, though I have yet to explore the matter. Meanwhile, the dilemma stands: take the red pill and clap along with our Conciliar shepherds, or take the blue pill and reject the fruit as vehemently as one must reject the seeds–as vehemently as one must reject the sowers of such seed. As Our Lord said, Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No.

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to And he’s not a sedevacantist because…?

  1. Theodore The Recruit says:

    Perhaps Paul VI was obeying these words of Christ…The Parable of Weeds among the Wheat
    24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

  2. Lord have mercy. In the first copy + paste section, we read he-who-abdicated trying to slough-off onto others the responsibility for the death of discipline when it was HE who killed The Hoy Office and produced LIES within his script he wrote for Frings and which LIES had to do with the great Roman, Cardinal Ottaviano. and the processes use by The Holy Office.

    This is just shameless if he was quoted accurately.

  3. MJYC, I’m sure it’s the fault of a translation error.

    When it comes to the Second Vatican Conchshell, isn’t everything?

  4. O, and when it came time for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to apply the whip of discipline, what did he do?

    +++++++++++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++

    n a New Oxford Review editorial, Mr. Dale Vree, noted:

    In Karl Keating’s E-Letter (March 8, 2005), he noted that for 26 years of the John Paul papacy, of which Ratzinger was the doctrinal watchdog for 24 years, only 24 people were disciplined.

    Keating comments: “That is fewer than one per year!… The Catholic Church boasts 1.1 billion members. This means that, on average, over the last quarter century, the Vatican has disciplined only one out of a billion members per year. This is about as close to zero as you can get.

    Is there any social, commercial, or governmental organization that disciplines such a small percentage of its people?…

    If the Church had the kind of inquisitorial bureaucracy that its critics imagine, the Vatican would be disciplining 24 people each week…. However you look at it, 24 cases in 26 years is…laughable.”

    It appears that Ratzinger (now Benedict) is not the Panzerkardinal after all, not God’s Rottweiler.

    There has been a continuing effort to rewrite history by those in control and the question that wants answering is – is that attempt conscious or is it aught but the visible attempt to psychically dissipate the intellectual pressure resulting from the cognitive dissonance of thinking one is amongst a cadre of the best and holiest catholics ever and the lamentable results of the changes instituted by those who were so spiritually egoistic?

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

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

You are commenting using your 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