George Weigel mocks the Social Kingship of Christ on EWTN - The World Over

[TheNewCafeteria]

Trads who reject V2 are in greater schism, according to Benedict XVI, than the Orthodox Christians. According to Benedict XVI, to be in union with Rome, Orthodox Christians are not bound to accept Vatican I and all the councils of the past 1,000 years defining the role of the pope. All the Orthodox have to do is accept the primacy of Peter as some Orthodox understood it in the first millennium (primacy of honor, etc).

Traditional Roman Catholics are BOUND to accept Vatican II.

[TheNewCafeteria]

The only "Catholics" who think Vatican II is not a binding council are those who try to delude themselves into thinking they can belong to the old pre-V2 and the current New Church. They say no doctrine has changed because Vatican II was only a pastoral council. Their whole position is false.

Search youtube for these two videos:

JHVt8jr1tew

yfjZU5W0gLg

Don't accept the sede viewpoint that since V2 is a binding council, then the V2 popes are false. Accept the binding council and V2 popes.

[TheNewCafeteria]

Vatican II was infallible. For example, it is almost universally unknown by so-called "traditional Catholics" that each decree of Vatican II begins with these words:

"PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY."

This is the way in which dogmatic decrees at the previous ecumenical councils were begun by the previous Popes.

[StSimonOfTrent]

Wrong

Vatican II was merely pastoral, outlining the desire for new methods, but in no way defining new doctrine or exercising

Yet it was apostasy

It came about solely to absolve the Jews for the Crucifixion of Christ hence Nostra Aetate contradicts 2000 years of teaching

A sacriligious meal which replaced the Mass, Pope Pius V ruled that the Mass and Canon could never be changed. It was canonized

Vatican 2 was a Judeo Masonic Hijacking to push towards a 1 world religion run from IsraHell

[TheNewCafeteria]

False, no pope said V2 was to be merely pastoral.

Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council given by Blessed John XXIII:

"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."

[TheNewCafeteria]

John XXIII did not say the council was to be merely pastoral. He said the ****magisterium**** is *predominantly* pastoral in character.

Trads take these words, twist them, make them mean something else in order to convince themselves that they can be in open schism against the pope. They delude themselves into thinking they are not actually in schism. When the pope orders them to believe in V2, they can be disobedient theologically to the pope because trads twist John XXIII's opening remarks.

[StSimonOfTrent]

Wrong It is clear, as the following extracts confirm, that neither did Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council, authorize the council to

treat dogma nor did Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the

council, intend them to be part of the essential Magisterium of the Church.

Both regarded the council to be pastoral, not dogmatic, in

nature, and therefore not part of the essential Magisterium of the Church.

"Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of Pope John XXIII.'

[TheNewCafeteria]

Wow, you trads are really blinded. But you have to be in order to attempt straddle the great chasm. You want one foot on the old pre-V2 Church and one foot on the New Conciliar Church, led by popes who all teach from the V2 documents. So you personally know what Pope Paul VI intended. The same pope who signed the V2 document in the same fashion as the other ecumenical councils. The same person who instituted those V2 changes into the Church. The same pope who theologically taught from V2.

[TheNewCafeteria]

"Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of Pope John XXIII." So says traditio and Fr. Michael.

Good grief, can you follow the theological teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI which are identical to the teachings of Vatican II?

[StSimonOfTrent]

No

They are Anti Popes

There have been well over 40 Anti Popes in Church History

This is nothing new

Vatican 2 was a Judeo Masonic Hijacking

Malachi Martin was a conduit agent for the Jewish ADL, traveling from Rome to NY to brief them on events during the council

THE PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCH by Maurice Pinay, Outlined the plans from these enemies of the Church even before it happened.

[fool1shmortal]

I thought it was "Anathema" at the end. What was true before definitely were infallible. If they said something different than what was said before, beginning with those words "Paul...", then V2 was in error; otherwise, nothing new was said that changed anything permanently from what was taught before.

[fool1shmortal]

I'm pretty sure I heard nothing infallible was to be declared at V2; just a pastoral "direction". If they cared about V2 and what it taught, they would have enforced it--same with the N.O.. If anything new were taught at V@ that contradicted what was taught before beginning with "Paul...", then it's anathema. Still obedience to orders must be kept in principle.

[TheNewCafeteria]

You heard wrong. No pope said the council would be "just a pastoral direction".

You claim they did not change the universities, seminaries, and every catholic teaching institution and remake them in light of V2? Have you gotten out lately? Trads often complain many of those same institutions are more liberal than V2.

V2, a binding council signed onto by true popes, is anathema? That is really rich. lol

You speak of obedience, but you are disobedient in your refusal to accept V2.

[StSimonOfTrent]

Wrong

"We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy spirit to

guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this council is de fide. And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de

fide. "To call a council is a practical decision of the pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this

is an object of faith." --Fr. Gregory Hesse,

[TheNewCafeteria]

What matters is not the words of some priest, but the the theological teachings of the popes, their encyclicals and words of the popes. Every pope since Paul VI has held V2 taught doctrine. Almost everything they taught in the past 35 years was influenced by the new doctrines of V2. If you reject V2, you not only reject the council, but all their writings. You position's logical conclusion is that the popes since Paul VI are manifest heretics, and that cannot be true - popes decide doctrine.

[2c3n1]

Rome is not Catholic at all. How can anyone think that it is? The real Catholic Church is underground and has been for some time now. Wake up and realize that Rome broke from the Catholic Church with V2 with the changing of all 7 sacraments.

[giuseppe398]

Of course Christ is King of these united States! The Traditional Catholic Church is the one True Church on earth.

Instauare Omnia in Christo

[1962SatanTookOver2]

Aroyo, you disappointed me. Have you ever heard of President Dr. Gabriel García Moreno (1821-1875), consecrated the republic to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 1873. Yes, a State can completely belong to Christ.

Unfortunately, the Freemasons did not appreciate this proclamation, and was furious to the point that they hired assasins to hack President Dr. Gabriel García Moreno to death in the shadows of the Church of Our Lady.

Protestants and New World Order Catholics, learn something real

[TheNewCafeteria]

Does the Vatican even hand out condemnations to people like Fr. Richard McBrien? People like McBrien know where the New Church is heading - towards further toleration and progressivism. He intellectually honest and faces reality, he knows the Church changed. If it changed in the past, it can do so in the future. So why not gender equality in the priesthood and other new changes? Fr. Richard McBrien is consistent in his line of reasoning, more so than those who are trying to have it both ways.

[traditionalchristian]

I am going to the Traditional Latin Tridentine High Mass Tomorrow. I never listen to those Vatican II modernists anyway.

[fool1shmortal]

Have we seen any anathemas after Vatican 2 documents? Then it's still the same Church..in denial due to pastoral experimentation.

[TheNewCafeteria]

A totally new theology that is completely alien to the old "tradition" is a pastoral experimentation? How deluded can you be. There is no going back to the old Church. The New Church makes sure only supporters of Vatican II are elevated to bishops and cardinals. Many of the excommunications the New Church hands out are to bishops who reject Vatican II and who are trying to preserve the old ways (ie:Old rite of ordination). These decisions are from the top down. Benedict is a big supporter of V2.

[fool1shmortal]

They may not go back, but they could. The old ways were never technically abolished if the changes weren't made permanent. They couldn't change anything permanently to what is against Church teaching. That's what I tell Sedes.

[TheNewCafeteria]

I don't want anyone to be a sede, but atleast the sede are consist in their thinking: the V2 popes and their favorite council are "heretical" and therefore invalid. Period, end of story.

The vast majority of Catholics who reject V2 (SSPX types) - accept the V2 popes as true popes, but when the pope orders them to theologically believe and submit to V2, they say no and think they are still Catholic.

Paul VI, JP II, and Benedict XVI are all liberals. He who is not with the pope is not Catholic.

[fool1shmortal]

There were no condemnations of those who did not accept Vatican 2 doctrines. Those that were always taught were still binding. Thus, the Church isn't man-made.

[fool1shmortal]

That being said, nothing was really done to enforce Vatican 2 once the abuses were known of and so we had, in 2008, most, even if not overwhelmingly--too many, Catholics voting for Obama despite his radical pro-abortion and infanticide policymaking .

[fool1shmortal]

Vatican 2 made no dogmatic statements, and so nothing that was dogmatic ended and thus, the Church is still not man-made (Pope Paul 6th likely would not have formally declared the Church's stance on contraception with all the pressure from even many Catholics to change it and with other churches it wanted to buddy up with that had already allowed contraception if the Church were manmade). I think adherence to it is more of an obedience thing.

[TheNewCafeteria]

This is the typical response of a Catholic trying to have it both ways. Trying to be in union with Rome (Rome whose new Super Council is V2 - it over-rides other previous councils because it is diametrically opposed to previous councils) and trying to be in the old pre-V2 Church. The "I reject V2 but I accept the V2 Popes" - the same popes who were responsible for Vatican II in the first place. P VI, JP II, B XVI all were involved in V2 and taught theologically from the documents.

[fool1shmortal]

If there were no anathemas for what went against Church teaching, if it's technically so and not just mean to be inferred that way, then the Holy Spirit still protects the Church Sedes say is not the Church. No other group can be a new organization that's The True Church without authority given by God. Only Gd Himself has created new priesthoods. If the clergy are corrupt, so were superiors of saints, but the saints were obedient to them. Padre Pio was obedient to the Church I know.

[TheNewCafeteria]

Do you honestly think the Conciliar New Church would hand out anathemas to Catholics who reject V2? They would have to anathematize every pre-V2 saint. If they go in that direction, they will show the world it is truly a New Church. This is something they are trying to hide for some strange reason. But in hiding it, you get these neo-trads thinking they can be disobedient to the Super Council of V2.

[TheNewCafeteria]

If Paul VI changed the Church's stance on artificial contraception, Lefebvre and the other traditional bishops would have probably declared Paul VI to be an anti-pope and broke from the Church. Back then, there were anti-V2 cardinals still alive and they could have started a Great Western Schism II. There were certain things Paul VI would not touch, changing baptism, for instance. Doing these things would have opened far too many people's eyes.

Most trads are unaware NFP was a new invention.

[StSimonOfTrent]

Paul V1 Was an Anti Pope

Vatican2 contradicted 2000 years Catholic teaching

Nostra Aetate- absolved the Jews for Killing Christ

'CRUCIFY HIM, HIS BLOOD BE UPON US AND OUR CHILDREN' Matthew 27:25

Thess 2:14-16

' For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Jesus: for ye suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both Killed the Lord Jesus & the prophets, drove out us, and pleased not God and are contrary to all men'

[TheNewCafeteria]

So you are a sede. Don't be a sede, it is not right.

[uncletimmyfrompa]

Ha ha ha ha! Apostasy and/or ignorance of Catholic tradition is hilarious!

[TheNewCafeteria]

Vatican II changed Catholic Tradition. Anyone who reads the documents will figure that out. If you wish to be apart of the New Catholic Church and to be in union with Pope Benedict XVI, you must accept the Second Vatican Council and the changes it made to Catholic Tradition.

[unkavaljo]

Vatican II is not dogmatic council by it's own declaration and it did not changed Catholic Tradition. To be in union with Catholic Churche one have to be in union with BXVI (of course). V2 has is ambiguous and it is reason for clarifikation of its meaning in "Dominus Iesus" or "The famili and human procreation, Pontifical council for family (2006)", or similar. Modernism in Catholic Church was, and still is, condemned.

[2c3n1]

Vat2 is not at all. To be in union with the Catholic Church you must absolutely reject BXVI. The Church teaches that ambiguity must be held as heretical, but V2 is clearly heretical in some places. BXVI is a devil pretending to be pope fooling everybody. If you can't see that the pre-V2 and the post-V2 are two different religions, then you all are totally blind and dare I say, stupid! Every sacrament changed, and the new mass was created by 6 Protestants and a Freemason which looks like Luther's

[IndependentPhillyPA]

Actually it was founded by Catholics the Anglican church still consider themselves Catholics

[wjweigand]

EWTN is INCOMPETANT to talk about Catholocism!

[TheNewCafeteria]

Why do you say this? Since Vatican II, the popes have placed the new Cosmic Christ in the pantheon of gods alongside Buddha, Allah, and the other gods and holy men of history. Look at John Paul the Great and Assisi. Read the V2 Documents. Aren't the popes the leaders of Catholicism? Since they are, EWTN is the voice of Catholicism... as of today.

I can't wait for a progressive pope to allow female priests. That may take 50 years, but nothing can stop the armies of freedom and tolerance.

[wjweigand]

LOL... ok, let me clarify.... EWTN is INCOMPETANT to talk about TRUE Catholocism which is totally different and distinct from the false Novus Ordo, post ConciLIAR modernist religion created by John 23rd, Paul 6 et alii.

[TheNewCafeteria]

I kid not. Why do you cling to the "Traditional" Catholic Church? Wasn't that destroyed by forces, both internal and external, about 40-50 years ago?

The Second Vatican Council proves religion is man-made. A 1900 year old religion that once stood strong, contradicted itself in about 5 pivotal areas.

Anyone who does some research (historically and theologically) will figure out this is not the same Catholic Church. It was reinvented, repackaged and sold to Catholics 40 years ago.

[TheNewCafeteria]

The options are to belong to present new man-made Church, as I would call the New Cafeteria or you can cling to tradition, where ever that is. The New Church is community which people feel good to belonging to it. Yours is a fading hope. Any hybrid of the 2 is bound to fail because it makes no sense.

That's what I don't like about Weigel. He is a progressive, but casts stones at other progressives because he deludes himself into thinking he is a conservative.

[TheNewCafeteria]

Weigel may be a conservative in the newly constructed Vatican II Church, but that is hardly conservative.

The post-Vatican II popes would have been excommunicated on many counts of heresy by all the previous popes. John Paul II was a progressive back during V2, as was Benedict XVI.

None of the new popes and theologians have any right in condemning any progressive of heresy. By doing this, they would be condemning themselves because they're progressives too.

[wjweigand]

I wish I could get more Vatican II church goers to understand what you very correctly explained about the fact that theirs is a man made religion not the same as the Catholic Faith.

As far as your question about whether the Church was destroyed 40-50 years ago... negative.  The Catholic Church can not be destroyed. It's visible hierarchy has been usurped, as it was during the Arian crisis, just to a much larger degree, but the faith instituted by Christ can't be destroyed.

[StSimonOfTrent]

It was Destroyed by Jews and Freemasons, yes

Read THE PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCH by Maurice Pinay

Its online and free, written by Catholic Clergy as a Warning to Vatican 2.

[TheNewCafeteria]

It was those same people, along with the Nouvelle Théologie theologians (Ratzinger, Küng, Teilhard de Chardin, von Balthasar, de Lubac, etc) and with others who brought the Church out of the dark and into the light. All these people are unsung heroes. They formed a completely New Church, with Newly Revised Sacraments (thanks to Pope Paul VI) and a New Theology (thanks to Vatican II).

St. Simon of Trent is no longer considered a saint in the New Church. His cult is suppressed.

[StSimonOfTrent]

"We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with Jews; nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them...

Christians shall not allow Jews to hold civil honors over Christians, or to exercise public offices in the State ."

-His Holiness, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442 A.D. Bull. Rom. Pont., V, 67.]

[Jitpring]

Christ: "My kingdom is not of this world."

[TheNewCafeteria]

I totally agree with you. But the trads will point out that was said before the crucifixion and after the resurrection, Jesus said: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth."

I am glad we are now putting God and religion in their place, not mixing them up with our lives in society. We must make sure God stays in Church/hearts and not in the world, as you put it.

[Jitpring]

Yes, but since Scripture cannot contradict itself, what you cite must be taken not in the sense of political, worldly power, but in the sense of all salvific power. Thus it harmonizes with what I cited. Don't you think?

[TheNewCafeteria]

The old understanding of it didn't contradict. The text of John 18:36 is "Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence."

Notice the last line, "but *now* my kingdom is not from hence".

New post-Vatican II bible translations omit the now.

After Jesus' victory of sin and death he claimed that all power in heaven and earth was given to him.

[TheNewCafeteria]

Jitpring, see the catholictradition link on the right side to understand the old Catholic teaching. The Vatican II New Church is a break from the old archaic church of the last 1900 years. Though it occupies the same buildings throughout the world, its closer to Unitarian Universalism than to the pre-Vatican II Church. Among many changes, it doesn't teach the Social Kingship of Christ anymore, as it once did. Weigel is right, Pope JPII would agree with his views - they are a reflection of them.

[PTSP18]

I have no idea what the title of this clip is about. He is basically saying that the state being the authority in matters of religion, like king Henry the VIII would be a bad idea . How is objectionable?

[TheNewCafeteria]

No he is not. The question was not about state being the ultimate authority, but the sovereign (in this case - the people of the United States) placing themselves UNDER the authority of Christ the King and the Church. Did you even read the video description on the right side?

[TheNewCafeteria]

Weigel puts up a straw man by saying we should reject the 1900 year old Catholic teaching that ALL people (including people collectively as nations) should be placed under Christ the King because we could also be placed under Muhammad.

However, under the Catholic mandate, the state would have no religious authority in declaring truths. It would only recognize the nation is subordinate to Christ the King. The idea is thoroughly un-American. But for two millennia it has been thoroughly Catholic.

[TheNewCafeteria]

What gets me is the two-faced nature of George Weigel, who boldly insists Vatican II changed old doctrines, but who infers new Council could not change doctrines and allow for instance female priests. For 2000 years, there are clear and permanent lines drawn in the sand, then after Vatican II, people like George Weigel say the lines were redrawn and anyone else who wants to redraw the lines further are bad liberal Catholics.

I have more respect for traditional Catholics, than people like Weigel