Friday, June 18, 2010

Apostasy's "humble" beginnings and subsequent evolution

Leo XIII was NEVER pope

Think about this for a moment:  In 1893, "Cardinal" Gibbons went to the World Parliament of religions,  opened the meeting and lead the group in the Our Father.  He knowingly, willingly prayed with non-Catholics and people who were not even baptized.  This was premeditated and an act of schism - he united himself to and placed himself on friendly terms with those out of communion with the Roman Pontiff.  For some reason, however, the hierarchy was not up in arms, as they should have been.  Even Antipope Leo XIII did not do anything right away, but only two years later said essentially: "Just don't let it happen again," and there was no denunciation of Gibbons, no censure, no disciplinary action at all that I have ever heard of.  All that happened was an 'encyclical' letter of Leo XIII, entitled "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae" (Our Beloved Son), addressed to Gibbons, in which he censures the errors that Gibbons espoused, without directly rebuking or reproving him at all.

Think about this:  What would the reaction have been by Catholics in the 16th century if a bishop had waltzed into the meeting houses of Lutherans, all nonchalant, and prayed with them?  UPROAR.  So already we see that the level of zeal for purity, dignity and integrity of Faith had been grossly diluted.

But the manifestation of the Great Apostasy had its beginnings with Antipope Leo XIII.

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum: "This being so, all rulers and administrators of the State who are desirous of following the dictates of reason and wisdom, and anxious for the good of their people, ought to make up their minds to keep the holy laws of marriage intact, and to make use of the PROFFERED aid of the Church for securing the safety of morals and the happiness of families, rather than suspect her of hostile intention and falsely and wickedly accuse her of violating the civil law."

This is interesting indeed.  What is the definition of proffered?

Noun 

S: (n) suggestion, proposition, proffer (a proposal offered for acceptance or rejection)

Verb 

S: (v) offer, proffer (present for acceptance or rejection)


But the Church does not propose her moral teachings as mere suggestions, nor as  things that may be rejected.  The Church, by Her Divine institution, COMMANDS assent and obedience to what she teaches.

It would seem from the use of the word "proffer", however, that Leo XIII believes that the Church and the State are on equal footing, that the State has the right to "reject the suggestions" of the Church.

Here are the exact words of Leo XIII: "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and EACH POWER to be FREE and UNSHACKLED in its own sphere: with this condition, however - a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men - that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven."

He says that there are questions in which Church and State both have equal right and authority.  Is that so?  Name one such question Antipope Leo XIII!  You can't because the Church's right and authority surpasses the rights and authority of princes, kings, and rulers, who are nothing other than human creatures, and the State is nothing other than the a political entity which governs their subjects.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

There is no common right or authority between the Church and the State, but the State is to be WHOLLY subject to the Roman Pontiff, who indeed has a DIVINE RIGHT to overturn the decisions and legislation of States.

Matthew 18:17-18: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.  Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

The definition of "soever" has been given before in this blog, in the article entitled: "A pope cannot be a heretic; a heretic cannot be pope".  It is as follows:

soever
-adverb
at all; in any case; of any kind; in any way (used with generalizing force after who, what, when, where, how, any, all, etc.)


Christ was not merely saying that the Church has the power to forgive sins, but a sovereign, overruling power, which is an extension of His own Divine authority, a power to COMMAND KINGS AND NATIONS AND STATES.

But Leo XIII, as subtly as he did, undermined and denied this truth.  He couldn't just come right out and say something like: "this is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus"  By the way, do you know who said that?  It was Antipope Benedict XVI.

It might seem to some to be frightening to denounce Antipope Leo XIII as a heretic who lost office, maybe you think he was so subtle that he can get away with it, or maybe "he didn't really mean it"...  Don't expect the Apostasy to just happen overnight, such as those who adhere to Antipope Pius XII absurdly imagine.  But the heresies of the Apostasy have been evolving from seemingly innocuous beginnings, with a seemingly orthodox pope.

Let us draw a heretical family tree, showing the teachings of these antipopes and how they have evolved over time to form the blasphemous synthesis that is now oozing out of the Vatican.  Each section will begin with a dogmatic quote or two, which shows the Catholic dogma, and will then degenerate into the heresies of the antipopes.  Note that it is not always the case that the immediate successor of a particular antipope picks up the ball and runs with the subtle heresy of his heretical predecessor, but often times it has been many years, even decades, before the heresy is rehashed by another antipope (perhaps when the field is ripe and ready for it? - 2 Timothy 4:3).  With no further ado, here is the list:


Relations between Church and State


Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX, #39: "The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862." - CONDEMNED

Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX, #55: "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852." - CONDEMNED

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum: "This being so, all rulers and administrators of the State who are desirous of following the dictates of reason and wisdom, and anxious for the good of their people, ought to make up their minds to keep the holy laws of marriage intact, and to make use of the PROFFERED aid of the Church for securing the safety of morals and the happiness of families, rather than suspect her of hostile intention and falsely and wickedly accuse her of violating the civil law."

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum: "Here are the exact words of Leo XIII: "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and EACH POWER to be FREE and UNSHACKLED in its own sphere: with this condition, however - a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men - that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven.""

Antipope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae #2, 1965: This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

In other words, according to the heresies of Leo XIII and Paul VI, the State has the right  to not only reject what the Church has commanded (proffered!) that prohibits (suggests!) separation of Church and State, but the State (being a human power) does not have the right to force Muslims, Jews, Satanists or any religious group not to practice their public false worship.

Okay antipopes, so if the State does not have the right to prohibit crimes against the Divine Law, then how does it have the right to prohibit crimes against the Natural Law?  How does the State have the right to FORCE people not to commit murder?  Theft?  Clearly there is a lack of common sense in the teachings of the antipopes, in that they lead to heretical absurdities.

No comments:

Post a Comment