Some readers are possibly wondering about use of the term 'Conciliar Church' in a previous blog post. Does use of the term 'Conciliar Church' merely signify the Catholic Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, or does it mean something else?
It means something else. The term describes an alien body of religious beliefs - the heresy of Modernism that St. Pius X defined as "the repository of all heresies" - functioning as a harmful, almost deadly, parasitical invader within the material structures of the Catholic Church.
At the Second Vatican Council the necessary treatment to destroy this parasitic disease was done away with allowing the disease to spread to epidemic and then pandemic proportions. The Conciliar Church constitutes a false religion that has, to enormous degree, seized hold of the physical structures of the Church.
The St. Athanasius of our own times described the Conciliar Church as follows:
"It is a
question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church,
the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church… This Council represents,
both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new Church which they call themselves the 'Conciliar Church'… All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept
and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it
in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last 25th June, and they enter into the schism…
What is
schism? It is a break, a break with the Church. But a break with the Church can
also be a break with the Church of the past. If
someone breaks with the Church of two thousand years, he is in schism. There has already been a Council
which was declared schismatic. Well, it is possible that one day, in
twenty years, in thirty, in fifty years - I don't know - the Second
Vatican Council could be declared schismatic, because it professed
things which are opposed to the Tradition of the Church, and which have caused a break with the Church…
… We are
suspended a divinis by the Conciliar
Church, and for the Conciliar Church,
to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church
is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that
has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions,
its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document,
official and definitive....
… The
Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests,
or faithful adhere to
this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church…
… In so far as
the new Church separates itself from the old Church we cannot follow it.
That is the position, and that is why we maintain Tradition, we keep firmly to
Tradition; and I am sure we are being of immense service to the Church…
… I believe
that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices
which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were
defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would
have the right to ask them, 'Are you with the Catholic Church? Are you
the Catholic Church? With whom am I dealing?' If I am dealing with someone
who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a
person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?...
… How can
one avoid the conclusion: there where the Faith of the Church is, there also is
her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the
Catholic Church. A Church which
no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the
Catholic Church…
… Exactly the
same day nine years ago on the 21st of November, I drew up a manifesto
which also brought down on me the persecution of Rome, in which I said I can't accept Modernist
Rome. I accept the Rome
of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following,
but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion? I refuse it and I
reject it. And that is the Rome
which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of
destroying the Church. I refuse that Church…
… The Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere,
is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of
these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper
state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these principles
and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to
continue the Catholic Church…
… This is
how the succession of bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church,
in union with Rome, as we are too in
union with Catholic Rome and not Modernist Rome…
…To stay
inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean?
Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church,
then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because
we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it
Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the
superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.
This talk
about the 'visible Church' … is childish. It is incredible that
anyone can talk of the 'visible Church', meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church
which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we
are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me
with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent
the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it
always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church…
… one
cannot help thinking of the 'seat of iniquity' foretold by Leo XIII, or
of Rome losing the Faith foretold by Our Lady at La Salette.