The Church Fathers, especially as referred to here, are by definition an exact group ending with and not later than St. John Damascene in the East in the eighth century A.D. and in the West in the seventh century A.D. St. Isadore of Seville and Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (who said that any bishop who declared himself in charge of the whole Church, instead of all bishops, including the Pope of Rome, having no more than equal authority, with Rome among other Patriarchal sees and none of them coercing others, was in fact, the precursor of the Antichrist. Pope Saint Gregory the Great is the last with Saint Jerome and Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine of Hippo of the Four Great Doctors (Doctor means teacher of the whole undefiled Catholic doctrine handed down from the Apostles) of the Church. Pope Saint Gregory the Great (died 604 A.D.) with Saint Isadore of Seville (died 636 A.D. - who destroyed the last of the Arian Heresy in the West) are the last two of the Church Fathers in the West and Saint John Damascene (died December 4, 749 AD, at Mar Saba near Jerusalem) is the last of the Church Fathers in the East.
NO DOCTRINE CAN BE ADMITTED TO OR PROFESSED BY THE FAITHFUL WITHOUT THE FULL CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS - NOT EVEN IF A COUNCIL AND ANY NUMBER OF POPES WERE TO PUT FORWARD SUCH A DOCTRINE.
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Both Modern Evolution and Modernist Evolution has been
concocted for only one reason, to oppose Christ and His Church and provide a
basis for the Antichrist.
What must be understood about evolution, both ancient and
modern is, in its pagan religious and Gnostic and secular modes it is the same
in the essentials – first the Universe is all there is. The ancient (Old Latin)
meaning in ancient Rome of Universe was from Uni – one and Versus – turn. Look
at the sky above, from one horizon to another it is one turn, or in other
words, one arc across the sky. This mindless elemental universe is then thought
to give rise to all phenomena spontaneously. A noumenal, unseen immaterial
aspect, is posited to conveniently provide a place for all things which don’t
add up in strict materialism. The gods and goddesses of paganism all have their
place as functionaries of this material Pantheism – strictly speaking the
Pantheist god is the universe. Know this, all evolution is in direct and
complete opposition to the Catholic Faith. Theistic evolution is only Pantheist
evolutionary immanentism with a myth of a god, it may as well be Zeus or
whatever, pasted on as an ornament. Ratzinger is a sly Apostate fox in this.
The True God is the
Holy Trinity and is NOT a myth. He created everything that has been created.
States was founded on Heroic Materialism,
which also Napoleon embraced. Napoleon also embraced the lie of the Higher
Criticism, denying the Immortal supernatural existence of the Son of God Jesus
Communist Russia was founded on Dialectical Materialism, a
slightly differently shaded version of the same thing as Heroic Materialism.
Both are ancient Babylonian in essence. Heroic Materialism believes that physical
existence is all there is and only those better animals (really no different
than Nietzsche’s Superman which the Nazis adopted as their own) come to the
fore as the ones to govern it. Dialectical Materialism believes in cascading
forces and immanent being within the Universe that reintegrates to cause the
progression of the Universe. What nobody addresses is that why doesn’t a
physical universe, without a higher personal being who is greater than that
universe, just collapse on itself out of lack of purpose?
God has His purposes
and that is a profound truth in itself that evolution will never be able to
answer or approach or even have any part in. Amen.
“Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 133
historicity of his own nature. This is a normal convergence
if it is true that faith, incarnate in the human subject, adjusts itself to
man’s structures and evolutions. We observe this, moreover, in the Council. To
the extent that the Council elaborated its Christological vision of a universe
in movement, it experienced the need, a need albeit inadequately satisfied, for
There is a simple answer, this is Teilhard de Chardin’s
Diabolically insane idea of a universe and an impersonal pseudo-Christ as a
Pantheist Unity. That is only the impersonal finite logos/logoi of the pagans identifiable with their pagan
gods and goddesses enmeshed in a mindless insensate Universe. St. John the Apostle clarifies in the beginning
of His Gospel that the True Logos (Word of God) is the living Person, the
Immortal Son of God Jesus Christ through whom all that has been created was
The universe which God the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit created is itself comprised of the elemental physical being with no mind
of its own.
The Truth which has
nothing to do with the evolutionary lies.
Dabar in Biblical Hebrew and Logos in Septuagint Greek is
the same exact meaning, the Word of God united eternally from everlasting to
everlasting to the Father in His innermost being. Jesus Christ is the Immortal
Word of God. He is the Son of God united to God the Father in the Unity of the
Holy Spirit. From Dom Grea: the Holy Spirit is the eternal song of love between
the Father and the Son from before all time and creation to eternity
everlasting. That doesn’t supplant doctrinal statements about the relationship
within the Holy Trinity, but is an orthodox addition to it. It is a statement
of correct contemplative theology.
Gospel of St. John Chapter One
and incarnation of Christ. John bears witness of him. He begins to call his
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.2
The same was in the beginning with God.3
All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.4 In him was life, and the life was
the light of men.5 And the light
shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
The Devil ran the
whole Vatican II pseudo-council with the Satan
worshipping complicity of the “council fathers.” - “You are of your father the
Devil” – Jesus Christ said to the Jews. John 8:44.
See this -
In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimarães, Volume I From the
Collection: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani?
by Dr. Malachi Martin
This first volume of the Collection: Eli, Eli, Lamma
Sabacthani? establishes the author Atila Sinke Guimarães as one of the best
informed latter-day students of that epochal event, the Second Vatican Council.
Up to this moment, the most encyclopedic and detailedly informed examination of
the Council was provided by Professor Amerio in his Iota Unum. Guimarães’
Collection bids fair to replace Iota Unum as the best all-purpose source-book
about the Council; and it is not hazardous or rash to predict that this work of
Guimarães will be a standard reference work on the subject—and well into the
The title of this first volume, in The Murky Waters of
Vatican II, tells exactly what the contents are. All of us who lived through
the years of Vatican 11 (1962-1965) and have had to deal with the consequences
can recognize immediately the pinpoint accuracy of this first volume: The
ambiguity, cultivated and, as it were, perfected in the composition of the
sixteen main documents of the Council, is now seen as the most skillful means
devised to undo the essential Roman- ness and Catholicism of the Roman Catholic
Church, and to deliver that entire one-billion member institutional
organization into the ready and eager hands of those for whom the existence of
the traditional papacy and hierarchical organization has long been anathema.
One reads in this volume with a certain sickening feeling of the unified way in
which the Church’s own theologians and prelates conspired willingly to bring
about the present trend to the de-Romanization and de-Catholicizing of the once
September 25, 1997
“…existence of the
traditional papacy and hierarchical organization has long been anathema.” Is a
vastly important statement. We are never called to render ANY obedience nor
even have ANY communion nor any interaction with Apostate Antipopes nor any
Apostate ecclesiastical “authority.” Such Apostate Antipopes and such so called
“authorities” have no authority at all and are ipso fact excommunicate and
anathema by their own statements and actions.
Second, from the standpoint of the
aim toward which the Church should tend: “The
very word evolution, obstinately under suspicion until then, was introduced
three or four times, in spite of the negative reactions, into the text at
critical points of Gaudium et Spes as a reinforcement to the word ‘history’….
I am pleased to quote Paul VI, then still Cardinal Montini [Chenu speaking],
who makes an excellent comment: ‘The
order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in
permanent evolution toward a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement.’
regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”:
“Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the
common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the
‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence,
directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this
development’ (GS 26).”16
Now take the last part –
the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already
chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good
in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’
of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the
course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’
To identify the Holy Spirit with evolution is pagan (all the
pagan gods evolved), it is monist (which holds that there is no creator God
only a universe that takes the place of God), it is Gnostic – one of biggest
heresies of Gnosticism was that man evolved to where he could create God and
then it is man that is in charge of God and controls Him – this is Theurgy –
the most despicable form of black magic that there is.
Now we understand fully the damned Apostate Karol Wojtyla
aka PJII or [Anti]Pope John Paul II when he declared that all of the false gods
of the Assisi
abomination in 2002 were part of the blowing of the Holy Spirit. That is
blaspheming the Holy Spirit for which there is no forgiveness – not ever – Our
Lord Jesus Christ said so. Amen.Amen.
He said, His statement transcribed is : “That
is what the scripture says, the Spirit is a blowing. May the Holy Spirit today
blow – speak to the hearts of all of us here present as the wind symbolizes.
Lets listen all of us to the words of the Spirit.” After that go back and see
the entire 2 hours and 23 minutes before he says that. If you believe that what
is shown has anything to do with the Christian faith or true Catholic religion
or the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian nor a Catholic. It is sheer
Satanic Apostasy. See: FOR THE TAPE ON ASSISI SEE: go to http://rhondasnando.blogspot.com/2013/02/assisi-abomination-of-desolation.html then go to part 6 at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxe9wx_vts-01-6_news at 19:18-19:54 of 28:25 of part 6 and at 2:23:00-2:23:36 of 2:31:48 of the whole tape which is where John Paul II the Apostate blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
the Spirit” Wojtyla said refering to all the blaspheming of the pagans.
Wojtyla is damned.
All of this is termed Charismatic and Pentecostal in V2
language, but it is DAMNED Apostasy. Never forgiven. If, unwittingly, anyone
got near this, simply run don’t walk to get away from it and stay away from it.
That applies to all of V2.
Chapter VII, Is There
A Doctrine Underlying The Ambiguity
pp. 130 - 136
130 In the Murky
Waters of Vatican II
2. Subjacent to
Ambiguity, the Doctrine of Universal Evolution
§ 10 A first
impression comes to the mind of an analyst who wants to determine the doctrinal
background underlying the systematic ambiguity of the Council: he notices that
the Catholic Church, hitherto immutable in its doctrine and fixed in its
structures, is presented as a ‘Church in transition.’
Theologian Hans Kung writes: “Just as John XXIII became a transition
pope. . . and Council Vatican II was a transition council, so also is the
Catholic Church today a transition Church: it is in transition from a past
still not completely elapsed to a future that is just beginning to appear.”11
§ 11 Given his
often radical stands, it would not be surprising if it were only Hans Kung who
made such a statement. Nevertheless, authors as important as Fr. Chenu,
inspirer of the conciliar Fathers’ Message to the World in the beginning of the
Council,’12 also admit, like Kung, the same principle of transition applied to
the Church and her doctrine. They even go further as they further define this
transitional phase and link it to evolutionist principles.
From several standpoints, Fr.
Chenu celebrates the introduction of
the idea and the word evolution into conciliar texts.[my
comment - note the next statement, that it had never been allowed – the reason
is that it is HERETICAL]
from the standpoint of the formulation of the Faith: “Relative used to be a
dangerous word. . . up until the Council. ‘Official’
theology deemed the formulas expressing the faith to be immutable realities and
would not even allow the word evolution, which the Council introduces, into its
Continuing from the point of view of dogmatic formulation,
Fr. Chenu says: “That she [the Church] may be at the same time one and varied;
that she may be one and multiform. For humanity itself is in a multiform
evolution. . . . The dogmatic forms, which used to be considered absolute, are
relative; relative to time, places, circumstances, evolution. The same
realities have different fonnulas.”14
11. H. Kung, Veracidade,
12. Jean Puyo
interroge le Père Congar, p. 128; R. Laurentin, Bilan de la premiere session, pp. 123f.; H. Fesquet, op. cit., p.
13. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, p. 47.
14. Marie-Dominique Chenu, Interview with the Author, Paris, February 20,
Is There a Doctrine
underlying the Ambiguity? 131
from the standpoint of the aim toward which the Church should tend: “The very word evolution, obstinately under
suspicion until then, was introduced three or four times, in spite of the negative
reactions, into the text at critical points of Gaudium et Spes as a
reinforcement to the word ‘history’…. I am pleased to quote Paul VI, then
still Cardinal Montini, who makes an excellent comment: ‘The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is
an order in permanent evolution toward a better form; it is an equilibrium in
regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes],
on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed
the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God,
who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face
of the earth, assists at this development’
Fr. Chenu then begins to develop
the inner core of the conciliar doctrine by contending that it evolves
according to the “signs of the times” that are revealed in history: “If one
should qualify the Council by a main trait, I would propose to call it
‘prophetic’ in the full force and technical meaning of the word both in
theological language and in the sociological vocabulary. A prophet is one who
knows how to discern in current events that which places them in the continuity
and ruptures of a history on the move. The prophet does not analyze structures
and notions in their static condition, but in their dynamism. Thus, according
to the famous formula, the future is already present.
…The aggiornamento of
which John XXIII spoke is not an updating after which one again returns to the
road with definitive formulas; it is a continuous application of one’s
intelligence to understand the ‘signs of the times’ that emerge from the new
values as Gospel in a world on the move. . . . Evidently, the constitution
Gaudium et Spes is where this prophetism is more palpable.
…And it inspires many other declarations or decrees. This is
15. Jacques Duquesne
interroge le Père Chenu, pp. 185f.
16. M. D. Chenu, “Les signes des temps—Reflexions
théologiques,” in V.A., L’Eglise dans le
monde de ce temps—Constitution pastorale “Gaudium et spes,” eds. Y.
Congar—M. Peuchmaurd (Paris: Cerf, 1967), vol. II, p. 212.
132 In the Murky
Waters of Vatican II
gauging well the word and [applying it] in this sense, one can say
that Vatican II is obsolete.
“To the extent that its basic element is prophetic, it requires its own
obsolescence. If it is projected—in the proper sense— toward the future, the texts take on a new density inasmuch as the
future is present. Needless to say, it
is difficult to define fidelity to the first inspiration, but it [fidelity] is
the profound law. So if I limit myself to a commentary, a discourse, I will be
actually unfaithful. This is why it
is normal for those responsible at all levels in their day-to-day decisions not
always to be in agreement, as though there were a set of norms to be applied or
a dogmatic formula to be taught. One must undoubtedly lament deviations and
ramblings, but they do not compromise the principal character of the Council’s
If one were to admit Fr. Chenu’s
explanation and draw only the major consequences from it, one sees that it
would legitimize the abandonment of the dogmatic formulas of the past.
Attachment to them would be “infidelity”; the lack of oneness in Church
teaching would be considered normal, and a corollary would be to deny
authority—especially that of the Pope—the competence to teach always the same
Historicity applied to the dogmas
of Faith and to authority in the Church makes them relative to such an extent
that one could ask whether the concept of historicity differs from Luther’s
principle of free interpretation. Since free interpretation relativizes the
teaching of Catholic exegetic tradition and historicity extends relativism to
the field of exegesis in dogmatics and ecclesiastical authority, one would say
that historicity differs from free interpretation only in that it surpasses the
latter in its developments, even though both begin from the same principles.
§ 15 In his
explanation of the new, historic and evolutionary view of the universe, Fr.
Chenu provides elements of an anthropology according to which man should be
considered as essentially linked to the evolutionary process. These doctrines,
he claims, are the foundations of Vatican II. Fr. Chenu says: “It is not by
chance that the Christian is becoming more attentive to the peculiar character
of the economy of salvation at a moment when man is becoming vitally aware of
17. Jacques Duquesne
interroge le Père Chenu, pp. l9lf.
Is There a Doctrine
underlying the Ambiguity? 133
historicity of his own nature. This is a normal convergence
if it is true that faith, incarnate in the human subject, adjusts itself to
man’s structures and evolutions. We observe this, moreover, in the Council. To the extent that the Council elaborated
its Christological vision of a universe in movement, it experienced the need,
a need albeit inadequately satisfied, for
an anthropology. Now, in this
‘Christian’ anthropology, as it is being set forth more or less explicitly in
theological statements, three attributes, three co-essential attributes of man
are emerging: First, that man is by nature social; second, that he is so linked to the universe that
the very matter of the cosmos is engaged in his destiny; and third, that man exists in history. Let us
understand this threefold value. . .
written into man’s nature and in some way, too, issuing from it, as distinct
from abstract analysis or anything resembling either a timeless idea or an
immutable definition. Thus it is that even in its vocabulary, the Council
speaks rather of the human condition than of human nature as such, by contrast
I. Without setting aside an essentialist philosophy, one can readily have recourse to existential analyses.”18
One sees that Fr. Chenu only
broaches on some central ideas of the so-called Christian anthropology, its
evolutionary character, its warm reception by the Council and its relations
with existentialism. But such ideas appear sufficient to confirm the impression
that an evolutionary doctrine is subjacent to, and latent in, conciliar
This Item limits itself to
verifying the emergence of evolutionary doctrine as one of the principal
characteristics of Vatican II. An analysis of this doctrine will be made
Fr. Yves Congar, who worked on ten
of the 16 schemata of Vatican
11, 20* also rejoices over the introduction of the concepts of evo
18. M. D. Chenu, “The History of Salvation and the
Historicity of Man in the Renewal of Theology,” in V.A., Theology of Renewal, vol. I, pp.
19. Vol. III, Animus
Injuriandi-Il, Chap. VI; Vol. VI, Inveniet
Fidem?, Chap. IV. 2; Vol. VII, Destructio
Dei, Chap. II; Vol. IX, Creatio, Chaps. II, III; Vol. X, Peccatum—Redemptio, Chap. V.
20.* Alain Woodrow, “A Rome: Trente theologiens du monde
entier pour accomplir le Concile,” in Informations
5/15/1969, p. 9.
134 In the Murky
Waters of Vatican II
lution and historicity in the Council, historicity that he
links with the idea of eschatology.
“One of the great novelties of Vatican II, as far as documents of the
‘magisterium’ are concerned, was the introduction of the eschatological point
of view 21 and, therefore, also of
historicity. That was lacking, and this grave lack had to do with the
predominance of the juridical aspect. Vatican
II sees the Spirit of God present in the evolution of the human community,
directing the course of time and renewing the face of the earth (GS 26).”22
§ 18 Consistent
with his admiration for the harbingers of the nouvelle théoiogie,23 Cardinal
Wojtyla in his book, Alle fonti del
Rinnovamento, comments on the Constitution Gaudium et Spes. He endorses the
same principles defended by Congar and Chenu, taking evolution as a doctrinal
substratum of conciliar ecciesiology: “The
Church, with the consciousness of the history of salvation that is her
In a book-interview, Congar himself
confirms: “I was pretty much involved with the preparation of most of the great
conciliar texts: Lumen Gentium, above
all chapter II; Gaudium et Spes; Dei
Verbum, the texts on Revelation; Ecumenism; Religious Liberty; the
Declaration on relations with non-Christians; the Missions. I also worked very
much with the Commission of the clergy that elaborated the text Presbyterorum Ordinis” (Jean Puyo interroge
le Père Congar, p. 149).
21. About the progressivist notion of eschatology, see Vol.
III, Animus Injuriandi—JI, Chap. V.2.
22. Y. Congar, Le
Concile de Vatican II, p. 170.
23. According to Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, a friend of Msgr.
Wojtyla, in a study circle held at the PolishCollege
during the Council, he declared:
“Prominent theologians like Henri de Lubac, J. Daniélou, Y.
Congar, Hans Kung, R. Lombardi, K. Rahner and others, played an extraordinary
role in these preparatory works [of the Council]” (Mon ami Karol Wojtyla, Paris: Centurion, 1980, p. 189).
Rocco Buttiglione is no less
explicit in this regard: “By stating that the work of Creation is included in
that of Redemption and stressing the close connection between them, Wojtyla
takes a stand in favor of the nouvelle
théologie against positions that distinguish a pure order of nature, in
which man fulfills himself as a purely natural being, from an order of grace .
. . This was the position of ‘Roman theology’ and was labeled as ‘rightist.’. .
. From this standpoint, Wojtyla is certainly an innovator and aligns himself
with the progressivist wing of the
Council” (Il pensiero di Karol Wojtvla,
Is There a Doctrine
underlying the Ambiguity? 135
own, goes out to meet
that multiform evolution and the consciousness of today’s man, which is linked
to it. . . . The paschal mystery of Jesus Christ is as open to eschatology
(in fact, it awakens ‘the desire for the future world’) as it is to the evolution of the world, which the Council understands
above all as a commitment to make the life of humanity and of men ‘more
humane.’ Vatican II stressed the ethical
meaning of evolution. .. . According to the doctrine of Vatican II, the Church
participates in the evolution of the world not only because the ideal of an
ever more humane world is in accordance with the Gospel, but also because the
history of salvation, in which the ultimate reality is prepared, necessarily
passes by the realization of this world. Furthermore, this reality, almost
embryonically and in a mysterious way, is already present in the world through
the Church. So it is worthwhile,
above all, to pay attention to the way
in which the Church, according to the doctrine of the Council, participates in
evolution and progress toward an ever more humane world and, therefore, the way
that she, in her conscience, continuously overtakes this evolution by orienting
herself to the ultimate reality that will also be the ‘plenitude of the kingdom
“In many passages, but perhaps primarily in chapters III and IV of
the Constitution Gaudium et Spes (first part), Vatican II speaks to us about the active
participation of the ‘kingdom’ in the evolution of the world....
“The Church, as is evident, participates in the evolution of the world
also by means of her own evolution. Vatican II
expresses a mature consciousness of this truth and makes it one of the
fundamental principles of the renewal program. Here the historic consciousness
of the Church is manifested in a particularly clear fashion. One may say that
the whole conciliar conception of ‘aggiornamento’ (renovatio acomodata)
expresses, above all, this consciousness By emphasizing the participation of
the Church in the evolution of the ‘world,’ even by means of her own evolution;
and, moreover, by proclaiming its necessity, Vatican II takes a stand in regard
to the past and, simultaneously, to
“This is a particular expression of the historic consciousness of the
Church, for the habitual category of history is only the past; the history of
salvation, on the contrary, continuously
136 In the Murky
Waters of Vatican II
reports to a
dimension at the same time eschatological, essential, and dynamic, and has, in
itself, a unique reason to face the future. It is only in the totality of these
dimensions that the Church preserves a full consciousness of her own identity;
in it she also finds the basis of the whole program of renewal and
aggiornamento. Only on this fundamental condition can the Church participate in
the evolution of the world through her own ‘evolution.’ One may say that this
is the most profound substratum of the ‘historic consciousness’ of the Church.”24
* * *
§ 19 Several
characteristics appear in the texts cited in this Item 2 that point to the
evolutionist conception as the foundation of conciliar doctrine.
In brief, this concept of evolution
is supposed to influence the teaching of Vatican II by:
• Justifying the relativization of dogmatic formulations.
• Making the Church tend toward an order continuously in
• Reflecting the actual “spirit of God.”
• Making the Church and Catholic doctrine adapt continuously
to the “signs of the times.”
• Providing the basis for the Christological vision of a
universe in movement and the “Christian” anthropology explained by Vatican II.
• Being present in the very essence of human nature.
• Being the foundation of conciliar eschatology.
• Being the prism for understanding the new ecclesiology
born out of the Council.
It is hard not to see, therefore,
that the doctrinal substratum of conciliar ambiguity appears to be a new vision
of the universe, of man, of the Church and of God Himself. We will opportunely
analyze them in this Collection. Here we will limit ourselves to noting that
there is a subjacent doctrine supporting ambiguity in the conciliar documents,
and that this doctrine is evolution.
24. Karol Wojtyla, Allefonti
del rinnovamento—Studio sull’ attuazione del Concilio Vaticano
Secondo (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981), pp. 151-157.