The Antitheotokos

See this link for the Traditional and proper view of Papal primacy

Pius XI in Mortalium Animus

http://pius-xi-in-mortalium-animus-agai.blogspot.com/

Pope St. Pius X and many Popes and Patriarchs have relied on the teaching authority of tradition untainted with modernist heresies for how they teach. In contrast the totally false base of papal ratification/infallibility is a modernist invention promulgated at Vatican II. A form of Papal Ex Cathedra pronouncement of WHAT THE CHURCH HAD ALWAYS TAUGHT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE APOSTLES AND JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF as an infallible pronouncement was proposed at Vatican I. However, because of the enemy of Christ at that time, namely Bismarck of Germany, the council was recessed and never reopened because of the threat of Bismarck's armies. As should be noted here, Bismarck was a proponent of the higher criticism and a sponsor of that atheism in modernist pseudo-sheep's clothing, which declared that Jesus Christ really never existed, at least not the way that the Church professed Him to be the Incarnate Son of God. Bismarck’s views came from the evolutionary Pantheism-Monism in vogue among Apostates at that time. A council that is recessed but not formally closed, as is the case with Vatican I, is not canonically declared nor any doctrines proposed there nor any pronouncements of such a council. The version of infallible pronouncement considered by Vatican I would have been the same as many general (referred to today as ecumenical) councils of the Church have declared in the past. What Pope Pius IX, because of his former liberalism which he then quite rightly rejected and rebounded very hard from and then was also threatened by Bismarck, pushed for was too much in terms of Papal infallibility and caused the schism between East and West to widen even further. The doctrine Pius IX proposed a few years earlier, namely the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rested on the acceptance of the new Papal infallibility. Without the formal closing of the Council and then the promulgation of doctrines thereby none of these doctrines were ever declared. The council was never formally closed and therefore none of the doctrines proposed then have ever been declared. Also, the council of Trent (1570 A.D.) stated unequivocally that no doctrine may be declared by anyone (this includes Popes, Patriarchs etc.) ever, then, now and in the future that does not have the support of the full consensus of the Church Fathers. No one may declare any doctine that is otherwise. This is doctrine and tradition and can not be compromised and is to be held by all the faithful until and at the time of Jesus Christ's return from heaven in the flesh He ascended into heaven with.

Papal ratification/infallibilty is totally different. It states that a pope by virtue of being the pope can declare whatever he wants and God will ratify it at the pope's command. This is blasphemy and total apostate heresy for it is nothing other than the ancient pagan theurgy whereby pharaohs and kings and Caesars etc. of pagan nations declared themselves living gods served by the pagan gods and as absolute tyrannical dictators over the people. The Roman Caesars who lived this way were totally rejected by the early Church. Christians were martyred rather than offer incense to Caesar. This included several Popes of early Rome who were martyred for this reason. The early Church, including these Popes, also totally rejected and anathematized anyone, especially the Gnostics who did say this, who suggested that any Bishop, including the Pope of Rome, had the authority to cause God to accept any doctrine they would tell God He must accept.

No ukase by any Caesar including and especially the current pretenders to the papacy can change this doctrine of the faith: 'that to be a Christian one will and must and shall at all times reject all other gods and worship and serve the True God alone - The Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.' The first major transgression of this in Rome, in the recent centuries, was by a Pope who started out as an orthodox proponent of the Faith. When Pius XII (who wrote faithfully and brilliantly to defend the faith on many occasions) forced the acceptance of the assumption of Mary body and soul, based on the never declared doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, into heaven at the end of her earthly life (which would have been in the first century A.D.), he forced absolute heresy on the Church. The Masonic provoked apparitions of Mary were all banned until, unlawfully, Antipope Paul VI lifted the ban in 1969. The apparitions were the main force behind the push to approve the heretical doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. The apparition at Fatima of the Sun being turned around was prophesied by St. Hippolytus (martyred 236 A.D.) as Diabolic and of the Antichrist. When those two false doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary were combined, at Vatican II and after, with the arch heretic and Communist Sergei Bulgakov’s heresies concerning Mary being a fourth hypostasis of God then this false Mary was transformed into the Antitheotokos which is the consort of the Antichrist, who will come to oppose the Church. The faithful of the Church must not and will not accept any of this. Christ alone is the Immaculate Conception by the Holy Spirit and the blessed virgin Mary and Christ alone is the first born from the dead in the flesh. Any early resurrection of Mary would make her a goddess which God will never do and she is not nor would she ever agree with or want such an abomination in her name. In Divine response to Pius XII’s immense and unacceptable blunder in eight years he was dead and the conclave in that year, 1958, saw the election of the first of several Antipopes, John XXIII, which ushered in the Great Apostasy of Vatican II; Cardinal Siri was rightfully elected at the 1958 conclave and was Pope Gregory XVII, but reigned in exile in silence due to the death threat against his family by the partisans of Antipope John XXIII and those Antipopes after John XXIII. Now that Siri has died in 1988, truly the throne is vacant. The Antipopes were and are John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

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).

ALL OF THE CHURCH FATHERS TAUGHT LITERAL CREATION. FROM ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN OF THE CHURCH FATHERS, ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, IN HIS "THE CITY OF GOD" (written from 412 A.D. to 426A.D.):

BOOK XVIII.

CHAP. 40.—SINCE IT IS ONLY LESS THAN SIX THOUSAND YEARS FROM CREATION BY GOD IT IS ONLY DUE TO THE MOST MENDACIOUS VANITY OF THE EGYPTIANS, THAT THEY ASCRIBE TO THEIR SCIENCE AN ANTIQUITY OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS.

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, who say that Egyptian astronomy has a history of more than a hundred thousand years! For in what books have theycollected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For since six thousand years have not yet elapsed from the days of Adam, the first man, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? (referring to the biblical authors, not even Varro) And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is wholly false, while in regard to other things in secular books we remain indifferent. For, whether true or false, they make no important contribution to our living righteous and happy lives.