Maike Hickson, whose work is consistently outstanding, has provided an English translation of Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s recent interview with the German outlet Passauer Neue Presse (PNP).
In the July 5th interview, which according to PNP, was occasioned by the death of Cardinal Joachim Meisner, Müller revealed that he had spoken with Meisner the very night before he died.
According to Müller, they spoke about his removal as Prefect of the CDF:
“That moved him personally and wounded him – and he considered it to be a form of damage for the Church.”
Müller then went on to bemoan the way in which he was treated by Francis, who apparently waited until the very last minute to inform the Prefect that his tenure was not to be renewed.
“This style [sic] I cannot accept,” Müller said, “the Church’s social teaching [in dealing with Vatican employees like himself] should be applied.”
The first thing that came to my mind upon reading all of this may surprise you:
The homo-infiltration of the Vatican
Think about…
A German media outlet reached out to Cardinal Müller for commentary following the death of his brother cardinal and fellow countryman, Joachim Meisner, and what did they get?
A lesson in narcissism.
Though I don’t read German, I took a look at the original interview and couldn’t find any indication that Müller took the occasion to honor the memory of Cardinal Meisner; to extol his virtues, and to implore prayers on the deceased man’s behalf – you know, the sorts of things normal people typically do in such situations.
Surely, this is what the PNP reporter expected when he made the call; instead, the interview ended up being all about poor Gerhard.
Classic narcissism.
In an interview that I conducted some years ago with Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a world-renowned psychiatrist who specializes in treating men with “same sex attraction,” he said:
“Narcissism … is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality.”
I don’t know exactly what Gerhard is struggling with, but he obviously finds it difficult to think of anyone other than himself.
Seriously, folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
Cardinal Müller, who refused to answer the dubia that was addressed directly to him, said that one of the authors of said dubia – a man who just died – was upset about the “damage for the Church” his dismissal represents.
How about the damage being done to the Church by Amoris Laetitia and the absence of a response to the dubia?
It’s all about poor Gerhard…
That’s one self-absorbed, narcissistic son-of-a-gun!
Dominating the news in recent days is the “cocaine fueled gay sex orgy” that took place in the palace of the Sant’Uffizio in Vatican City; a residence typically reserved for high-ranking prelates.
More and more it is becoming apparent that the place is overrun with homo-deviants; like cockroaches in an abandoned candy store.
If this be so, that necessarily means that a climate of fear and secrecy pervades the Vatican; likewise, the potential for blackmail must hang thick in the air – a threat of which limp-wristed men in powerful positions must ever remain mindful.
Could it be that Gerhard had highly personal reasons for treading so lightly on Amoris Laetitia and the dubia during his tenure as Prefect?
I don’t know, but I do wonder about him and other prelates who are practically mute about the damage that is being done to the Church by Bergoglio & Company.
At this, I am reminded of Benedict the Abdicator’s interview style book that was published last year.
When asked about a “gay lobby in the Vatican,” he said:
“A group had been pointed out to me, in fact, which we have since dismantled. That was even revealed in the report of the tripartite commission that was able to link a group of individuals, a small one, maybe four or five people, which we dismantled. Whether something forms again, I do not know. It would not be teeming with such things anyway.”
The report of the tripartite commission…
Where, pray tell, is it? What’s more, why is no one in the Vatican even talking about it?
One would think that in light of the recent gay orgy scandal at least some members of the Curia would feel compelled to mention it.
Unless, of course, one has a secret to keep, or if doing so would invite severe repercussions.
In any case, the gay lobby according to Benedict was a group of four or five people?
His claim that a black cassock was unavailable for him to wear prior to his departure (or semi-departure) from the papacy is more believable than this!
Note well that in the space of just two sentences, the Abdicator found it necessary to insist twice that the gay lobby was “dismantled.”
He took care of it? Really?
Whether something forms again, I do not know…
Sharp as a tack, Benedict is adding a disclaimer that has every appearance of a preemptive defense in light of any gay scandals that may arise in the future.
One wonders, did he have good reason to expect as much?
Maybe, after all, he’s the one who brought Francesco Coccopalmerio to Rome and appointed him President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts – the man whose personal secretary (how personal one shudders to imagine) just so happens to be none other than Monsignor Luigi Capozzi – the Vatican’s gay party master.
The Abdicator concluded his remarks on the gay lobby with one last attempt to convince readers that the homo-deviants are but a fraction of the total Vatican population, essentially saying, even if there is a gay scandal, the place “would not be teeming with such things anyway.”
Make of this what you will, but that’s just a little bit too much protesting for my liking.
In conclusion…
Amid all that we don’t know, one thing is certain – the Vatican sure as Hell isn’t teeming with Catholics. God help us! Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for us!
If you found this post highly offensive, by all means do not support our efforts. Otherwise…
As one who spent three years in the major seminary, I can tell everyone from my experience, that the Catholic Church is absolutely infested with active homosexual seminarians, priests, and bishops of all ranks. This filth and cabal of miscreants makes me want to puke. It is because of men like this that forced me from my the seminary years ago. I simply do not know how- short of Divine intervention- these prelates and clerics will get uprooted and tossed. Disgusting- not to mention all of their victims- teens, as well as young men.
I am afraid your somber and sober reflection about narcissism among clergy needs to be expanded to deal with the fact that this malaise is not due to merely post-Conciliar events and that institutes centered upon pre-Conciliar liturgical rubrics do not at all inoculate the Church from such.
In accord with Romans 1:32, those who commit acts of the sodomite perversion should be executed.
Sodomy is everywhere – all denominations & none, world governments, UN, EU, secular media, medical & educational institutions, etc. It came about, as all sin did, at the Fall of our First Parents. The priesthood is a great attraction for narcissist/homosexual men – they like rituals, get to dress up, have access to untold number of males (both homosexual & straight), have lavish lifestyles all paid for by their parishioners, little or no accountability (Bishop usually either involved or an enabler). If, God forbid, women priests/deaconettes were permitted then we’d have to add lesbians to the ‘ordained’ as have the Lutherans, Anglicans & so on. Straight women wouldn’t be applying. There has to be some excuse for ++ Müller’s reticence in signing the Dubia. Maybe this is the answer.
I should have added that, from my experience over many, many decades, arguably it is overall a fact that only the S.S.P.X. has diligently continually attempted to purge from its ranks anyone suspected of being a narcissist aspiring to be a fastidious liturgical aesthete, and especially anyone suspected of having homo-gendered inclinations.
On the other hand, I cannot say that this diligence and vigilance have prevailed to the same degree within institutes founded and legitimated precisely to counter the S.S.P.X..
And please know that I am not at all idealizing the S.S.P.X., for its own members do not seem to indulge in such presumption and posturing either.
We are seeing things that defy any reasonable explanation, and anecdotally we are hearing again and again that the Vatican is indeed teeming with sodomites. There is no longer room for doubt but that this is true. Once you have gay sex/drug orgies in the Vatican, I think it’s safe to say this is the case. And instead of coming clean, laicizing the miscreant who was “caught”, he is sent to a day spa, basically, for spiritual help. Give me a break.
It is as Ana has said, the priesthood is a dodge for all the things homosexuals want. Personally, we had a priest who was charged with misappropriating funds. His priest assistant had a “ministry” to the local population with AIDS. I approached him once, asking to speak to a priest. His eyes were dead, the man couldn’t have cared less, if I spoke to someone, if I didn’t, it was all the same to him. This man also drove around in a zippy convertible wearing his civvies. My son was a teenager in that church, I thank God he was spared sexual advances. Other boys and young men will not be so lucky, and in today’s pro-LGBT climate, kids are going to be taken advantage of by these monsters. A lifetime of confusion for them.
These men are a plague on the Church and us. They’ve been enabled and promoted to the top. We suffer for it, because they are also the men who seem to hate tradition and actual Catholicism.
Ann Barnhardt is right on this, nothing short of divine intervention is going to rout them. Good God, what form will that take.
Where did things really begin to unravel? I say it was with Pius XII’s private letter to the Italian midwives that says for the first time in written word from a Pope that one can plan to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid procreation and in order to benifit from all of the other effects of the conjugal act. If anyone on this website still espouses that NFP is licit for grave reasons than I say that you also are a culprit to the sodomy crisis.
Is the Vatican teeming with homo-deviants? I’m sure this is meant as a rhetorical question. The communist plot is working to perfection. First infiltrate, then move up the company ladder, promote more of your own and soon you own the joint! It’s taken decades, but mission accomplished. The Church has become a non-entity, a laughing stock, a magnate for active homosexuals. The Church is dying on the cross. However, these evil minded men won’t be able to destroy our beloved Church. Before they can stab her in the heart, God will intervene. Only He knows the hour and the day, but it coming closer every day. God help these evil men.
The way to get deviant priests out of your parishes is with a baseball bat. If Catholic men had any spine, no kids would have gotten molested.
Michael F Poulin
The question to be asking is are these despicable, demonically deranged men even priests in the first place? And if they aren’t, who is?
The post-conciliar pseudo church is a sanctuary, safe haven, and playground for homosexual men not because they infiltrated, but because they were invited. The saddest part in all of this is that no matter how much this deviant behavior is exposed, no matter how many victims it consumes, it just doesn’t seem to matter. It’s business as usual. What will it take for the (real) Catholic world to wake up and take action. Why would +Fellay consider even for a moment being “regularized” by this sick institution which has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s Church? It makes no sense.
Like VCR said above (and as Bella Dodd said way back in the 50’s), the communists started infiltrating the Church with homosexual seminarians (almost a century ago now) for the purpose of destroying it from within. Sadly, they have done a tremendous job thus far.
“In conclusion…Amid all that we don’t know, one thing is certain – the Vatican sure as Hell isn’t teeming with Catholics.”
That says it all. There’s not a better summation of the ongoing cause of the problems within the Church. Nothing left to add…except….”Stick a fork in it. It’s done!”
“the Vatican sure AS Hell”? or “the Vatican sure IS Hell”?
J.M.J
I wonder what sort of blackmail or duress poor Pope Benedict XVI is under? Not necessarily homo stuff, but something he so greatly fears as to have let Christ’s Bride be overrun by sexual deviants and other evil men. Yet, if he feared God more than anything, we would not be in this mess that we find ourselves in, a mess that Annie Barnhardt, in her July 6 post says, according to her sources in Rome, is humanly impossible to clean up but requires a supernatural intervention with a Sodom and Gomorrah type of event albeit on a more massive scale.
Let’s get on our knees before Our Lord in tabernacle or monstrance – with Rosary in our hands!! Often!!
Domina Nostra de Fatima, ora pro nobis!
P.S. And let each of us at least fear offending God more than anything!!
I’ve always considered that the threat may be against someone he holds dear, such as his brother or other family members. It’s not so easy to put someone else’s life in jeopardy.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Rome, for me, has become a great mystery. What is happening in Rome? It is surely Rome that constitutes the most serious problem. To say such a thing is neither calumny nor detraction, for if the crisis in the Church has spread to every country in the world, it is only sensible to seek a common cause at its Seat. There is something distinctly abnormal and sinister about Rome today, the workings of grace are being obstructed in Rome, there are men in Rome who are under the ascendancy of Satan. How else could the Church be strangled, as it were, and troubled to such an extent? Though we may not readily understand the problem, one can feel it, sense the atmosphere of today’s Rome. I am still frequently in Rome, and I have occasion to chat from time to time to priests of the different sacred congregations, the men who carry out the day-to-day affairs of the Curia. These men confide to me in private that Rome has become stifling, that a veritable terror reigns in the bureaus and the corridors of the Vatican, with always somebody listening, spying, ready to report, to criticize. Even the cardinals are not immune to the terror, to the veritable diabolical influence, which permeates every facet of Vatican life.
What has caused such a deterioration? Who are these sinister people? Are they hidden personalities, or are they clerics in important positions? Nobody seems to know, but what is absolutely certain is that this spirit permeates not only the Seat of the Catholic Church, but every one of us no matter how far we are from Rome.
The present state of Rome is just one more reason why we must not hesitate or fear to regroup.”
Archbishop Lefebvre quotes:
“(…)If we pray to Our Lady, she who cannot abandon her Son, she who cannot abandon the Church that her Son founded, the mystical Spouse of her Son, we will be answered. It will be difficult and a miracle, but we will succeed.”
“So we must absolutely maintain our Faith and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary. We desire to undertake a giant task, and without the help of the good Lord we will never be able to accomplish it. I am certainly aware of my weakness and of my isolation. What can I do by myself compared to the Pope or the Cardinals? I do not know. I go as a pilgrim, with my pilgrim’s staff. I am going to say “keep the Faith.” Keep the Faith. Be rather a martyr then abandon your Faith. You must keep the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”
“I sincerely wish that all could be witnesses of Our Lord, of the Catholic Church of the Faith, and of Catholicism, even if we have to be despised and insulted in the newspapers, in the parishes and in the churches. What does it matter? We are witnesses of the Catholic Church. We are the true sons of the Catholic Church and true sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
AlphonsusJr’s commented, “In accord with Romans 1:32, those who commit acts of sodomite perversion should be executed”: (Please attempt to read this. It’s in outline form and easier to get through than it looks at first glance. Thanks!)
In May, Michael Matt posted an article about the Nova Volgata and he added: “REMNANT COMMENT: Of course, scripture tampering has been going on for a long time in the post-conciliar Church, revising Scripture being sort of the classic plaything of Modernists everywhere. Nevertheless, I’d encourage scripture scholars to examine the latest versions of the Catholic Bible being quietly posted over at Vatican.va:
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3214:the-nova-volgata-has-the-vatican-officially-ditched-st-jerome-s-vulgate
http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html
Please help! It would be interesting to know if the Nova Vulgata states, “those who commit acts of sodomite perversion should be executed.” Would someone reading this please compare the translations for Romans 1:32, below, and post whether the Nova Vulgata version is accurate? (My Latin isn’t good enough.)
Romans 1:32, Douay-Rheims: “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”;
Romans 1:32, Latin Vulgate: “Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non intellexerunt quoniam qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte: et non solum qui ea faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus.”; Ref: “Holy Bible, Biblia Sacra.”
Romans 1:32, Nova Vulgata: “32 Qui cum iudicium Dei cognovissent, quoniam qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte, non solum ea faciunt, sed et consentiunt facientibus.”
In Romans 1:29, the word “fornication” was omitted from the Nova Vulgata.
Romans 1:29, Douay-Rheims: “Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers.”;
Romans 1:29, Latin Vulgate: “repletos omni iniquitate, malitia, fornicatione, avaritia, nequitia, plenos invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo, malignitate, susurrones.”
Romans 1:29, Nova Vulgata:”29 repletos omni iniquitate, malitia, avaritia, nequitia, plenos invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo, malignitate, susurrones,”.
In Romans 1:31, the words “without fidelity” were omitted from the Nova Vulgata.
Romans 1:31, Douay-Rheims: “Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.”;
Romans 1:31, Latin Vulgate: “insipientes, incompositos, sine affectione, absque foedere, sine misericordia.”)
Romans 1:31, Nova Vulgata: “31 insipientes, incompositos, sine affectione, sine misericordia.
In John 3:15, the phrase “may not perish” is omitted from the Nova Vulgata.
John 3:15, Douay-Rheims: “”That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.”
John 3:15, Latin Vulgate: Ut omnis qui credit in ipsum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.
John 3:15, Nova Vulgata: “15 ut omnis, qui credit, in ipso habeat vitam aeternam.”
Back to the title of Louie’s excellent article, but revised a little: Is it Modernists/homo-deviants that are revising the scripture in the Nova Vulgata?
Maike Hickson’s reporting may be “consistently outstanding” but, based on the articles I’ve read of hers anyway, she seems to have become fixated like most trads on blaming Pope Francis for everything thats been wrong with the Church the last 50 years, which really doesn’t even make sense when you think about it. Where as neokats like to pretend the Catholic Church didn’t exist before VII (other than some once in a while lip service in an effort to deny that charge against them ), neotrads have a similar problem in pretending that heretical blasphemous Popes destroying the Church didn’t exist before Pope Francis, except for some scattered lip service here and there but usually more about how VII and PF are destroying the Church. After 27 years of Pope John Paul II what has happened, imo, is they have become indifferent and basically immune to sins against the First Commandment. Really the one “dubia” that needs to be answered is one written to the Cardinals asking why they haven’t spoken out in defense of the SSPX , the good name of Arch. LeFebvre and the scandalous sins committed against the First Commandment the last forty years by our last three Popes but especially by PJPII who Arch. LeFebvre couldn’t get an answer from either about his disregard for the First Commandment. But, you know, nothing to see here anymore about breaking the First Commandment, time to move on to the sixth and ninth. One other thing proves my earlier point , the photo in this article of PBXVI with that bishop would NEVER be posted in a Maike Hickson article because it’s wouldn’t help the neotrad politically correct acceptable narrative “All Popes were great before Pope Francis The Worst Pope who ever destroyed the Church” mentality. And the two typical ridiculous comments above by Ademar and Dennis about the “poor” Pope Benedict XVI is why the “fixation” on blaming Pope Francis by the mainstream “trad” news is confusing people on where the roots of the problem are and what really needs to be fixed. Sum it up, they’ve become obssessed with the very tipsy, tipsy top of the iceberg. Great job Pope Francis!
The same sort of duress we all are under every minute of every day. From Satan.
I would say it was with Pope Pius IX http://www.cmri.org/03-nfp.html
Bas, you asked, “Would someone reading this please compare the translations for Romans 1:32, below, and post whether the Nova Vulgata version is accurate?”
The Nova Vulgata (NV) translation of this verse is accurate as a translation of any Greek version known today (I’ve checked everything from the 1550 Textus Receptus to the SBL Greek New Testament of 2010). It doesn’t reflect all the details of the original Vulgate text, though. But given the other verses you list, I think what you want to know is whether the NV tries to airbrush or censor the clear sense of St Paul’s words in this particular verse (Romans 1:32), and the answer to that is: no, it doesn’t.
Here’s the NV as you quoted it:
“Qui cum iudicium Dei cognovissent, quoniam qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte, non solum ea faciunt, sed et consentiunt facientibus.”
I’ll adapt the Douay-Rheims slightly to reflect this version:
“Who, having known the judgement of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death, and not only (they) that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
The only change that affects the meaning is the removal of Jerome’s “non intellexerunt” (they did not understand). I don’t know whether Jerome found this phrase in a Greek version that disappeared during the following centuries, or whether it is his interpolation (or even the interpolation of an early copyist). At any rate, all the editors of the NV did here was to reflect the text of extant Greek versions rather than Jerome. Whether that is legitimate for something that includes “Vulgate” in its name is another matter, but St Paul’s sense is certainly not softened by the change.
Here are the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims again for comparison:
Vulgate: “Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non intellexerunt quoniam qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte: et non solum qui ea faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus.”
Douay-Rheims: “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
I believe majority of priests here in Phila. anyway, are hard working, dedicated parish priests, trying their best in a bad situation, maybe we are just lucky here. All I know is if you need to go to daily Mass , go to confession, etc. it’s amazing but you can always find one (really plenty) around ready to assist. Although there will always be bad apples everywhere to me the hierarchy (bishops, cardinals, popes) have been the main problem.
Hey Louie! The K and the L are next to each other on the keyboard, so watch out for typos. You can delete this post if you want when it has served its purpose.
A lot has to do with the Nouveau Theologie made mandatory at the Council. This namby pamby, don’t judge–medicine of mercy approach appealed more to effeminate men rather than straight men. It by its nature attracted homosexual seminarians intothe Novus Ordo. The gayness of the new rite’s externals also helped.
Thanks Papal Subject!
Hilarious! I fixed the typo. 🙂
A good reason why Wuerl could be the next “Pope”–(Please God, no!)
https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2017/07/08/cardinal-wuerl-vatican-ii-unleashed-pope-francis/
You are absolutely correct. This crisis was a long time in the making—Non saint JPII made massive contributions himself as did Benedict the Abdicator.
John ‘the Modernist’ XXIII is chiefly to blame by setting the entire thing in motion with his Aggiornamemto, ecumenism, ‘medicine of mercy’ nonsense, tip of the hat to communism, and last but not least, his reprobate-like distain and disobedience to Our Lady of Fatima.
Paul VI and JPII did the next largest amount of damage of the conciliar Popes by first carrying out a revolution and then legitimizing that revolution from 1963-2005. JPII was the high priest of the New Religion for 30 years and even made the written statement in 1984 that the Roman Traditionalists were attached to “their tradition” not his. He punished anyone who did not go along with the revolution and rewarded anyone who did, no matter how much of an apostate they were. JPII ultimately made no real concessions to persecuted Roman Catholics, every indult was subjectively applicable by his hand-picked, basket of deplorables Bishops.
Furthermore JPII is our first truly apostate Pope who commits outrageous scandals of communicatio in sacris by being the first Pope to worship in a synagogue, a mosque!, and to convene the purely ‘New Age’ Assissi events.
I have to ask myself, “is it right for me to participate in communion with any ‘church’ that is rife with heretics and sodomites?” The historical thinking of the Church on the subject is reflected in the following by St John Damascene:
” In reference to the Eucharist] participation is spoken of, because through the Eucharist we participate in the divinity of Jesus. Communion is spoken of, and it is real communion, because through the Eucharist we have communion with Christ and share in His flesh and His divinity. We do indeed have such communion thereby, that we are united with each other. For since we partake of one Bread we all become one body of Christ and one blood, and members of each other, since we become of one body with Christ. With all our strength therefore, let us guard against receiving communion from heretics and from giving communion to them. “Do not give that which is holy to the dogs” the Lord says, “nor cast your pearls before swine.” Lest we come to share in their dishonor and condemnation. For if this union is truly with Christ and with each other, certainly we are voluntarily united also with all who partake along with us. ”
St John Damascene
The Source of Knowledge 2371a
This tells me that if the Vatican II cult is rife heretics, and if I believe their ordinations and consecrations are valid, then I should refrain from receiving communion of any kind from them, lest I be united with them.
Michael F Poulin
I received communion from the hands of many sodomites in the Novus Ordo and I know I was not blessed but damaged by that fact.
Semper Fidelis, that’s not uncommon for us in those days, before we rejected their false religion. To my regret I did not hand in one caught in the act, however the lines of promotion seem to favour those who delved into such practices. They went to Monsignors and onwards, while the devout souls, laboured on. Then we find the screening process where seminarians are asked what they think of sodomy etc during their entry interviews. Those that answered in the traditional way were declined. This was mentioned by another correspondent above. The original plan is very obvious now, everything and everyone counter church and therefore “counterfeit”
Sacraments first, prayers, collects and now the Commandments. How long before more exposures of the “chambering” as reported, lead to the inevitable collapse of the charade? Three days until the next 100th anniversary of Fatima. Ora pro nobis.
A priest used to visit an anchorite and offer the Holy Mysteries for him. Somebody came to the anchorite and said to him slanderously that the priest was a sinner. When he came as usual to offer the Eucharist, the anchorite took offense and would not open [the door] to him. The priest went, and just then there came a voice from God that said to the anchorite, “People have usurped my judgment.” Falling into a trance, he saw a golden well with a golden bucket and a golden cord; the water was very good. Then he saw a leper drawing water and transferring it. The anchorite wanted to drink, but he was not drinking because he who drew [the water] was a leper. Then there came a voice to him again: “Why are you not drinking of the water? What does it matter who is the one that draws it? All he does is draw it and transfer it.” When the anchorite came back to his senses, he realized the meaning of the vision. He called for the priest and had him make the offering of the Holy Mysteries for him as before.
Sayings of the Desert Fathers
When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member.
St Augustine
Sermons
Jurgens -The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 3 p31 #1523
Knowing the anchorites you can bet the sin referred to in the allegory was not sodomy.
Jonathan Walker, Thank you for answering my question about the accuracy of Nova Vulgata (NV) translation of Romans 1:32. In Romans 1:32, you proved conclusively that the translation is accurate in the NV. Thank you! I don’t care about each specific example, but I’m using them to just to come to a conclusion about the danger of the NV.
Since you also compared Greek translations, I found a website, http://www.scripture4all.org which translates the New Testament from Greek to English. [The Greek Text is from Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894, not the same version you used.)
Previously, I listed three possible discrepancies, in addition to Romans 1:32. These are my findings after looking at the Greek translations:
John 3:15: The concept “…shall not perish…,” which I thought had been omitted, appeared in John 3:16 instead of 3:15 in the NV. It is accurate.
Romans 1:29: The concept of “fornication” was omitted in the NV, but was included in the Greek-to-English translation and Vulgate translation (fornicatione). This omission appears to be intentional.
Romans 1:31: The concept, “without fidelity” was omitted in the NV, but included in the Greek-to-English translation as “covanantbreakers,” and in the Vulgate translation (absque foedere). This omission appears to be intentional.
Assuming there is no hanky-panky going on, at this time of diabolical disorientation seemingly everywhere, why would the Vatican go to the trouble to re-write, verse by verse, the entire bible, and delete the Vulgate, replacing it with Nova Vulgata? I wonder if there is any hardcopy available or whether it is only in electronic version, easy to edit.
2cents, the worst possible next “pope” would be a modernist pretending to be traditional. Better to have an effeminite like Wuerl who truly represents the conciliar anti-church than someone like Burke who will hide the rot.
Semper Fi, many of us were fooled for too long by the NO. It certainly is much harder to live a traditional Catholic life and explaining it to family and friends. I find that my family and friends that have long walked away from Novus Ordoism are the ones most interested in Traditionalism. They often remark about how much better the old days were. Whereas those still in the NO anti church are suspicious of anything traditional.
Tom A-That’s an excellent point. However, the absolute narcissism in the V2 pseudo-church prevents them from hiding what they are because they are proud of what they are. They are confident that the average pewsitter is so brainwashed, they have become like robots programmed to accept everything and anything. The V2 “church” is what it is. From my previous comments, you may know that I am more upset with the SSPX leadership who apparently feel they need acceptance from this garbage.
I agree and I can’t help but be of the mind that the mid 1800s was the beginning of a setting up for the twisting of the doctrines pertaining to the hierarchy of purposes of conjugal relations and the beginning on the “confusing the layfaithful” on these hierarchy of purposes for conjugal intercourse.
If one reads closely the dialogue that was taking place during the 1850s on whether one would be sinning when they have conjugal relations during known infertile periods, this was a dialogue that can easily confuse and disorient the layfaithful people. This dialogue, that was posed by who knows who, was very careful not to come right out and asked if it were OK to plan to exclusively have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children because back than most people had a basic knowledge from natural law and Church teaching that one could never separate the conjugal act from procreation in act word or deed without sinning and that conjugal inter course’s primary purpose was procreation as ordained by God Himself. The sacrifice of abstaining was the understood and only option for the path to purity and Godliness and this proposed trickery of NFP would have been sniffed out and called out immediately as contrary to what they knew and were taught by the Church. The revolutionaries knew they had to proceed ever so slowly.
When one reads closely the text of most of these discussions back then, that were written not for the public at large, one should be able to see that this dialogue was dancing around their clear wicked desire and goal to teach that one could separate sex from procreation, which they knew full well was not what the Church or natural teaches. They would begin by confusing the layfaithful by pointing out that the Church says one is not sinning if they choose to have relations during known times of infertility and rightly so, BUT as the reply says AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO DELIBERATELY IMPEED PROCREATION IN THOUGHT WORD OR DEED. In other words if your husband happens to be gone on your days of fertility and the perceived infertile times are the only times available to renew the mission and call of procreation you are not trying to impede if you do welcome all children that could possibly come from this act. Fertile or not fertile is not the issue here. It is purity of thought, word, and deed and these manipulators were ever so patient in their endeavors to confuse and cover up this fact.
The false god of science with their one size fits all so called “absolutely known fertile and infertile periods” was the manipulative mantra that we and they were all of a sudden supposed to swallow. You see now that this false god of science is telling everyone that man has complete knowledge of when ovulation occurs and thus when fertility is at its highest and therefor we must now ask the following question, “Does that mean I can only have relations during these new scientifically revealed periods of fertility or else I am sinning? Because after all the Church teaches that the primary purpose of conjugal relations is procreation.”
They really were playing the many good layfaithful for fools. Sadly only those with a pure heart, and my guess there were plenty of people of not of a pure heart who were more than willing to embrace this revolution of dialogue on changing the primary purpose of marriage.
I think it is safe to say that humanity has always suffered with the struggle Of purity. I can only guess that most of the people who struggled with purity saw this revolution as their ticket out of it. I bet most were more than willing to follow this set up for changing the doctrine on the primary purpose of procreation back then. As we can see how far we have fallen with sexual purity the devil knew this was the pearl he needed to destroy and boy did he know just how weak men and women were in this regard.
Read closely the reply though. One is not obligated to have relations only during perceived times of fertility. The point and goal is to always be pure of heart with conjugal relations and the only option is to abstain completely in times of serious need.This dumbed down question and the trickery that these revolutionaries use to play us as fools and pull in the weak is the snake that has led us to this aggressive sodomitical world we now live in.
Good Friday afternoon Semper Fidelis,
Using your jargon, “a Non-saint JPII…”, it can only remain patently clear with metaphysical certitude, that a “Non-saint JPII”, simply cannot find its wellspring in the One True Church, which infallibly proclaims just who the souls are in Heaven, as moved by Almighty God in His transcendent realm of Reality to do so, in the Church’s acknowledgement of that which God alone brings into being as “Saint”, of Holy Mother Church. The proclamation of “Saint” cannot both be infallible and not be infallible at the same time and under the same respect, as if it could, this would place an affront to the Thomistic law of non-contradiction, which would place Holy Mother Church in opposition to Herself. You see, we have any innumerable quantity of circumstances which have occurred and are occurring, that allow for our knowing, with metaphysical certitude, that the so called “conciliar church” is not the Church established by the Son of God made Man. This “conciliar church”, as the church of the Antichrist, as Jesus the Christ commanded, “You are either with Me or you are against Me.”, was established by the first of the conciliar popes, who in claiming the papacy as his own, Roncalli allowed for the ontological reality to be made manifest in time and space, that this church which he created ideologically in his time, simply could not be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church–One God, One Church, One Faith, One Religion, and One Magisterium flowing from One Papacy, resting in the Chair of Saint Peter, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, who has no peer here.
What has now been made manifest, Semper Fidelis, is the greatest deception that has ever been invoked upon mankind and this deception has allowed for the “Great Apostasy” to make itself existentially manifest as well. This “Great Apostasy”, as St. Paul inerrantly spoke of it in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, 3-11, would precede the manifestation of the “son of perdition”, as the person of the Antichrist, which would occur after the authentic Vicar of Christ Jesus, “…is removed from the enemy’s path.”. Those in apostasy, all those who yet remain in the “conciliar church”, as the church of the Antichrist, have received that which St. Paul called, “the deceiving influence”. By virtue of their rejection of His grace, by not loving His Truth as Truth Himself to the point of the shedding of their blood, this “deceiving influence” has entered into their minds, such that they receive the lie as the Truth. This results at once, in believing that this “conciliar church” somehow, in any matter of serpentine ways, leading only as it can into the convolution, involution, and evolution of Truth, that this creature beast thing from hell itself, is the Church of Jesus the Christ. I pray this helps. In caritas.