Saying, “I was wrong”

Comments (36)

1. The consecration was done they say. Well then explain to me how Russia has been converted. Our Lady gave us a prototype of how this should look soon after Portugal was consecrated in 1931. The Fatima.org ( Fatima Network) site explains the “three-fold miracle” that Portugal experienced.

   1) There was a magnificent Catholic Renaissance;

   2) There was a miracle of political and social reform;

   3) There was the twofold miracle of peace.

   http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/consecraport.asp

2. We know the consecration isn’t done because Russia is not converted and we have no such thing as peace. Anyone who claims it was done (like Cardinal Raymond the-consecration-was-done-in-1984 Burke) is calling Our Lady a liar.
   >
   I asked Bishop Mark Pivarunas how the Collegial Consecration can be done and he told me that it’s not going to happen. You see, he thinks there is no pope, and since the invalid change (?) in the episcopal consecration form in 1968 therefore the new bishops are all fake. So with no pope and no new bishops there is no way of electing a real pope so there’s no way of performing a collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But Our Lady said it’s going to happen, but it will be late. No matter. He’s so dug in, that even if a pope with the cooperation of bishops worldwide were to consecrate Russia and Russia were to convert and a period of peace worldwide followed, he would claim that it’s just a deception of the devil and not to be believed. At the same time he assures his faithful not to worry about protestants, the local Novus Ordo Catholics or the Muslims or Jews (or the Russians?), because they don’t need to become Catholic to get to heaven. Neither he nor his priests are engaged in any kind of evangelization of non-Catholics, they just wait for people to ask for permission to come to Mass at the chapels.
   >
   Meanwhile, they do pray the angel of Fatima prayers, including “O my God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love Thee and I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love Thee.” They repeat it 3 times. But even so, they don’t believe Our Lady’s promise in the conversion of Russia and they don’t hope for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

3. Russian reflections:

   “Every Christian should find for himself the imperative and incentive to become holy. If you live without struggle and without hope of becoming holy, then you are Christians only in name and not in essence. But without holiness, no one shall see the Lord, that is to say they will not attain eternal blessedness. It is a trustworthy saying that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). But we deceive ourselves if we think that we are saved while remaining sinners. Christ saves those sinners by giving them the means to become saints.”

   — St. Philaret of Moscow, Sermon of September 23, 1847

4. I, too, do not believe the full consecration was completed. But whenever I’ve been in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union I am amazed at the religious renaissance there. You cannot ride in a public conveyance that doesn’t have several icons prominently displayed. You see iconography in a good many commercial areas. Even Putin is (or pretends to be) more Christian than any American liberal. If he’s pretending it’s because so many of his countrymen acknowledge their christianity openly. Frankly, they’re in better shape in terms of the percentage of those who call themselves Christians than the UK. So was part of the consecration done? Are they partially converted? Is Cardinal Burke partially wrong? It seems Louie admits to being wrong because he was more right than he thought he was.

5. Yes, I have noticed this as well. They are becoming more Russian Orthodox which in practical terms leads them away from Catholicism and the Immaculate Heart and hardens them all the more from true conversion.

6. Thank-you. Your report/comment is interesting, and should help people keep many of the posts in the various threads in context.

7. It will take a Catholic Pope with Catholic Bishops to consecrate Russia. This is simply an impossibility for modernist popes and bishops to accomplish. Our Lady asked that a Catholic Pope make the consecration. Why do you comtinue to look towards non catholic modernists to accomplish this task?

8. Our Lady said: “the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart.”

   I don’t see the word “catholic” in there.

9. I don’t see the word “catholic” either. I do see the word “Holy”. Does that word apply to Modernist “popes”?

10. But St Lucy said that without the consecration that poor nation will not convert, obviously it is the intention of Almighy God to bring them back into his Church. Or this is how I read it as. The orthodox faith isn’t that far different from the Roman Catholic Church, what they follow is from the early church , with a few heretical beliefs from the truth such as Our Lady was not immaculately conceived, they allow divorce n remarry three times , and use leaven bread for the Blessed Sacrament , and reject the authority of the pope. These are errors of heresy which the Russian people need to abolish with Gods truth n grace, until then they are outside of the church and With Our Lady’s words combined with what we learn from Sr Lucy they will remain to be so until the consecration is done. But it is us who now need it more than they do. There is so much more involved here than just Russia’s conversion, as Our Lady clearly stated: wars, martyrdom n persecution and most important the apostasy etc…we need this consecration just as much as Russia does. No one is safe. Recall what Pope Benedict once stated “the danger to the life of the Christian and to the world.” We need this just as much as Russia does. Only difference is Russia is the chosen vessel of God with the cooperation of the pope n bishops and us to bring this about. This is such a great honour I cannot see how Russia would not want such a honour from heaven to work a great miracle in the world by the hand of God. But either way she is chosen and will work a miracle either bring about peace n conversion, or destruction. I prefer the former. Sadly after Russia fell to communism she became the vessel of the antichrist, in order for her to restore back into the yolk of Gods grace and restore the world back to Christianity, she needs to be consecrated. This is one of the many requirements, but today all our nations are becoming the vessels of the antichrist, and still the requirement is the same, the instructions from heaven have not changed since 1917.

11. The modernist “bishops” couldnt consecrate a ham sandwich seeing how they are doubtful bishops to begin with given the new rites of ordinations. Why is this the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. You guys ramble on and on assuming these heretics are actually Catholic prelates simply because these heretics say they are Catholic prelates. Meanwhile they do and say the most un-Catholic things over and over and the only fools who still believe they are actually Catholic are so called trad Catholics. Even the NO sect admit and acknowledge that the faith changed and was modernized. They reject the pre V2 faith and are all on board with V2 novus ordoism. Yet you “resisters” keep insisting that these heretics modernists are Catholics. There can be no restoration of the Catholic Church as long as the bulk of trad Catholics still think Rome is Catholic. And for this I blame the SSPX and all the trad blogs that keep the faithful laity imprisoned in this mindset that we have to somehow be united with heretics.

12. “..on the contrary, it is a mockery of both him (Fr. Gruner) and Our Lady.” – wow what an honorable place for Fr. Gruner to be mentioned -alongside the Most Humble of all God’s creations. May he be close to Her for eternity.

    With regards to Cardinal Burke, I’m just wondering how someone could be so right with regards to the details of the Dubia yet so off about the consecration being done etc. Something just doesn’t add up here. Way off. He is so visible these days. So many admire his efforts with the Dubia, therefore, they naturally trust his opinion regarding Fatima. Both of these issues have simple, obvious answers with only one truth. Neither one requires too much common sense nor theological aptitude. Not rocket science here. Simple, very simple math. -yet he is so off on one.

    PLUS still no talky talky about that old nasty elephant- fake Lucy. This is all so ridiculous. Everyone running in circles, while we can’t see the hand in front of our faces, or should I say elephant?

    All this totters on see through at least to me. I am so sick of these games. Let’s keep pretending that fake Lucy is real. Yes, let’s keep busy jumping through hoops. That makes sense.

    Face it. We all know the only thing to do is wait for Our Lady and live her message. In the end Russia will be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. That day will come. That is one thing we do know for sure.

    By the way, does anyone know of anyone else besides Louie who is speaking so openly and honestly about this issue with Cardinal Burke. Is there anyone else out there saying this stuff?

    Our Lord will send us a holy prelate who will be with The Church during its complete restoration. Our Lady of Good Success promised this. Her words indicate that The Church is in need of restoration. I see that. The Church is in need of restoration, big league, and that time of restoration will come. We await the hour of Her arrival!

13. Dear San Antone, what’s your real beef about the good bishop? I wasn’t privy to your conversation but I was conditionally confirmed by him and had a chance to speak with him after the Mass. I don’t believe he’s as cut and dried as you portray him, and it certainly leaves out any idea of supernatural intervention to restore the church, which I’m fairly certain he believes is possible. It is also not true that he tells “his faithful” not to worry about these religious groups. And it’s simply not true that “his priests” are not engaged in “any kind of evangelization.” I’ve been attending a CRMI chapel for about a year now and have found it quite the opposite of what you say. I’ve also never heard or seen anything about asking permission to come to Mass. When I went for the first time, I received communion like everyone else, with no questions asked. The priest assumes that those at the altar rail are there in good faith and in good conscience. So, I wonder what is really driving your remarks. I believe you have besmirched a faithful band of underground Catholics.

14. Keep in mind the Orthodox do have Apostolic Succession and they do and have believed as did the Early Church Fathers that Our Holy Mother is the Ever Pure Virgin Mother of God. The Dogma of the immaculate Conception is moot for them because of Original sin which they do not see in the Scriptures. They do not believe we are marked on our souls by the “Fall” as Catholics do. They do however, believe we all now have a fallen nature and that Jesus Christ suffered ,died was buried and arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, having broken down the Gates of Hell and opened the Gates of Heaven to all Christians. The icon that depicts this is the one that shows the doors of hell broken upon His Resurrection.
    Why don’t they believe as we do? It all originated from political tensions and wealth. They looked upon the Pope ( and still do ) as the First among many . They resented the Roman Imperialism at the time and tensions flared for decades until the Fourth Crusade which sealed the deal not to mention Roman Legate Humbert marching in and demanding the Patriarch of Constantinople read and sign documents from Rome pledging his obedience to the Pope. The Patriarch at the time was saying the Divine Liturgy ( Mass) and refused to stop.
    ( sound familiar anyone?)
    So Legate Humbert marched out throwing down the papers of excommunication in the street. Attempts were made in subsequent Papacies to reunite Christendom but the people would never forget the Sacking of their city( and relics including the Shroud ) and murder of their nuns priests and civilians .
    now before you begin shaking your fists at me , may i suggest reading The Templars and the Shroud by Vatican Secret Library Archivist and Paleographer, Barbara Frale .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frale
    https://www.amazon.com/Templars-Shroud-Christ-Barbara-Frale/dp/1905379730
    Get timelines straight before wagging one”s finger that they use leavened bread for their Holy Eucharist or about the Filioque Prayer.
    An honest study of this deplorable break in the Church Christ founded
    on earth is warranted by both sides.

15. I myself am not resisting anyone and I reject that label. I am simply being catholic to the best of my ability. No bishop, priest or pope has ever commanded me to do something against the Catholic Faith.

16. Lots of optimism for the Consecration to be Done in this post.. Now if Pope Pius Xii the last “real Pope” did the Consecration in 1954, as some say he did, then even if it was late, the rewards are difficult to count. Conversion from Communism to what? Capitalism. Not really. To Her Son then, well religious freedom has been relaxed in terms of an ability to pray the Mass. once the evil Paul V1 stopped betraying his priests on Mission behind the Iron Curtain into certain death But there has been no wholesale conversions in the sense that one might expect given what Sr. Lucia recorded on that score and the Miracle witnessed by thousands.. As for the period of “Peace” well there are more Wars now than at any other historical footprint accross the Globe.
    What is of deeper concern is the loss of faith. Modernists simply refuse to believe in Christ Jesus, His Divinity; His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our Lady’s conditions have not been met by the faithful [praying the daily Rosary – one example] and now the hierarchy are making certain the destruction of what remnant remains, is complete. If St Malachi is on track that this incumbent in the Chair is a “pope” in name Only, then thats it as far as Popes go. No other Pope has been predicted save for Peter the Roman. St Padre Pio – ora pro nobis.

17. Tom A–My biggest complaint against the SSPX is that by seeking “regularization”, they are validating the legitimacy of the V2 “church”.
    Why would they do that when they have always spoken out against the errors of V2—{not so much anymore}? What is the SSPX goal? To be approved by a fake church? Where is the credibility? I’m stunned.

18. A sign from God?
    http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/11/pope-francis-suffers-black-eye-after-popemobile-stops-suddenly-6917587/

19. John314, does Bergolio have the same faith as you do? Do you believe the same dogmas and doctrines that he does? Based on all you have seen, heard, and read, can you honestly say the two of you share the same Catholic faith?

20. Dear John314,

    Is the Pope and are the Bishops first, as they can only be, Catholic, before they are, or even can be ordained and then consecrated? And as this is so, how can you then somehow suggest that our Blessed Lady, the Mother of God and our Mother, would somehow intone that the “Pope” and his “Bishops” are not Catholic? That is an absolute absurdity and it is blasphemous to suggest that the Mother of God would identify the Holy Roman Pontiff and his Bishops as being members of a false religion, as you suggest in your question. I pray this helps. In caritas.

21. Dear John314,

    You had this to say: “No bishop, priest or pope has ever commanded me to do something against the Catholic Faith.” This statement of yours is in profound error, unless you are suggesting that the Second Vatican Council is not a Council of the Catholic Church, which is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as founded by the Son of God as God, for the sole purpose of our salvation. If you are suggesting that the Second Vatican Council is not a Council of the Catholic Church, then it must follow that the “popes” who promulgated it and those “popes” and “bishops” also that not only accept it but also promote its teaching, as that is all that a Council does is to edify the Faith and to teach that same Faith, are indeed not popes and bishops of the Holy Catholic Church.

    All one has to do is to look to “Lumen Gentium”, the so called, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, of the so called, “Second Vatican Council”, to see where indeed the “popes” since 1958, in union with their “bishops”, are indeed teaching and as thus BINDING you to error. As the true Holy Roman Pontiff and true Bishops simply cannot teach and as thus bind the faithful to error, they simply cannot be true. They ARE indeed, to use your vernacular,” [commanding] commanded me to do something against the Catholic Faith.” You can’t have it both ways, John314, as “being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect” (the law of non-contradiction). Either it is a valid Council and as such it binds the faithful to its teaching or it is not a valid Council and thus the faithful can reject its teaching as not of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It simply CANNOT be both ways, as Almighty God says so. Now look to Lumen Gentium 16, to see the profound error this “DOGMATIC” Constitution on the Church teaches, as it teaches in frank and utter opposition to the deFide teaching of the Church, that there is no salvation outside of Her.

    L.G.–16 which states:
    “Finally those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways. There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9: 4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29) (sic). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and TOGETHER WITH US THEY ADORE THE ONE, MERCIFUL GOD, mankind’s judge on the last day…” (emphasis mine)
    Here, as noted by the emphasis in the above quote from L.G. 16, “that church” as the “conciliar church”, which proclaims to be the Church, simply CANNOT BE the Church of Christ Jesus, as the “Moslems” do not “together with us…” “adore the one, merciful God…”, as if they did, the “Moslem god” would be the Triune Godhead as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Christ Jesus commanded that, he who denies Me denies the One Who sent Me. Thus, with divine certitude, we know that the “Moslem god” is not the God of Abraham, nor can the “Moslems” then, be “together with us” in adoring the same God as God. Lastly, as L.G. 16 also proclaims, “But the PLAN OF SALVATION ALSO INCLUDES… the Moslems…”, L.G. 16 there also places an implacable affront to the deFide teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, as extra ecclesium nulla salus. It must be clearly understood that there is no application here of “invincible ignorance” for the “Moslems”, rather the diabolical council proclaims that the “plan of salvation” includes the “Moslems as Moslems”, which places an affront to the Faith as this in opposition to the Faith. Otherwise stated, the diabolical council proclaims that the “Moslems” can be saved as “Moslems”, therefore not requiring conversion to the Faith. In order for “invincible ignorance” to apply, the person must be receiving the “divine Light and grace”. A person cannot both be a “Moslem as Moslem” and at the same time be receiving divine Light and grace, as the person receiving divine Light and grace would, as he only could in the reception of divine Light and grace, reject all that Islam teaches in the internal forum. The diabolical council teaches objectively (no internal forum required) that the “Moslem as Moslem” is contained within God’s plan of salvation.

    Now, consider just what Vatican I says about Papal primacy in “Pastor Aeternus”, as it is a dogmatic and as thus deFide teaching of Holy Mother Church, requiring our full free will assent, under the pain of spending an eternity in hell. Find the Catholic Encyclopedia link here, which gives a detailed discussion on this topic of Papal Primacy.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.
    I pray this helps. In caritas.

22. Dear fast f,
    I’m not making it up. The bishop told me “That’s not going to happen.” Direct quote. If you don’t believe me, ask him yourself. Regarding non-Catholics, try to recall the last time you heard any CMRI priest utter the words, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” a dogma of the Faith defined ex-cathedra several times. I have yet to hear them say that, and I’m not sure why but there are clues. So if you don’t believe that being Catholic is essential for eternal salvation, then it should be of no surprise that you don’t think that helping Protestants or Jews to convert is a good idea. There is a lot of good +Pivarunas does and his priests are diligent in their keeping the sacraments intact, so you can go to their Masses and get valid Communion etc. — just be ready for some conspicuously sedevacantist rhetoric every now and then in their sermons. Maybe you enjoy hearing that?
    It might be a little curious that they had more to say against JPII than they do against Francis, but if they were to keep up the level of ridicule today they had going 10 years ago, there wouldn’t be much else to talk about.

23. Dear kellyann,
    “We need this just as much as Russia does. Only difference is Russia is the chosen vessel of God with the cooperation of the pope n bishops and us to bring this about. This is such a great honour I cannot see how Russia would not want such a honour from heaven to work a great miracle in the world by the hand of God.”
    Reports said Vladimir Putin sent a representative to Francis asking him to do the Consecration of Russia — they would consider this a great honor. Francis replied, We have nothing to do with Fatima. One of his officials said “We will crush Fatima.”
    So as for Francis being the pope who does this consecration, it’s not looking that way at this time. Could he change? Of course he could change, but by human expectations it looks impossible.
    It appears Chris Ferrara has gone off on a tangent hoping that the Burke method of “repeating the Consecration” might bear fruit, while Fr. Paul Kramer is taking a very different tack, that Francis isn’t qualified and his shenanigans are making it clear who the real liberals are to the effect that Benedict XVI (not having resigned the [i]munus[/i] is still able to do it. All he needs is a few bishops to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him when he does it.
    We ought to be keeping up with these developments so we can be informed as new ones emerge.

24. Correction: Benedict XVI (not having resigned the munus) is still able to do it.

25. I consider that, once the consecration is done, and Russia is converted to the One True Faith, these signs of religiosity will be the seeds of their acceptance of the Catholic faith and the means by which Russia, instead of being a chosen instrument of chastisement, will be a chosen instrument of the re-evangelisation of the whole world to the Holy Catholic faith – the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

26. I am not “bound” to the novel teachings of Vatican II. The Pope is infallible only under certain conditions. The same may be said for a council.

    “The Pope is not personally infallible; rather, it is his teaching that is infallible when it meets certain criteria. Similarly, Ecumenical Councils are not in and of themselves infallible; rather, it is their teaching that is infallible when it meets certain criteria. Although there is no formal definition telling us when a Council is teaching infallibly, we can apply the criteria of papal infallibility, with slight modification, to the infallibility exercised by a Council.

    1. the body of bishops gathered with the Pope as their head
    2. speak ex cathedra (by their office as shepherds and teachers of the Church)
    3. they define
    4. that a doctrine concerning faith or morals
    5. must be held by the whole Church

    Not every teaching of every Council is infallible.

    You yourself say that I am bound to the teachings of Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, and so then are you, Tom A., et al. If you do not abide by these teachings you fall under the anathema of the Council:

    First Vatican Council: “If anyone, God forbid, should presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.”

    Excerpts from:
    https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/when-is-a-teaching-of-the-church-infallible/

27. Dear John314,

    Understand the diabolical conundrum which you freely choose to place yourself into. You, as every human person alive, whether they deny the reality as Reality or not, are bound to the teachings of each and every Council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, established by our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, for the sole purpose of our very salvation, and outside of which there is no salvation to be found, as deFide. The only purpose of a true Council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is to define dogma and morality, then to teach it, such that we may know and understand the errors of this world, whose Prince is Lucifer, and then defend ourselves against them to yield our salvation. The Councils of Holy Mother Church, which are the 20 which preceded the diabolical council of Vatican II, all defined and taught Dogma and Morality and therefore bound the faithful in that teaching, until the end of time.

    The defining and teaching of dogma and morality is the singular purview of the Holy Roman Pontiff, in union with his Bishops, in Council, period. There are no other arbiters of the Truth in this wretched world but there is layer after layer after layer of diabolical deception placed as an intricate spider web leading souls into an eternity of hell. Lucifer is bound, as he has no other capacity, to place one truth in direct opposition to another. In order to accomplish this, he must first pervert one truth and then “sell it” as though it is true. He has accomplished this writ large within the Body of the Church, as it is composed of the baptized Catholics in this world. One of his finest accomplishments is to use the charism of Papal infallibility, after first distorting it, causing it to be understood as only occurring in its “active” sense as an “ex-Cathedra” pronouncement of the Holy Father. In reality as Reality, the charism of Papal infallibility is in effect used the overwhelming majority of the time, in its “passive” sense. As the “active” sense protects the Holy Father from erring in an “ex-Cathedra” proclamation, like defining and teaching the “Immaculate Conception”, the “passive” sense of the charism of Papal infallibility protects the Holy Father from teaching (as in Encyclicals, Constitutions, etc.) contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church, as Her Holy Tradition, the “Deposit of Faith”. The Church, as She defines and then teaches in Her Holy Tradition, is protected from error by the Holy Ghost, with His gift of the charism of “Ecclesiastical” infallibility. Within the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility rests the “Deposit of Faith”. The Holy Roman Pontiff is protected from error as he teaches, just as the Church is protected from error as She teaches over the centuries, holding the “Deposit of Faith”. If either any particular Holy Roman Pontiff was to err in his teaching on Faith and Morals OR the Church was to err in Her defining and teaching on Faith and Morals over the centuries, as the Deposit of Faith, then Christ Jesus Himself erred in His command in Matthew 16:18, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect.

    You see John314, what Lucifer has accomplished with his “Vatican Council II” (VCII), as it is a product of Lucifer and not of Christ’s Church, and this to be understood as res ipsa loquitur from its “fruits” which are rotten as they are dead, is to effect a deception the likes of which the human person could not have even imagined was possible, that such a “thing” could have occurred. This “thing” is the actual creation of a mirror image of Christ’s Church, which the language of the diabolical VCII was the blueprint for. This mirror image of Christ’s Church is the church of the Antichrist, all dressed up Catholic on the outside, as at once it controls the entire temporal edifice, while on the inside it is patently and utterly devoid of all things Christ Jesus, including its invalid sacraments. This church of the Antichrist, all dressed up Catholic but with invalid sacraments, is “reality as deception” and not “reality as Reality”, which is Christ’s true Catholic Church, which will prevail until the end of time; now in eclipse since 1958. This “conciliar church” of the Antichrist is the “abomination of desolation”. The abomination is of course the summa and summit of Lucifer’s deception in creating his church, all dressed up Catholic on the outside, while the desolation is the reality as Reality, that nothing inside could possibly be of Christ, including and of course the “sacraments”, which cannot be the “Sacraments” which Christ Himself instituted, in His language, as their form. In order for a “sacrament” to be in reality a “Sacrament”, it requires proper matter, proper form, and proper intent, such that the Sacrament is confected in Reality by Christ. The imposter pope Paul VI, Giovanni Batista Montini, literally as actually changed the “form” of the “Sacraments”, that same “form” established by the Son of God Himself, rendering them ipso-facto invalid, such that in truth they became “sacraments”, in that moment of Paul VI changing them, of the church of the Antichrist. Christ Jesus commanded that he who is not with Me is against Me and further that he who is not with Me doth not gathereth, rather he doth scattereth, the flock. It would seem that we are indeed living the final confrontation. Hold fast to the Faith, One and True. That same faith which cannot have a Pope, any Pope or Bishops which embrace and teach heresy, as Vatican II is. As heresy, it is the council of the diabolical, not of Christ Jesus and this is simply common sense, once understood commonly, as properly understood. I pray this helps. In caritas.

28. I would be interested to get a response to this essay…

    Cardinal Henry Newman On:
    The True Notion of Papal Infallibility

    http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/newman.html

29. Dear John314,

    Wonderful work has been done on the profound errors of John Henry Newman. A brilliant Thomist, by the name of James Larson, has written a short, readily readable, 3 part series on this very topic of Newman’s distortion of the deFide teaching of Papal infallibility, at “Tradition In Action”. Find the hyperlink here:
    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f056_Newman_1.htm
    You will also discover that Joseph Ratzinger espoused the errors of Newman, as if they were, “twin sons of a different mother.” Ratzinger is an heretic in the image of Newman, one might say. I pray this helps. In caritas.

30. No it doesn’t help…your position. An “ad hominem” is not a response but it is duly noted.

31. Dear John314,

    A critical, objective, and scholarly breakdown of Newman’s own language, allowing Newman then to show us precisely what he believed, is in your errant use of the jargon, an “ad hominem”, and precisely how? An ad hominem is a logical fallacy, such that the opponent in argument subjugates his own intellect, not able to address the intellective analysis proffered by the other, and as thus he turns from the intellective subject and then attacks the man himself, in his character. If that is what you believe James Larson has done with Newman, then you are in error and you are deceived, as you are in error.

    By the way, your “position” and my “position” matter not one iota of anything. What matters exclusively, as our very eternal salvation rests in the balance, is the Truth. As Saint Paul inerrantly taught in 2 Thess 2, those who do not have a love for the Truth, and therefore have no zeal for seeking just Whom He Is, as Jesus the Christ, will receive the “operation of error”, as they embrace iniquity, such that they have no recourse but to believe the lie as though it is indeed the truth. This Supernatural operation, freely willed, will take souls to an eternity in hell. Don’t take my word for it. Here is 2 Thess 2, verses 10, 11:

    “10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”

    As those with eyes that see, know just how very critical all of this deception is, it is the “operation of error” which yields the lie as believed to be the truth, and that is made perfectly clear in the inerrant Holy Writ. The only way to lose the “operation of error” is to again receive God’s grace, that gift both freely given and completely undeserved. As the Angelic Doctor taught, it is only by virtue of grace that the will can choose the good over the evil, always and everywhere, until the end of time. I pray this helps. In caritas.

32. InCaritas, there was a life site article back in May 2017 by Fr. Linus Clovis who stated that, “It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space.” Early he refers to St. Thomas, but not related to ontology. I’m wondering who you would react to this quote as it seems a to fly in the face of the law of non contradiction. Thoughts?

33. In caritas:

    You make a multitude of claims in your rambling comments. I then ask you to back them up and you can do nothing better than say that the author had “profound errors.” And referencing a piece which is just a few paragraphs of Newman quotes taken out of context is not serious. That is an ad hominem response by any measure.

    I can only conclude that your sedevacantist opinion rests on a weak foundation which relies on distorting the doctrine of infallibility.

34. Dear John314,

    The Vatican Council proclaimed and commanded precisely just what it proclaimed and commanded of all people, although it only has juridical power over the baptized who identify themselves as Catholic. If you had receptivity to Truth, you would understand what the Council said. It is not profitable in the assistance of the salvation of souls to look to the errors of another, in this case John Henry Newman. Look to the Council as it speaks as the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride in this world. If you are serious about your own salvation, seek the Thomistic work of James Larson, which you find hyperlinked at TIA, after his 3 articles. Larson himself, in spite of his wonderful, scholarly analysis using the instrument of Thomistic metaphysics, holds an internal contradiction, as he believes the “conciliar popes” are indeed popes. He does not hold the so called “Sedevacantist” position. Read his work on Ratzinger, etc. This is not a game of cat and mouse, I gotcha, nor of you win or I win, John314. What we write about in this space, as it reflects what we believe, as lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, holds in its balance the very salvation of our eternal souls or the eternal loss of them. I pray you seek the Truth. In caritas.

35. Good Friday afternoon fast ferrari,

    In certain humility, fast ferrari, it would seem that your ratification of the sensus fidelium, is made manifest in your properly ordered conscience. I believe as I write, that I read most of that article you reference at the time, not wanting to finish it as a result of the sorrow it caused. That said, the quote you offer,
    ‘ “It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space.” ‘,
    does “fly in the face” of the law of non-contradiction, as you suggest. The only context for the quote which is necessary to arrive at that conclusion, is the quote as you offer it standing by itself, which speaks as res ipsa loquitur. The conclusion must be that anyone who rests within the “conciliar church” structure, as “Father” Clovis, can only remain there in the embrace of the law of non-contradiction, as if Almighty God Himself can both “Be” as He Is and somehow “not be” as He Is not. The ontological understanding which Almighty God allowed into the intellect of the Angelic Doctor is utterly profound in its simplicity. Almighty God commanded Moses, “I Am Who Am”. In that very understanding, God simply “IS”, as He also is known as “BE”, not “to be”, but simply, “BE”, as in “Being” as Being Himself. With that understood, Almighty God CANNOT then also, as He Is “BE”, exist in Himself as “Not Be”, and there you find the essence of the law of non-contradiction. Otherwise said, as God “IS”, He cannot also be, “IS NOT”, and therefore we cannot have any “contradiction” in God, and therefore we cannot have any contradiction in Almighty God’s created “beings”, as to be found in their nature as created by God, and as properly understood ontologically. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught us, “God is a pure Act of thinking, whose object of His thinking, is His thinking”. God is pure Act with no potency, as properly understood ontologically. Saint Thomas used the Aristotelian concept of God as his theological foundation and that Aristotelian concept of God is, “In thinking, in thinking, on thinking”.

    With that as our foundation, “Father” Clovis is deceived. If God’s Church, as His Mystical Body and His spotless Bride can somehow “co-exist” within Herself, then Almighty God Himself is then “co-existence” within Himself. Our Blessed Lord and our God, the Triune Godhead, does not “co-exist”, rather He is “Existence” Himself. The ontological reality as Reality is that God simply “IS”, that which all of His Attributes are. In other words, God does not somehow “have” goodness, rather He Is “Goodness” in Himself. The only manner in which God is distinguished in Himself is in His divine Personhood, therefore in Relatio. God is not distinguished “from Himself”, rather “In Himself”, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God knows Himself in One Intellect, He is free as Freedom Himself in One Will, and He knows relationship as Relationship Himself, in His Trinitarian Reality, as Reality Himself.

    Sorrowfully, what is truly “self-evident” about “Father” Clovis, is his utter embrace of contradiction, as though it is reality as Realty, when in truth it is reality as deception. This is in the same reality as deception that Ratzinger proffered in his so called, “Summorum Pontificum”, which is as it can only be, a “motu proprio”, of what “Fr.” Clovis called the “Anti-church”, and as I refer to it as the church of the Antichrist, the “conciliar church”.

    As Saint Pope Pius V proclaimed in his Apostolic Constitution, “Quo Primum”, binding the Church until the end of time, there is only One Roman Rite of worship, which cannot be added to, nor subtracted from, one iota in its essence, until the end of time, and it is that One Roman Rite, the Gregorian, which he codified in Apostolic language, in “Quo Primum”. The diabolical perversion of this Apostolic Truth, as Saint Pope Pius V wrote this Constitution at the behest of and as thus in union with the Council of Trent, and thus it holds the charism of “Ecclesiastical” infallibility–where a Pope defines and teaches in union with his Bishops– is to suggest that “one Pope cannot bind another”, as his equal. This statement of fact is true only in juridical matters, which is the human element of governance, as Christ Jesus our Lord as our God and our King, commanded in Matthew 16:18-19:
    You are Sephas and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven. What you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.
    It is those “keys” which hold the juridical power and Christ Himself commanded the “binding” and “loosing”. That understood, as the Holy Father binds successive Popes in the definition of the “Immaculate Conception”, deFide, so he binds his Successors in “Quo Primum”, deFide, as with the charism of “Ecclesiastical” infallibility, and not so called “ex-Cathedra”, invoking active “Papal” infallibility, as in the dogma of the “Immaculate Conception”. If that “binding” was not true, then error could prevail from with Sacred Tradition, and then Christ Jesus Himself would have erred in Matthew 16:18. As “Quo Primum” speaks into the essence of the Divine, as Being Himself, and as Quo Primum speaks into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass thus, which is the highest liturgical expression of Holy Mother Church, as infinitely understood, Quo Primum does NOT speak of “juridical matters”, rather it speaks of matters “Divine”, and as thus, every succeeding Pontiff is bound, because the Divine as Truth Himself, cannot change. Although lengthy, I pray this helps. In caritas.

36. Hi SanAntone,

    I can buy it that the good bishop said that, as that is the case right now. However, some of your other statements, to be true, would require you to visit every single one of their chapels and hear every single one of their priests. Have you done that? I seriously doubt it. I know for a fact that the chapel I attend, the priest has said several times that there is no salvation outside the church, BoD and BoB notwithstanding. And he is keen on evangelism, as are the people.
    God bless.

Comments are closed.