Crux attempt to legitimize Bergoglio backfires

Louie : July 25, 2019 11:57 am : Blog Post

Ben ResignInés San Martín of Crux recently reported a claim alleging that Pope Benedict XVI “wanted Bergoglio as his Secretary of State.”

An Argentine priest [Father Fernando Miguens, the former rector of San Miguel Seminary in Argentina] who knew Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires prior to his election as Pope Francis claims that in 2005, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI offered Bergoglio the position of Secretary of State, effectively the second most important position in the Vatican after the papacy itself, but the future pontiff turned it down …

As San Martín notes, “this is the first time anyone has claimed Benedict wanted Bergoglio as his Secretary of State.”

Whether or not this claim is true is irrelevant. If it is, however, then surely Fr. Miguens would have had no reason to guard it as a well-kept secret for the past decade-and-a-half; in particular the most recent six-plus years.

So, why is Crux choosing to report it now?

As journalist Randy Engel has noted, “Crux news site [is] part of Opus Dei’s vast international outreach media machine;” the prelature having a reputation for being unabashedly pro-papacy. Inés San Martín, for her part, “earned her degree in journalism and social communications in part from Opus Dei’s flagship, the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain.”

As a review of San Martín’s page on the Crux website indicates, her specialty is “Covering the ‘Francis Effect’ in the Pope’s native land.” In other words, her job is to run defense for Jorge Bergoglio.

A perfect example of San Martín’s spin-mission can be found in her article of July 15 wherein she confronted Francis’ largely negative public approval ratings. She writes:

But scraping beneath the surface, another truth arises: None of those who so willingly gave an opinion on the pope have actually read anything he’s said, seen any of his monthly prayer videos or even follow him on Twitter.

She went on to address the so-called “Francis Effect” directly by quoting Father Jose Maria Klappenbach, an Opus Dei priest from Buenos Aires:

A common question is whether having an Argentine pope has produced a quantitative effect in reception of the Sacraments in Argentina …  Klappenbach say[s] that even though impact on Mass attendance cannot be measured yet, there has been a change in the way the Church is perceived.

“I always say that any baptized person, as a son of God, is as Catholic as I am, even if they don’t practice their faith,” Klappenbach said. “And those people today, feel they belong to the Church more than they did before. There’s no statistic to measure that, but I believe God has a way to do so.”

In other words: Who cares if anyone goes to confession, shows up for Mass, or marries in the Church? Parishes may be closing left and right and dioceses may be going broke, but hey, more people feel Catholic in spite of their unbelief thanks to Jorge!

At this, it seems rather clear that the reason Inés San Martín and Crux have chosen to publish Fr. Miguens’ claim that “Benedict XVI offered Bergoglio the position of Secretary of State” is to lend some CCC (that is, Conservative Catholic Credibility) to the latter at a time when he is coming under increasing fire; e.g., for his relentless assault on Catholic doctrine, his role in covering for homo-clerics, and his designs for the upcoming Amazonian Synod.

San Martín practically admits as much, writing:

Almost from the beginning of Francis’s papacy in 2013, the popular narrative has suggested a tension between Benedict the arch-conservative and Francis the progressive reformer. In reality, sources who know Bergoglio say the two men enjoyed a deep personal respect.

“I had heard from him [Bergoglio] that the relationship between them was unsurpassable, that it was personal,” a former aide, who today works in the private sector told Crux.

“Whenever the cardinal was in Rome, he would go to Benedict’s office almost without requesting an audience, which was confirmed to me by several Rome-based journalists.”

The two would speak on the phone regularly, even once a month at times, another source confirmed.

Though San Martín is obviously keen to demonstrate continuity between Benedict and Bergoglio in an attempt to fortify the bona fides of the latter, what she inadvertently ends up doing is exposing both men as co-conspirators in the present, and unprecedented, assault on the Catholic faith.

She went on to write:

The fact that Bergoglio was the runner-up in the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict is well-documented, as is the fact that the then-Argentine cardinal told those who were propelling his candidacy, without his encouragement, that he supported Ratzinger for pope.

Notice that, in spite of the oath of secrecy that binds the participants in a papal conclave under pain of excommunication, San Martín – like many other Catholic journalists – has no issue reporting such details as “fact.” One reason, it appears, is that Jorge himself has seen fit to spill the beans; even going so far as to allow them to be published in L’Osservatore Romano.

At this, consider very carefully what Benedict stated of his so-called resignation in the 2016 book, Last Testament: In His Own Words.

It was not a retirement made under the pressure of events or a flight made due to the incapacity to face them. [Emphasis added]

Wait just a minute! In his Declaratio of 11 February 2013, he plainly stated:

In today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the Barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. [Emphasis added]

So, which is it? Was his departure necessary “due to incapacity” relative to unnamed “events” or not?

Look, if you wish to hang your hat on Benedict’s words, by all means have at it, but please don’t embarrass yourself by suggesting that his words put the matter of his supposed resignation to rest when, in fact, the exact opposite is true!

If Benedict hasn’t raised enough red flags already, get this. After having stated in his book, “Practical governance is not my strong point and this is certainly a weakness,” Benedict went on to say of Francis:

He was an archbishop for a long time, he knows the trade. He was a superior of Jesuits and has the ability to put his hands to action in an organized way. I knew that this was not my strong point.

OK, so he knew that organized action wasn’t his strength. Fair enough, but doesn’t his manner of speaking suggest that Benedict knew for whom he was stepping aside; namely, this Jesuit who supposedly had just such an ability?

It certainly sounds that way to me. At another point, Benedict says of Bergoglio’s election:

No one expected him. I knew him, naturally, but I did not think of him. In this sense it was a big surprise. I did not think that he was in the select group of candidates.

Seriously? It is a “well-documented fact that Bergoglio was the runner-up in the 2005 conclave that elected Benedict,” and yet “no one expected him” in 2013?

Based on all that has been said, it is a matter of moral certainty that Benedict XVI did not “resign” for the reasons given in the Declaratio; this based not on conjecture or mere speculation, but on the plain and objective meaning of his very own words.

It is also a practical certainty that he stepped aside (in whatever sense he may have intended to do so, whether reluctantly or not) knowing full well that he was making room for the ascendancy of Jorge Bergoglio.

In conclusion, I will close with what I consider to be matters of absolute certainty that are readily discernible to all with eyes to see:

Jorge Bergoglio is not Catholic. He is an enemy of Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church; a man whose claim to the Chair of St. Peter, albeit dubious in the extreme, was made possible only with the cooperation of Benedict XVI.

aka INQ Ad

42 Comments »

The critical necessity of reparation

Louie : July 23, 2019 11:50 am : Blog Post

Plim Pope EarthOn July 19, the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development hosted the Laudato Si’ Conference: Young People Caring for Our Common Home.

Held at the UN Environment Program (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi, the conference was co-organized by the Unholy See along with the United Nations and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF); enemies of Christ the King each.

Addressing the gathering on behalf of Modernist Rome was Fr. Bruno Duffe, Secretary of the Dicastery, who said:

The world needs more of your prophetic witness to denounce the inter-generational injustice that is underway and demonstrate that change is possible.

Given the title under which the conference convened it should immediately be clear that Fr. Duffe is referring to what His Greenness calls environmental injustice, and the change that he is keen to encourage concerns a conversion in light of mankind’s “sins against creation.” (Ladato Si’ 8)

We come to realize that a healthy relationship with creation is one dimension of overall personal conversion, which entails the recognition of our errors, sins, faults and failures, and leads to heartfelt repentance and desire to change. The Australian bishops spoke of the importance of such conversion for achieving reconciliation with creation. (LS 218)

If nothing else, we must admire the forthrightness of these apostates; men whose false religion conceives of justice in terms of granting what they imagine to be due not to the Creator, but to mere creation. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that they have replaced the Creator with an idol of their own making; most notably man himself, of course, but in the present context, “Mother Earth.”

We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.(LS 2)

Let not the biblical citation fool you! Pay close attention to what Sacred Scripture actually says and it will be clear that the statement above is truly nothing less evil than a deliberate twisting of God’s word; an act of deception worthy of the serpent himself.

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)

As Sacred Scripture makes plain, we most certainly do not receive life from the earth and “her waters” as Bergoglio insists; rather, we receive life from the Lord God, and the breath of life comes to us not from the earth, but from Him!

It is by virtue of having replaced the Creator, however, that Bergoglio preaches a reconciliation with creation in light of our errors, sins, faults and failures (cf LS 218), which he characterizes as “paying the extremely high costs of environmental deterioration” (cf LS 36).

In Catholic parlance, this so-called reconciliation effort would be called an act of reparation, and it would be directed toward God as the first demand of true justice:

For if the first and foremost thing in Consecration to the Sacred Heart is this, that the creature’s love should be given in return for the love of the Creator, another thing follows from this at once, namely that to the same uncreated Love, if so be it has been neglected by forgetfulness or violated by offense, some sort of compensation must be rendered for the injury, and this debt is commonly called by the name of reparation …

We are holden to the duty of reparation and expiation by a certain more valid title of justice and of love, of justice indeed, in order that the offense offered to God by our sins may be expiated and that the violated order may be repaired by penance: and of love too so that we may suffer together with Christ suffering and “filled with reproaches” (Lam. iii, 30), and for all our poverty may offer Him some little solace (cf Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, “On Reparation to the Sacred Heart,” Art. 6-7)  

Without any doubt, the offenses that are heaped upon God in our day eclipse those of any other period in the Church’s history. Consider:

We have an alleged “Vicar of Christ” who has promulgated a text to the Universal Church proposing that the Divine Law is too difficult for some persons to keep and that God Himself wills adultery. This same claimant to the Chair of St. Peter has declared that man – not Christ, but man – is “King of the Universe!

Ours is the age of the clerical “gay mafia,” the age of fake canonizations designed to lend the veneer of Catholicity to the enemies of Our Lord and, worst of all, ours is the age of that mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass known as the Novus Ordo Missae.

Writing in 1928, Pope Pius XI stated:

Now, how great is the necessity of this expiation or reparation, more especially in this our age, will be manifest to every one who, as we said at the outset, will examine the world, “seated in wickedness” (1 John v, 19), with his eyes and with his mind. For from all sides the cry of the peoples who are mourning comes up to us, and their princes or rulers have indeed stood up and met together in one against the Lord and against His Church. (ibid.)

The Holy Father also, however, offered the following reassurance:

And indeed that saying of the Apostle: “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (Romans v, 20) may be used in a manner to describe this present age; for while the wickedness of men has been greatly increased, at the same time, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, a marvelous increase has been made in the number of the faithful of both sexes who with eager mind endeavor to make satisfaction for the many injuries offered to the Divine Heart, nay more they do not hesitate to offer themselves to Christ as victims.

Some nine decades ago, these words understandably offered great hope to the faithful. Today, however, we must admit that no such “marvelous increase” is to be observed; indeed, the exact opposite is true!

Sure, there appears to be a growing interest in the Traditional Roman Rite, and traditional orders seem to be the only ones that are flourishing. At the same time, one cannot deny that the injuries being heaped upon the Divine Heart – most notably by the hierarchs of Modernist Rome; men widely accepted by the masses as true “sons of Holy Mother Church” – are multiplying exponentially faster.

Pope Pius XI wrote:

And thus, even against our will, the thought rises in the mind that now those days draw near of which Our Lord prophesied: “And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold” (Matth. xxiv, 12). 

There can be little doubt that the days of widespread charity-grown-frigid are well and truly upon us. This realization should not rob us of our hope; rather, it should move us all the more to offer reparation, cognizant of the late hour in which we dwell.

We will have more to say about reparation in future posts. For now, let us make our own this excerpt taken from the Prayer of Reparation composed by the Holy Father, Pius XI:

And now, to make amends for the outrage offered to the Divine honor, we offer to Thee the same satisfaction which Thou didst once offer to Thy Father on the Cross and which Thou dost continually renew on our altars, we offer this conjoined with the expiations of the Virgin Mother and of all the Saints, and of all pious Christians, promising from our heart that so far as in us lies, with the help of Thy grace, we will make amends for our own past sins, and for the sins of others, and for the neglect of Thy boundless love, by firm faith, by a pure way of life, and by a perfect observance of the Gospel law, especially that of charity; we will also strive with all our strength to prevent injuries being offered to Thee, and gather as many as we can to become Thy followers. (ibid.)

aka INQ Ad

3 Comments »

Taking Francis At His Word

Fr. José Miguel Marqués Campo : July 15, 2019 6:16 am : Blog Post

237B4A4E-28C2-41D0-A7BB-E40328654227

At this stage of the “so-called pontificate” of Francis (to quote +Father Nicholas Gruner), there can be no reasonable doubt by now that Francis is indeed a man of his word. How so? Because Francis says exactly what he means, and means exactly what he says.

Oh yes, he may be shrewdly ambivalent or equivocal in his manner of saying, he may be cleverly ambiguous at times, he may even be astutely “confusing” to many, alas, but only to those who are unwary, or those who simply cannot see through his words, or those who are content to remain conveniently confused…

But two things are plain and certain: Francis is quite clear in his “confusing” statements; and Francis can—and indeed should be—taken at his word.

No need for the proverbial twisting into a pretzel in order to artificially force some sort of Catholic meaning to statements that are simply not Catholic, because they were simply not inspired by Catholic thought.

We are not referring to just one instance here and putting a magnifying glass in order to see more than there is. We are merely considering the same consistent pattern of un-Catholic-sounding utterances for over six years now.

Modernism is commonly referred to as the “synthesis of all heresies.” But Pope St. Pius X speaks of Modernism more as the “collector”, as it were, of all heresies. All past, present, and future heresies have a place in Modernist thought since it is their natural habitat.

In his homily during the Novus Ordo Mass of Corpus Christi in Rome (23 June 2019), Francis said that during the multiplication of the loaves and fish, Jesus did not perform a magic trick and did not, therefore, transform the five loaves into five thousand. He trusted in the Providence of God.

To quote Francis’ words from the official Vatican website:

Bread is not only something to be consumed; it is a means of sharing. Surprisingly, the account of the multiplication of the loaves does not mention the multiplication itself. On the contrary, the words that stand out are: “break”, “give” and “distribute” (cf. Lk 9:16). In effect, the emphasis is not on the multiplication but the act of sharing. This is important. Jesus does not perform a magic trick; he does not change five loaves into five thousand and then to announce: “There! Distribute them!” No. Jesus first prays, then blesses the five loaves and begins to break them, trusting in the Father. And those five loaves never run out. This is no magic trick; it is an act of trust in God and his providence.

In a Facebook discussion, someone had claimed that the Pope had spoken correctly but that his manner of saying was confusing, that it needed some sort of… clarification. Oh please.

It’s now been over six years of this tediousness… sorry, but I’m afraid not. The plain as a-nice-summer-sunny-day-in-Spain truth is that Francis spoke incorrectly, his manner of saying is not in the least confusing, and therefore no clarification is needed at all.

The kind readers of akaCatholic should keep in mind that those who err in doctrine (otherwise known as heretics before Vatican II) are usually very clever in their ways.

Typically, they employ the same Catholic words and concepts, thereby disorienting by seemingly appearing to be Catholic. But in reality, they assign different meanings to those Catholic words and concepts, but that fact is unknown to others.

Long before St. Pius X warned about Modernism in the early XX century, St. Irenaeus of Lyon already called them out in the II century: The {Gnostic} heretics may occasionally say something that sounds Catholic, but they do not think like us {Catholics}.

CE4865A0-6813-4387-B7C1-24423556C471

Scholastic mediaeval thought had a great concept for reasoning and debating: explicatio terminorum / explanation of terms, whereby before getting into any meaningful and worthwhile discussion, the meaning of terms would be the first priority.

If otherwise, using the the same terms but with different meanings would make any exchange of ideas useless and fruitless.

But of course, it is a perfect way of propagating heresy…

For instance, Arius (IV century) was most certainly a heretic. But not so much in his terminology, but rather in the meaning he gave to those terms.

Thus, Arius correctly called Jesus Christ the Word made Man, and correctly considered Him to be the Son of God, even going so far as to call Him God. Arius, therefore, was correct in his terminology. Where he erred was in the meaning of certain terminology.

For Arius, the Word was not eternally begotten of the Father, the Word was the first creature created by the Father. And even though he correctly attributed the rest of Creation by the Father through his Word, his main doctrinal error was not attributing an eternal nature to the Word.

This means, therefore, that although Jesus Christ was correctly identified by Arius as the Word made Man, since for Arius the Word was not eternally begotten of the Father, there would be no eternal dimension in Christ.

And this fundamental trinitarian error necessarily means that Jesus Christ could not possibly be true God made Man, because nothing in Christ could be attributed to eternity—which is essential to the divine nature.

Thus, despite calling Christ the Word made Man, Son of God, and even God, Christ could not really be God. Why not? Again, because since for Arius the Word was not eternally begotten, there would be nothing in Christ’s nature just as eternal—and therefore just as divine—as God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost.

Christ could only be entirely a creature of the Father—and not just his human nature which was indeed created—and if the person of the Word was created He could not be the eternal Creator. Oh yes, the first and most perfect of God’s creatures, alas, but then he could not really be God, for Christ—the Word Incarnate—could not be of the same eternal substance as the Father and the Holy Ghost.

The Arian heresy was propagated with enormous ease and following, even among the Hierarchy of the Church, since it blended well with the prevailing culture of the pagan Greek philosophy of the semi-gods.

The Bishops of Alexandria, Alexander and later Athansius, combatted Arius. When the First Council of Nicaea was convened in 325, the Arian heresy was condemned and the true Catholic faith was defined: Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour, is the eternally begotten Word-Son of the Father made Man, of the same divine substance (homoousios) as the Father and the Holy Ghost.

38C10FE4-39B6-466A-B036-53382F85BD2E

In retrospect, one cannot but truly wonder at what Paul VI must have had in his mind when he told Archbishop Lefebvre that the purposely non-dogmatic, merely pastoral Second Vatican Council was even “more important” (sic) than the First Council of Nicaea, when nothing less than the divinity of Christ was being denied…

4E7728EE-A3DC-475D-9DD9-F55FAF2EC1A6

With respect to his Corpus Christi homily, what Francis says is NOT correct and does NOT lend itself to confusion, again, except for those who are ok with being confused. This is nothing new and it is actually very simple.

That is, according to Francis, since Jesus does not perform a “magic trick”, (by the way, the miracles of the Lord are NOT magic tricks to begin with), he does NOT transform the five loaves into five thousand.

NOR does he give any other Catholic explanation of the miracle of how Christ may have provided, from those five loaves and two fish, more than enough food for the five thousand.

In other words, Francis is denying the multiplication of the loaves of bread and fish, insofar as he is understanding it in a very different, non-Catholic manner.

He is in fact denying any Catholic meaning of how the Church has received this historical event from Divine Revelation through her Apostolic Tradition.

Just like Francis’ treatment of the Eucharist: In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church… So, according to Francis, in the Eucharist, it is not bread that is transubstantiated into Jesus; it is Jesus who becomes bread, simple bread to be more specific (sic).

Correctly understanding the Eucharist is utterly undermined when you go about wrecklessly, praising the arch-heretical and arch-schismatic Martin Luther as a “witness of the Gospel”, despising Catholic theology of the Real Presence for the sake of an impossible “inter-faith Communion”, and celebrating exclusively the Novus Ordo Missæ far too long…

As many others have pointed out, this might explain the curious custom of Francis not genuflecting during Mass and not kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, when it is evident that he can get down on his knees.

He has no problem getting down to wash the feet of Muslim women during the Office of Holy Thursday, and kissing the feet of African governmental delegates during a reception at the Vatican.

Getting back to his homily, let us recall that Francis said that the accent DOES NOT fall on the “multiplication” of the loaves, but in the “breaking”, “giving” / “sharing”, and “distribution” among the people. This is important, he said. It sure is! It’s everything!

Because… the people. It’s not really about God, you see, though He does get an honourable mention. Therefore, it’s not really about Christ, and much less as God made Man, perhaps. It’s all about the people. Mere anthropocentrism. Just like in the “reformed” postconciliar liturgy…

People “break”, “give”, and “share” the bread that is then “distributed”, hence the “multiplication” of the loaves, which was NOT performed by a “magic trick” of Jesus. But let’s insist: when has the Church ever taught that the miracles of the Lord were magic tricks?

A particularly awkward statement is when Francis says—without any qualification—that Jesus prayed, blessed, and trusted in the Providence of God… the third remark sounding most odd: is not Jesus Christ God Himself made Man?

From Francis’ very own words, one cannot but get the strong impression that Jesus Christ has really nothing at all to do with the “multiplication” of the loaves. As if He were just an ordinary man, albeit with a strong relationship with God, who merely puts his trust in God’s Providence.

My dear readers, these are plainly Modernist heresies, by the book. Modernists always deny the supernatural and historical character of the miracles of the Lord. And with a strong dosis of Arianism.

I have heard this very same explanation from others in my diocese, even in priest reunions. And Francis himself has given the same materially heretical explanation of the multiplication of the loaves and fish on another occasion.

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith is reasonable. There are reasons to believe, hope, and love. In the glorious history of Holy Mother Church, great bishops, priests, and theologians have given good, sound, wholesome Catholic explanations of the faith, following St. Peter’s exhortation (I Peter 3: 13-15):

And who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous of good? But if also you suffer any thing for justice’ sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled. But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.

But these Modernists—who are not Catholic—drink from the same contaminated waters of rationalism that do not admit the supernatural or the miracle, just as the Holy Mother Church receives it from Revelation and transmits it faithfully in her Apostolic Tradition.

And Francis is consistent with the same strawman tactic: to deny what is not, for the purpose of denying what is. And it is most effective, to be sure.

That is, the miracles of the Lord are NOT a sign of magic. Why, then, deny the obvious? Why… to deny the miracle!, of course. And perhaps even to deny the divinity of Christ. Or at least cast some doubt on the matter.

Ah, some will say: it is convenient to catechise people for those who erroneously believe that miracles are magic…

Indeed… but that IS NOT what Francis is doing. What he IS doing is far more dangerous from a catechetical point of view. He is inducing unwary Catholics, slow on the uptake, to associate miracles with magic, and then by denying that miracles are magic (which they are not anyway), deny that miracles exist (which they do).

Of course, the reasoning is that since Jesus does NOT do magic tricks (obviously), he does NOT perform a miracle (supernatural character) of the multiplication of the loaves, and yet being careful enough to not actually deny that the loaves are “multiplied” by “breaking”, “giving”, “sharing”, and “distributing.” And voilà! The Modernists are like that.

And without any qualification, Jesus simply trusts in the Providence of God—but, as the Incarnate Word, is He Himself not as God and also as eternal as the Father and the Holy Ghost, and just as Providential?

Oh, but Francis doesn’t actually deny the multiplication, the loaves are still multiplied! Well, yes, in a Modernist manner of speaking, but no, not really, not in any meaningful Catholic sense…

“Multiplied” but how so? BECAUSE the people who were there, broke, gave, shared, and distributed bread amongst themselves. It’s all about the people… Imagine all the people… Does this tune sound familiar?

Nothing magical about that, right? Ergo, nothing miraculous about it either…

Ah, the Modernist mind is ever so subtle and so very clever.

Again, St. Irenaeus of Lyon describes them in a very suggestive manner. For just like the Gnostics of the II century, the musings of the Modernists are the deleriums of those who think they have discovered something beyond Truth.

27A283A7-4ECD-444C-998C-1D9005A413F2

Because their philosophical and theological prejudices impede them from believing revealed Catholic truths, the Modernists reason like this: miracles (as the Church understands them through Revelation and Apostolic Tradition), cannot exist, therefore they do not exist (because they say so).

Miracles, then, come to be the same as magic for the Modernists.

So, there are many ways to seemingly say something of truth in order to deny the underlying Truth.

Genuine Catholics already differentiate miracles from magic. But, how exactly were the loaves and fish multiplied? Was it that those five loaves and two fish somehow lasted, never ran out, and provided food for five thousand? Or were those five loaves and two fish literally turned into five thousand? And with more than enough left over either way.

However it was done, the multiplication of loaves and fish is miraculous, i.e., an extraordinary, non-magical, but indeed supernatural act of Christ, God Incarnate, who provides for the people.

In the Holy Gospels, during a second multiplication, Our Lord bids the doubting apostles to recall the first multiplication: Do ye still not yet understand?, He tells them.

But remember that for Modernists, miracles are magic tricks.

Modernists are also very shrewed. Francis will never say that “Jesus does not perform the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves…” That is much too blatant and obvious. Even so, there would doubtless be those obstinate papolaters who would defend even an outright and flagrant denial of the Most Holy Trinity…

That’s why Francis says: Jesus does not perform a magic trick, which for the unwary Catholic sounds right and orthodox.

Ah… But what Francis DOES NOT say is that for him, magic is the same as a miracle. So, by saying that Jesus does not do a magic trick, it’s the same as saying that Jesus does not perform a miracle.

THAT’S WHY he says that Jesus DOES NOT change five loaves into five thousand and then orders their distribution. In other words, it is NOT Jesus who multiplies the loaves! It’s the people sharing!

He very clearly says so, thus: In effect, the emphasis is not on the multiplication but the act of sharing. This is important. Jesus does not perform a magic trick. He does not change five loaves into five thousand… He does not work spectacular miracles or wave a magic wand; he works with simple things.

Again, we can readily see the deliberately misleading association of miracles and magic. The plain meaning of Francis’ words are quite clear.

But why does Francis say what he says? Apart from denying outright that miracles exist, maybe it’s also because Jesus cannot perform a miracle? Maybe because Jesus is no more than a man who happens to have a particularly close relationship with God?

Jesus prays, blesses, and relies on “trusting in the Providence of God”—which is clumsy and very suspicious of Christological heresy—so that the loaves “never run out” BECAUSE the people there broke, gave, shared, and distributed the bread.

In the end, then, it is NOT Jesus, God made Man, who multiplies the loaves and fish (i.e., he does not do a magic trick = he does not perform a miracle) so the “miracle” consists in the breaking, giving, sharing, and distributing amongst themselves of the people.

So, just like the magic of magicians, the miracle is a trick, as it were, of the Evangelists to communicate another more rational—and for the unbelieving Modernist mindset, a much more credible—reality that has NOTHING to do with revealed Truth.

Operari sequitur esse / the effect follows being. In other words, although sometimes things aren’t what they appear, oftentimes things are indeed what they appear to be.

In Tolkien’s Middle-earth, the Hobbits of The Shire live by a saying, full of common sense wisdom: handsome is as handsome does.

7F5A1025-C321-481A-A393-4FF022124938

So, the next time Francis pronounces something that doesn’t quite sound Catholic—very likely given his track record—maybe, just maybe, it’s because it isn’t. In any case, let us not—in vain—twist his words. Let us rather take him on his word. If only out of respect for him… and out of respect for Truth.

With my blessings to the readers of akaCatholic: +Father José Miguel.

aka INQ Ad

42 Comments »

What Needs to Change with the Catholic Church?

Louie : July 11, 2019 3:06 pm : Blog Post

ChurchDemolitionOn June 30, Church Militant posted a video entitled, What Needs to Change with the Catholic Church? – the title alone foreshadowing its doctrinal sloppiness.

In the video, Michael Voris conducts an interview with four men:

– Mr. James Grein, the longtime Theodore McCarrick abuse victim who recently revealed that he had also been abused by Fr. Joseph Bernadin.

– Fr. Paul Kalchik, whom Cardinal Cupich stripped of his pastorship, ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and threatened with having his faculties removed; all for the high crime of burning a rainbow banner emblazoned with a cross. He has since been in hiding.

– Mr. Stephen Brady, President of The Roman Catholic Faithful – a group dedicated to exposing the clerical network of sexual immorality in the U.S.

– Fr. Paul Sullins, a sociologist of the Ruth Institute who recently published a study documenting the link between the abuse crisis and homosexuality.

Without endorsing every position these men may hold, at the very least one must admire their willingness to invite the slings and arrows that await those who publicly address the homo-clerical crisis and those who labor to cover it up.

Now, back to that title: “What Needs to Change with the Catholic Church?”

The correct answer should be obvious: NOTHING. Absolutely nothing needs to change with the Catholic Church!

As will always be the case, and even more apparently so in times of crisis, her enemies simply need to convert, repent, and embrace the life-giving truths that Our Lord has entrusted to His Church. In other words, non-believers – in the present case, those posing as men of faith – need to become and remain actual members of the Mystical Body of Christ as defined and understood according to Catholic tradition.

As the title to the video suggests, however, Michael Voris & Co., like so many others, are either unwilling or unable to distinguish between – not even by the slightest nuance – that which is truly of the Catholic Church, and that which is the activity of her enemies; men who clearly dwell outside of her confines.

The reason for their reticence in this matter is known with certainty by God alone.

That said, it certainly seems as if some “conservative” and “traditional” Catholic media types are determined to avoid such distinctions, as a deliberate act of the will, because they know that doing so might negatively impact “audience size” (a metric closely followed by one chest-pounding blowhard in particular).

Truth be known; they have a point. It is a fact that simply encouraging Catholics to ask difficult questions (e.g., Are Francis and his minions actually Catholic?) and to seek answers by the light of authentic tradition, invites a genuine risk that the entire enterprise will be viewed by many as too radical to merit any support. Believe me, I know.

In any case, in the first several minutes of the CMTV video, Michael Voris speaks about the “institution of the Church… within the institution” and how “part of the institution has been weaponized for evil, for evil ends.” He even goes so far as to say that homosexuality is “the sacred cow of the hierarchy.”

He’s talking about the hierarchy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church! Clearly, such men are not Catholic, and to the extent that they are hierarchs, the institution they serve certainly isn’t the Church.

Good intentions aside, what Michael Voris is saying, perhaps thoughtlessly, is that the “institution” that is the one true Church of Christ is attacking itself. In other words, he speaks as if the Mystical Body of Christ is the agent of its own passion. This notion is not only demonstrably false; it is patently illogical.

Pope Pius XII taught (as did St. Augustine) that the Catholic Church is as “another Christ” (see Mystici Corporis). Clearly, Our Lord did not scourge Himself, crown Himself with thorns, or nail Himself to the Cross. Nor can it be said that His Passion was carried out at the hands of His disciples, but rather by those who rejected Him.

In the same way, it cannot be said that the “institution of the Church” or some portion thereof is the very weapon “for evil” that is attacking the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Indeed, the Catholic Church is under attack, but it is so at the hands of those who are not her members; most notably men who form the hierarchy of a different  and separate institution; one with its own magisterial texts (Vatican II, Amoris Laetitia) its own saints (Paul VI, John Paul II), and even its own liturgical rites (the dreadful Novus Ordo Missae).

Unless and until one is willing to acknowledge this reality, their view of the present crisis will forever remain clouded and the “solutions” they envision will amount to little more than mere folly, which is exactly what the Evil One desires and has been very successful in accomplishing.

In his First Epistle to Timothy (cf Chapters 2-3), St. Paul warned us about precisely the sort of thing that is taking place today. He begins by describing the necessary virtues of those men who would be bishops. From there, he immediately declares, directly citing the power of the Holy Spirit no less:

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared… (1 Tim 4:1-2)

Bear well in mind that St. Paul is discussing bishops. He tells us that some will depart from the faith; i.e., they will not truly belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, in spite of any outward appearances.

In his Second Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul elaborates on the last times and the deceptive nature of these apostate bishops:

Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked. Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness. Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. (2 Tim 3:1-5)

Though it appears that he is speaking of “men” in a general sense (and he is to an extent); in context, it is clear that St. Paul is speaking of those men who have the office of teaching – namely, bishops. They will have but an appearance of godliness (some translations say an appearance of religion). They are, however, imposters who must be avoided; that is to say, they are anathema.

This, my friends, is a perfect description of the men that occupy “the hierarchy,” the “sacred cow” of which, according to Michael Voris, is “homosexuality.”

I took the time to watch the entire video. I cannot in good faith encourage you to do the same as there is little edification in store for those who do. There are, however, a couple of clips that I would like to highlight inasmuch as they demonstrate the darkness that envelopes the minds of those who fail to make the aforementioned distinctions.

At roughly the twenty-four-minute mark, Fr. Sullins states:

…look at the Pennsylvania grand jury and all of the media reports on that, and yet that’s extremely unfair in many ways to the bishops that it reported on if you read the whole report. It’s a malicious bias – anti-Catholic, anti-bishop bias – in that whole document, and the reason I’m saying this is that … whenever the nation of Israel left God or rebelled against God, ultimately God’s solution to that was to turn them over to their enemies for purification. So I have great hope that God in turning us over to our enemies, turning the bishops over to their enemies is going to have a good effect.

Fr. Sullins tiptoes right up to the very edge of a stark reality; we are being subjected to the evil dictates of men properly known as enemies of the New Israel. And yet, he either cannot see, or will not acknowledge, the plain fact that among the Church’s primary enemies today are not simply Attorneys General and members of the secular media; rather, they are unbelieving men posing as members of the Body of Christ – “bishops” even – men who have but the appearance of godliness. In truth, they have left God! They have departed His Holy Catholic Church!

This includes the perpetrators of homo-clerical abuse indeed, but even more broadly it includes men like Jorge Bergoglio and every single solitary layman, priest and bishop that supports his clearly diabolical (that is, conciliar) cause.

One might be moved to ask: Can a person at one and the same time be an enemy of the Holy Catholic Church and yet a member of Christ’s Mystical Body?

If Pope Pius XII is to be believed, the answer is no – not inasmuch as we are discussing things made manifest; i.e., concerning those whose opposition to the true Faith is not merely occult (that is, secret or hidden).

The Holy Father writes:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith… The cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. (cf Mystici Corporis) [Emphasis added]

In this, the word “same” refers to that which is truly Catholic; the same Faith and same Divine Laws that have been handed down throughout the centuries.

Now, if anyone truly wishes to defend the claim that men like McCarrick, Wuerl, Cupich, Bergoglio, et. al. “externally manifest and profess the same Catholic faith, and observe the same Divine Laws,” they are welcome to go right ahead and die on that hill if they wish. As for me, no thank you.

Lastly, Fr. Kalchik – may God relieve his obvious suffering, and I mean this sincerely as to watch him speak is truly painful – at the roughly three-minute mark, states:

After the French Revolution the hierarchy of the Church – pope, bishops – have had nothing to check their power and or to balance them, and so again, what we see playing out is a function of that absence of a check mechanism. Because in years past, you know, if a particular bishop within a particular country was out of line, the king would intervene and he would be deposed. Right now, you have a system that has no checks and balances in it.

Fr. Kalchik’s understanding of papal power is clearly off the mark, and to the extent that he shares Michael Voris’ view that “the institution of the Church” is perpetrating evil against itself, this is not surprising.

In truth, the fact that there is no earthly authority in place to “check the power” of the pope isn’t a problem to be solved; it is the way Our Lord constituted His Church. It is the pope – not any other earthly authority – that deposes bishops:

It is the pope whom Christ “enriches above all others with the supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom, so that he may loyally preserve the treasury of faith, defend it vigorously, and explain it and confirm it with reverence and devotion.” (cf Mystici Corporis 50)

If the above is unfamiliar to you, read it again. This being so, if ever a man claims to be “pope,” and yet he obviously needs to have his power checked because he is launching an all-out, multi-faceted, doctrinal, moral and pastoral attack on the Church and her faithful – one that is highly coordinated with numerous avowed enemies of Christ (LGBT activists, one-world government secularists, population control advocates, etc.), wouldn’t that be a pretty clear sign that his claim is utterly bogus?

In conclusion, it bears repeating the answer to the question posed in Michael Voris’ video:

Absolutely nothing needs to change with the Catholic Church; her enemies, many of whom shamelessly parade around in clerical costumes, simply need to repent, convert, and embrace her life-giving truths.

aka INQ Ad

47 Comments »

Dear SSPX: Are Francis’ Masses valid?

Louie : July 8, 2019 12:13 pm : Blog Post

Francis Mass InvalidOn Sunday, June 23, Jorge Bergoglio, otherwise known as “Francis,” delivered a homily for the Novus Ordo version of the Feast of Corpus Christi during which he answered, with unassailable clarity, a question that many have been asking for more than six years:

Why doesn’t Francis genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament?

During the homily, Francis confirmed what most clear-thinking Catholics had already deduced; he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist. He also, however, provided new impetus to ask an even more important question:

Are Francis’ Masses valid?

He said:

… for we eat the Bread that contains all sweetness within it.  God’s people love to praise, not complain; we were created to bless, not grumble.  In the presence of the Eucharist, Jesus who becomes bread, this simple bread that contains the entire reality of the Church… [Emphasis in original Italian text provided by the ‘Holy’ See]

No less than twice did Francis assert that the bread on the altar remains bread following his act of consecration. And guess what? He may very well be correct.

To declare that “Jesus becomes bread… simple bread” is, of course, to commit a grievous heresy; one that, in the present case, cannot possibly be attributed to genuine ignorance given that the dogmatic teaching concerning Transubstantiation is most certainly well-known to him.

For the record:

If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon II) [Emphasis Added]

The emphasized text above is precisely what Francis publicly preached, and in the context of celebrating the Feast of Corpus Christi of all occasions.

Many other commentators have made similar observations, but what has not been adequately addressed is the impact Bergoglio’s heresy may have on the validity of the consecration and on the Mass itself. [For the sake of argument, let us leave aside the defects that are inherent in the Novus Ordo regardless of who celebrates it.]

First, it must be said that the simple fact alone that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic who does not believe in Transubstantiation does not render either the consecration or the Mass invalid. As Pope Leo XIII teaches:

A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. (cf Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae)

Pay close attention to what the Holy Father stated: It is not Jorge’s heresy that renders the Sacrament (and the Mass) questionable; his potentially defective intention, on the other hand, does exactly that. For validity, it is necessary for the minister to “have intended to do what the Church does.”

Now, one may rightly ask: But can we truly know Bergoglio’s intention?

Once again, let us turn to Pope Leo XIII:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. (ibid.) [Emphasis added]

In the present case, the mind and intention of Jorge Bergoglio has most certainly been made manifest in the external forum, and his words as cited above are not all that we have to consider. We also have the witness of his actions; namely, his consistent failure to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament; that is, to behave as if he is before the Real Presence of Christ.

The Society of St. Pius X offers the following explanation concerning intention:

The Baltimore Catechism explains what the expression “intending to do what the Church does” really means, namely:

“the intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends when it administers the Sacrament.”

As a consequence, it follows that if a priest has a positive intention against what the Church does, namely of specifically not intending what Christ intends and what the Church intends, then one of the three elements necessary for the validity of the Mass is absent, and the Mass is invalid.

Let us now apply the above to the present situation:

Does Francis have a positive intention against what Christ and the Church intends?

By his very own words, we know that Francis’ positive intention is for Jesus to become “simple bread.” This intention stands against the dogmatic teaching of the Church concerning what Christ and the Church intends; so much so that the Council of Trent saw fit to specifically anathematized those who would even say such a thing.

The answer to this question appears, therefore, to be AFFIRMATIVE.

Are one of the three elements necessary for the validity of the Mass absent when offered by Francis?

Once again, the answer to this question appears to be AFFIRMATIVE.

In light of this, are Masses offered by Francis invalid?

It would certainly seem so, however, in light of the internal nature of intent, the SSPX article states:

The greatest certitude that we can have is a moral certitude, which is also the certitude that we can have about any contingent, singular reality. However, it is perfectly possible to have a moral certitude.

Given all that has been discussed, it seems perfectly reasonable for one to conclude with moral certitude that when Jorge Bergoglio offers the Novus Ordo Missae there is no consecration, and if there is no consecration there is no Mass; i.e., both are invalid.

Before we conclude this examination, let’s take a look at the counterargument that will be offered by the defenders of all things Bergoglian.

In 1999, Jimmy Akin, on behalf of Catholic Answers, delved into the question of sacramental validity vis-à-vis intention. He wrote:

In order for a minister to lack valid intention, while outwardly performing the rites of the Mass and the Eucharistic prayer, he virtually would have to say to himself, “What I am doing is not the Eucharist. I’m only play acting and fooling all of these people into thinking I’m performing a sacrament, when really I’m not.” Needless to say, a priest is almost never going to have such an intention.

This treatment is problematic on a number of levels. For one, Mr. Akin introduced a new contingency for invalidity; namely, trickery or deception. It is clear from the text of both Apostolicae Curae and the Baltimore Catechism, however, that the minister need not deliberately intend to fool anyone in order to lack the intention necessary for validity.

Secondly, if indeed the minister is simply saying his defective intention to himself; i.e., if it remains strictly internal, it cannot be judged and, furthermore, no one (save for God) would be the wiser. It is necessary, as in the case of Francis, for the defective intention to be externally manifest in order for any inquiry into the matter to take place (see Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, cited above).

In attempting to put to rest any and all questions of invalidity due to the lack of right intention, Mr. Akin also cited Fr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and St. Thomas Aquinas:

Thus for the Eucharist, but also for other sacraments, only the general intention to “do the thing that Christians do” is needed for validity: “Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely to produce the effects of the sacraments. . . . It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 344). This is also the interpretation of Aquinas (ST III:64:9-10).

The first thing that stands out is that we apparently have conflicting texts:

The minister does not need to intend what the Church intends. – Ludwig Ott

Whoever administers a Sacrament must have the intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends. – Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Q. 585

In our attempt to determine whether or not Francis’ Masses are valid, which one are we to believe? The most reasonable answer appears to be both. (And we can include in this the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.)

Once again, we turn to the Society of St. Pius X for clarity:

In the traditional rites of the sacraments and of Mass the guarantee of this moral certitude is contained in the rites themselves. For the traditional rites for Mass and the sacraments express the intentions of the Church in a very explicit manner, leaving no room for doubt whatsoever. The same is not the case for the new rites, framed explicitly to be ambiguous, and to be just as compatible with a Protestant intention as with a Catholic one … Although theoretically it would be possible for a priest to celebrate sacrilegiously in the traditional rite by having a positive counter intention, it is hardly likely, given that the correct intention is repeated several times, which is not the case in the new rite.  

In order to discover how both Ott and the Baltimore Catechism can be applied to the question at hand, it is necessary to recognize that both texts were written at a time when the rite of Mass repeatedly expressed the intentions of the Church in a very explicit manner, to quote the SSPX article.

It is this that evidently moved Fr. Ott to state that the minister does not need to intend what the Church intends. In other words, he did so in the belief that simply by “performing the religious action as it was then current among Christians,” the minister would thus be expressing his will to make of himself an instrument whereby the intention of the Church as repeatedly expressed would be accomplished.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained the function of the minister’s will with respect to his instrumentality as follows. (Notably, Mr. Akin cited ST III:64:9-10 in his article. Here, we will cite the immediately previous article in the same work.)

But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do. (ST III:64:8) [Emphasis added]

In the Traditional Latin Mass, the will of the minister to subject himself to the principal agent is made manifest in the performance of the rite itself. As the SSPX points out, the same cannot be said of the Novus Ordo, and let us not forget what Pope Leo XIII taught with regard to intent; that which is “manifested externally” is of critical importance.

All of this said, the fundamental difference between Ott and the Baltimore Catechism in this matter lies in the following:

The former seems not to think it possible that a minister can perform the letter of the rite and yet render a Sacrament invalid by his own defective intention. The latter allows for such a possibility. Neither, however, were speaking of the Novus Ordo!

While the perfection of the Traditional Roman Rite may very well be an irresistible force if only performed according to its rubrics, I tend to agree with the Baltimore Catechism and the Society of St. Pius X. In any case, our focus here is on a rite that neither authority would even recognize as Catholic.

This brings us at last to the conclusion.

It is not surprising in the least that not one solitary “full communion” bishop has raised his voice in this matter. These men are, for the most part, cowards who dare not speak out for fear of having their benefices withdrawn by the hand of the heretic. And let’s be honest, many of them likely have their own heretical views of the Blessed Sacrament anyway.

But what about the Society of St. Pius X?

It is abundantly evident from the above treatment that they are perfectly clear on the grave implications of Jorge Bergoglio’s lack of intent and its impact on questions of validity. The SSPX is also presumably well aware that this matter directly concerns the salvation of souls.

Following Saint Paul and our revered founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, under the protection of Our Lady, Queen of Peace, we will continue to hand on the Catholic faith that we have received (cf.1 Cor 11:23), working with all our might for the salvation of souls… – Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General, Society of St. Pius X, February 2019

So, will Fr. Pagliarani and the Society of St. Pius X speak up on behalf of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and countless innocent persons who genuinely wish to remain faithful; i.e., are they really willing to work with all their might for the salvation of souls?

I suppose we will find out. As for what specifically should be done, let’s be clear:

One need not have moral certitude in this matter. It is enough that reasonable questions exist concerning the validity of the Blessed Sacrament and the Mass when offered by Francis. This being so, silence – as has been the case with the “full communion” hirelings – would amount to gross negligence given the gravity of the situation. 

At the very least, therefore, Francis should be publicly called upon to publicly correct his heresy, to publicly reaffirm the dogma of the Church concerning Transubstantiation, and to publicly and explicitly confirm his “intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends when it administers the Sacrament” (see Baltimore Catechism).

If he does this, he must then be pressed to answer for his unwillingness to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament. If he does not do this, well then… let him stand, it’s probably just “simple bread” anyway.

NOTE: Many of our regular readers are among the SSPX faithful. We also have a number of Society priests among our readership. If you belong to the former group; share this article with your pastor and let him know that the salvation of souls demands a pubic response. If you happen to be a priest of the SSPX, approach your superiors and do likewise.

aka INQ Ad

136 Comments »
« Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 265 »