It’s high time to enter the “room of charity”

Comments (40)

1. Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Theology” [Ignatius Press, 1987], pp. 389-90″

   “We must be on guard against minimizing these (Traditonalist) movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly.”

   As “pope” however, he couldn’t believe that even the young people were asking for the true, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He thought it would disappear into the dustbin of history and hoped it would sooner rather than later. So, he couldn’t “resist too firmly” against the real desires of the people and fooled them into thinking his “Indult” was given to them under his “humility” towards the people. It was a sham. A ploy to get them to shut up so the Revolution could continue with less distractions.

2. The Commandments “do not make you free”? Following God’s commandments is the only true freedom that exists as love of God above all else is the only way we can love our neighbor or please him.

   Oh Lord, please save us from this prophet from Hell.

3. The four Cardinals must stand up now & call PF & cronies what they are & what faithful Catholics have always perceived them to be. They must show the strength of their convictions & go for broke, i.e. call an Imperfect Council to say that PF must not be followed, then a conclave to elect a new pope.

   We the laity must make it very clear that it is NOT Catholic to ditch the Old Rite in order to appease Protestants or to pray with infidels. Nor is it Catholic to invite the pro abort population alarmist Paul Ehrlich to speak at Vatican’s Biological Extinction Conference or Chinese ex minister accused of ordering executions to speak at Vatican Summit on Organ Trafficking & Transplant talks. The present incumbent of the Papal Office shows his despite of that Office by such deeds & has turned the HQ of the CC into a Marxist/Masonic/Secular Government which has no resemblance to the once holy ground on which St. Peter decided to build the True Church of Christ.

   PF is the culmination of VII & its time that ‘Pastoral’ Council’s false ecumenism & denial of the True Faith was burned along with the fingers that wrote AL which blatantly allows unrepentant sinners to defy Christ by saying the Ten Commandments are too rigid. This implies that PF & cronies don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God & the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Let them show some honesty by coming out & saying so, although we know it for a fact.

   The four Cardinals & their supporters (still hidden) must live up to their red hats, show they are prepared for martyrdom (unless they want them to change colour to pink) & listen to the call of the real CC – those who desperately cling to the tenets of the True Faith whilst NO Bishops scurrilously close churches, hide the tabernacle, deny the full sacraments (Confession & Last Rites), allow lay people to distribute Holy Communion, etc. They MUST take back the Church founded by Christ on the First Apostles & restore it to its former glory. Honouring Luther while persecuting true Catholics – Cardinals, Bishops,priests & laity – must end with PF’s full & prompt retirement to an enclosed Order House (not Jesuit).

4. Pope Francis said “The temptation of survival [is] an evil that can gradually take root within us and within our communities…It makes us look back, to the glory days – days that are past …”
   Early in his pontificate PF also said the following:
   ‘I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect\, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting … And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…”
   If PF was not referring to the SSPX (who had direct dealings with Bergoglio immediately before his election, who “return to practices and to disciplines” of the past, & who ‘count rosaries’), then who is PF referring to?

   Are these statements an indication of what’s coming once PF gets his hands on the SSPX? Francis does not appear to be at all benevolent to the SSPX.

5. If the SSPX makes a deal with Rome and becomes “regularized”, while they lose more priests and faithful than they hope to gain? Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

6. should have read “will they lose”, not “while they lose”–you got the idea!

7. My response to the emasculated thinking , “Or do I hide in the rigidity of the closed Commandments”, of Pope Francis would be with the words of King David: “Depart from me, YOU WICKED, that I may KEEP the Commandments of my God.” – Ps 119:113

8. The problem is 97% of those “not Catholic” things you mentioned being done throughout the Church last 50 years were done and most of them originally ( I mean NEVER BEFORE) by Pope John Paul II. That combined with the fact that these 4 dubia Cardinals think Pope John Paul was one of the greatest Popes ever makes your hopes of a better Church clearly unrealisic since these 4 “best of” bishops accept all the same root errors of VII destroying the Church as Pope Francis barring some type of great miracle (like possibly Consecration of Russia to IHM) I don’t see how you think this could possibly happen.
   And here’s an example of what I meant earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/06/world/pope-praises-luther-in-an-appeal-for-unity-on-protest-anniversary.html

9. I feel very serene about the SSPX “regularizing”. Christ is in charge. He knows what must be done to save His Church. Gods ways are not our ways. His mother knows too and I’m sure the SSPX is safe within her mantle. They have preserved the faith in its entirety. You think they will be abandoned? C’mon.

10. I searched a long time in Protestant churches for Truth and I’m sorry to say that this Pope Francis sounds more anti-Catholic than most anti-Catholic Protestants.
    Who would ever have imagined a pope scoffing at Rosaries being offered for him? He either doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Heart’s role in our salvation or worse yet, he does and he hates her for it. I can’t see it any other way.

11. Louie,

    Just an observation here…
    Bishop Fellay, so far, has said very little to nothing about Francis. There has been no public denunciation. Yet yesterday you published a post that seems to give him the benefit of the doubt and says you expect that he will say something soon?

    Yet Cardinal Burke has at least said SOMETHING, and you come down hard on him for it not being enough or in the right manner or not soon enough?

    What gives?

12. Akita, your intention seems in the right place…but do not forget:
    a.) Martin Luther claimed an affinity for our Lady
    b.) JPII said he had totally given himself and his pontificate over to our Lady
    c.) Many sedevacantists claim fidelity to our Lady
    d.) The Resistance has consecrated itself to our Lady

    Do not deceive yourself with public consecrations. We must all choose whether or not we cooperate with the graces offered to us through Our Lady’s mediation and intercession. Just because it is offered does not mean it will infallibly be accepted.

13. Yes. They will.

    This video was posted and seems to cover that:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhVc-sKQOcw

14. “Pope”? In quotes? Oh, no – I’ve gotta do it!
    –
    Sedevacantism Debunked In A Nutshell
    –
    The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that may appear as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history, it would seem), but only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications or do not know Her teaching well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it logically impossible and, actually, leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here, and then briefly explore the false basis of the sedevacantist position.
    –
    1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer – of course – was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
    –
    “… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
    –
    2) The Church teaches that the public acceptance by a moral unanimity of the Church of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that this constitutes what is known as a “dogmatic fact,” which is a matter so closely related to a dogma that it must be infallibly true for the dogma to have meaning (that dogma in this case being essentially papal infallibility). It is a mortal sin against Faith to reject a dogmatic fact.
    –
    What if Pius V had lost his office due to heresy, and his ratification of the Council of Trent was thus null? If Catholics could not rely on the dogmatic facts of papal acceptance, absolutely nothing in the Church would be certain! Would Christ have constructed such a house of cards?
    –
    (Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
    –
    3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is probably an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
    –
    This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and, formally, know the Catholic Church is the true Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
    –
    The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers,” and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a *necessary* consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their constant talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that *has her four Marks and necessary attributes*. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church as merely a collection of visible members.
    –
    (Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be formally visible.)
    –
    We’ve got three separate, unrelated matters that each kill the sede hypothesis dead in one shot.
    –
    Now that we have taken a look at some things that destroy the sedevacantist position before it gets out of the gate, we’ll look at the root of their errors.
    –
    As we all know, the core tenet of sedevacantism is that the post-conciliar popes (as well as more than a few others some of them also condemn) either were never popes or lost their office due to heresy (the *sin* of heresy as opposed to the crime, they say, this being an important distinction).
    –
    Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion (as John Salza likes to say). The demonstrated fact (it’s been demonstrated very thoroughly by Salza & Siscoe) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment.
    –
    I’m going to include only one link in this little piece, and that’s this one: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/whyfr.html
    –
    Bellarmine has long been the sedevacantists’ “go-to theologian,” but he, like all the rest of them, clearly taught that *the Church* (not Fr. Cekada, Mario Derkson, John Lane, or any of the rest of them) must make a judgement of pertinacity in heresy for a pontiff to be separated from his office.
    –
    (Bellarmine, the canon “Si Papa” which was Church law for eight centuries, and other theologians note that the crime of heresy is the one exception to the rule that “the First See can be judged by no one.”)
    –
    There is more. Related to the determination of pertinacity, sedes all make a critical error in confusing the sin vs. the crime of heresy. They have long based their position on thesis that *sin* of heresy (which lives in the *internal* forum) results in the loss of ecclesiastic office, which is a matter of the *external* forum. In fact, neither the Church in any capacity nor any theologian has ever taught such a thing. God alone, of course, judges the internal forum, and nothing in the internal forum can possibly sever one from the *Body* of the Church (sedes typically make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church), which is where ecclesiastic office resides. (All the evidence for these assertions is in “True or False Pope,” and it is irrefutable.)
    –
    As Bellarmine also said, to paraphrase, as the Church is directly involved in elevating a man to the papacy, so it must be involved in separating him from it, should that occur.
    –
    Aquinas condemned the “judgement by usurpation” endemic to an individual claiming to have the power to depose a prelate from his office (in congruence with the Fourth Council of Constantinople referenced above).
    –
    This has been a very high-level view of the fatal issues with sedevacantism, intended to be extremely succinct. Rest assured that for every objection raised, there is an answer, and they can pretty much all be found in “True Or False Pope.”
    –
    God hasn’t given us a Church – perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation – yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as the sede thesis claims. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
    –
    One can see that some of these things can’t really be explained in sound bytes; it seems that sedes do tend to like things simple. They throw out Fr. Cekada’s syllogism again & again without realizing it is full of oversimplifications and other errors. Sorry, but we can’t demand a Theology of Bumper Stickers.
    –
    But, actually, this IS simple – look above. Sedevacantism quickly leads to logical nonsense, contradicts de fide teachings of the Church, and, according to the theologians, entails anathema or mortal sin in at least two areas (formal separation from a prelate without judgement from the Church, and rejection of the dogmatic fact of a pontiff’s election & reign).

15. And don’t forget, as we have been observing for at least the last 50 years, EVEN the leaders of the only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus Himself established with Peter as head have fallen into error so I assume that would also mean that leaders of any other group/sect regardless of whether they are inside or outside of the Church certainly could fall into error including leaders of the SSPX. If the leaders of the Church Jesus Christ Himself established can fall into error than how can leaders of the SSPX be considered immune from ever falling into error?

16. Would it have been possible for Fellay to add his name to the Dubia? I think that would have been a great step in the right direction. I don’t think Burke would have objected to Fellay signing the Dubia. Maybe, I’m wrong about that. I think it would have sent a powerful message to Francis that “regularization” is off the table during his pontificate unless he converts.

17. A little off the subject but your point about outward appearances of devotion to Our Lady being at times deceitful is right on the money and also very important for people to realize. I know here in Phila. it’s always been a real hotbed for the latest so-called “Marian apparition” and many catholics get conned into joining these false diabolical sects because they see devotion to Mary/ praying the rosary and automatically but foolishly believe the apparition must be authentic because of this. Smh. Anyway, Bayside, Medjorgorge, Fr. Gobbi, Maria Divine Mercy (the warning), are all very big here and lately there’s been another one picking up some steam called “Flame of Love”, which believe it or not actually tells its members to add about 7 words to every Hail Mary when saying the Rosary (worse than bayside which tells their members to say the St. Michael prayer after each decade). But what really put this phony apparation on the map for good is the fact, and no surprise here, that the “pro-life, conservative” (ugh! smh again) future St? Archbishop Chaput “The Great” gave his approval, imprimatur or whatever it’s called on it and for neokats and “new trads” that’s definitely more than enough to make it worthy of belief.

18. You should explain Sir, that a Pope can loose his faith and that is not the same thing as the faithful “loosing their Faith: – in him” – that’s the position all heretic occupy. Francis drags himself down. What he does to the Body of the Church will be announced on the General Judgement.
    Labelling Catholics who hold the faith, who refuse to consort with heretics, in power is NOT the same as sede vacant so called definitions. The evil ones have “lost their faith, and their place – it seems” not vice versa. That’s an important distinction to note.
    If True Catholics do not resist, then your logic suggests they MUST accept Francis and his other freemasonic trends. Clearly that cannot avail as a valid course of conduct for any honest Catholic. The faithful are not bound by the mans manifest errors. Period. Or if we are quote me an authority we must follow his current sanctioning of moral sins…

19. Dear jean.pie,

    The difference is that Burke must show us whether he is truly standing up for Truth, or whether he is simply indulging in the Left’s favourite tool – the false-flag, fake-right operation in which a little shadow-boxing is performed to placate the crowd.

    We must not be fooled.

    We know what the SSPX is, and that it is worthy of our respect and adherence. If Burke was what he is trying to pretend to be, why is he not supporting them and joining hands with them?

20. johnjobilbee, I also saw that ridiculous “Flame of Love” imprimatur from Archbishop Chaput. Insanity.
    –
    But did you also notice that the “flame of love” was a perfect match to the phony divine mercy devotion? I mean, the rays of light that came out of the Blessed Mother (flame of love) image matched the rays of light coming out of the Jesus image of the divine mercy devotion. Where the Immaculate Heart is supposed to be on the image there are rays of light instead of a heart, just as where the Sacred Heart is supposed to be there are also rays of light.
    –
    Do you recognize just how sinister this is? We are all awaiting the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart as Our Lady promised at Fatima. Why? Because Our Lord said that He wants His Mother’s Immaculate Heart to reign side by side next to His Sacred Heart. (I am paraphrasing, but this is the gist.) Thus, we (Her children) await the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.
    So, the freemasons/modernists/communists/slaves of satan
    have removed all thoughts of the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart with these counterfeit devotions —-
    Divine Mercy and Flame of Love.
    No hearts. Instead rays of light.
    –
    Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis.
    Our Lady of LaSalette, ora pro nobis.

21. A Catholic Thinker,
    I posted a reply to a comment of yours on the “SSPX: To be, or not to be…” page.
    Please respond.
    Thanks.

22. What is the SSPX in 2017? You say that we know what it is. I have no clue as to what it is. I know why it was founded and I think I have a good idea of what its founder was trying to accomplish….but he’s been dead for almost 30 years now. Is their mission still the same now as it was then? They are much closer to the false church today then they were in 1988….and the false church is much more diabolical now. What is the purpose of the present SSPX? Maybe, as some have suggested, Bp Fellay is just the smartest guy in the room and all of us are just fools. I doubt it.

23. Wow, rich. Good point.

24. All of this is simply a distraction from the primary source of it and all other distractions.

    Bergoglio is not Catholic. He will not speak nor act like a Catholic. None of the prelates attached to the New Order Ecumenical Modernist church of man will act like Catholics. Their fidelity is to the errors of man rather than Christ as Christ has been demoted and replaced with the demonic-inspired theologies and philosophies of Teilhard Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, the Jew Max Buber, Hegel, and Masonry whether Jewish or secular.

    Bergoglio is a disciple of all of these demons. Read this extremely informative article by H. Reed Armstrong published in Christian Order for proof of it. It explains exactly why he makes the most bizarre and ungodly statements:

    http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2016/features_may16.html

25. A Catholic Thinker:

    Are you being paid royalties to reprint Salza’s entire book here? If not, you need to speak to him to compensate you as a matter of justice. Maybe, since the book hasn’t been as lucrative as Salza imagined it would be, he has hired his most ardent supporters to “republish” it wherever they can.

26. Katherine,

    John Salza is a member of our [SSPX] parish. I know him well so when I see him this Sunday I let him know his royalties are due.

    Thanks for the heads up.

    Cheers!

27. When reading the link that you posted one thing stands out to me very quickly (re Chardin): the Apostles never spoke as he did. He speaks in a way where it becomes a task to even understand him. For example (from your link):

    “God evolves, via ‘complexification’ and ‘convergence’ to his own perfection, the ‘Omega point,’ immersed in matter. One is inseparable from the other; one is never without the other; … No spirit (not even God within the limits of our experience) exists, nor could structurally exist without an associated multiple, any more than a center can exist without its circle or circumference. In a concrete sense there is not matter and spirit. All that exists is matter becoming spirit [God].(6) [Ergo, neither angels nor demons are present in Teilhard’s cosmos.]”

    What the heck does this even mean?

28. rich: I guess only those who have received the “Light” can understand the writings of Modernists. Like their Gnostic ancestors, they have this light while the rest of us continue in the path of darkness and aren’t privy to these new revelations from the “cosmic god”.

29. Speaking a language that no one understands is a hallmark of the Devil. Its Babel in our day. But if you read any of this Modernistspeak babal from Bergoglio’s mentors, teachers and those who had influence for him, it clarifies why he, himself, speaks babal where only his fellow Modernist’s understand him.

30. If you want to understand what some of this globbly-gook means, I suggest you read the writings of James Larson at the Christian Order : http://www.christianorder.com and his website: http://www.waragainstbeing.com.

    By the way, James Larson is not a sedevacantist.

    Actually, there are lots of good, informative articles on the Christian Order website.

31. Very true. I guess we simple folk just arent smart enough to be Catholic according to these nouveau theologians :).

32. Cath Think, cutting and pasting is what we did in kindergarten. I like to use what you call “bumper sticker” theology because that is the average attention span of the average Catholic. While I realize that the average AKA Catholic reader is not the average Catholic, it still comes down to boiling the message down so many can understand the state of the Church today. Your long winded cherry picked quotes from theologians and modern day pundits simply glaze over the eyes of the average reader. So can you please explain in one or two sentences how someone who professes non catholic beliefs can be a catholic?

33. I hear what you’re saying, and I will accept the fact that you “have no clue what it is”, but you’re criticizing the organization without specifics. You say the SSPX is much closer to the false Church than they were in 1988. Specifically, what leads you to that conclusion?

    The SSPX will tell you that their purpose is the same “mission” that the Church has always had––to lead all men to salvation. If you believe they’re doing otherwise, what are the specifics behind that statement?

    You’ll get no disagreement from me that the Modernist pope and prelates of the Church are leading all who follow to perdition, but how do you go from there to conclude what you do about the SSPX?

34. With the election of “The Donald” the spot light on the tactics of the Judeo – Marxists have become crystal clear.
    They have almost total control of the world’s media- who will publish the most ridiculous propaganda in support of the elites.
    The Facist intermingled of Big Business & Government – it’s amazing to see how much the corporate masters are willing to openly criticize Trump, going so far as threatening their employees to stay in line; this is worldwide , not just in the US
    The violence of the Judeo-Masonic mob, the beginning of a American civil war is a real probability.

    My point here is this: Imagine what would happen if a Catholic Pope once again came to power ? Rome would literally be over run by the Jew loving dogs in Europe. I really believe it would usher another world war or massive worldwide martyrdom.
    There is a ” prophecy” of the Great Monarch that is supposed to rise up out of France, he and a Holy Pope are said to conquer Europe , chase out the Jews & Muslims & restablish Christendom.
    All I know is that it will take Divine intervention to get us out of the mess we are in now.

35. Well, the current SSPX hierarchy (not necessarily the SSPX faithful) is currently seeking to be “recognized” as part of, or in league with, the sickness that we on this site daily denounce…namely the church of the second vatican council which is currently being led by mr bergoglio.

    As far as specifics I simply look at the words of ABP Lefebvre and compare them to the words of Bp Fellay as they pertain to the people in Rome. Im no nostradamus but I find it very, VERY, hard to believe that if the good ABP Lefebvre were alive today he’d be playing footsie with mr bergoglio like Bp Fellay is currently doing,

36. I’m beginning to think Catholic Thinker is Salza. I find it hard to believe he has all that time to write these posts from sratch without cutting and pasting (and that means he has acces to electronic originals). If not, he has more time to be writing than I have to be reading!
    I gotta hand it to him for his zeal though

37. Dear irishpol,

    I think rich suffers from Sedevacantism. That syndrome is associated with a number of distressing clinical manifestations, including an irrational dislike of the SSPX. If one were to use the fashionable language of the day, one might even say he were SSPXophobic.

38. Archbishop Lefebvre:
    “Seeing that, in the Council of Trent, the Church engages her infallible authority (in which the Pope, the bishops united, define the sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood), it is finished for all times. It is inscribed in heaven, it is inscribed in God. They are the words of God, words that are definitive. One does not change a dogma, something that is defined for all times.

    Well then, we persist in these truths that are strong, as Almighty God Himself is strong. And that is why we can truly say, we have the future because we keep the past, because that has not changed. Our Lord has not changed, the Church has not changed, the sacraments have not changed, the Mass cannot change, our catechism cannot change. If we have that treasure that the Church has given to us, that Our Lord has given to us for the conversion of souls, for the salvation of our souls, and that he has given to us for two thousand years, then we can be sure that in doing what has been done for two thousand years, we will also have the future. We will at least have heaven. If we do not have, here below, the earth, well we will at least have heaven, and that is the true future.

    But we are also sure that one day here below this truth will come back. It is not possible that the good Lord abandon His Church, and you are the Church. You represent the Church. That which you do here in this Priory and in all the groups that wish to maintain Tradition, that is the Church, it is the Mystical Body of Our Lord that reacts against the microbes that would like to infect them. The Mystical Body reacts, it reacts everywhere. It is not me that makes them react, it is not Archbishop Lefebvre.”

39. GeorgeB

    Try reading the com boxes on this site, on a daily basis, like I have been doing for going on five years now, and see how the tone of this site has developed. Your pseudo-pope has woken a lot of people out of their v2 slumber….maybe you’ll be next?

40. I never really took notice of the heart missing thing with the IHM but now that you mentioned it I think you’re exactly right. Looks like there are other images they sometimes use but the main one they use and it’s on the cover of the goofy book they’re leavin in Church’s through Philly to promote the phony “messages” of FOL is the flame without the IHM showing. Like you said earlier, Divine Mercy and Flame of Love images are like exact opposites of what the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary images are. http://www.flameoflove.us/

Comments are closed.