The Society of St. Pius X has chosen, for whatever reason, to lend its voice to an excerpt taken from a presentation given by Claudio Pierantoni at the laity-led conference on Amoris Laetitia held in Rome on April 22nd.
The article, published on the SSPX News website under the title, Why is the pope silent on the dubia, offers some disturbing observations.
“What is obvious in the current situation is precisely the basic doctrinal distortion which, even though it cleverly avoids any directly heterodox formula, nevertheless consistently maneuvers so as to attack not only some dogmas in particular such as the indissolubility of marriage and the objectivity of the moral law, but also the very idea of sure doctrine and, with it, the very person of Christ as Logos (Word of God).”
What we’re witnessing here is the proverbial “slippery slope” in action.
Recall that Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, in his multi-part series of articles on Amoris Laetitia, concluded that the text and its author merely “promote heresy” as opposed to putting forward actual heresy (by his definition, “that which constitutes a rejection or a questioning of the revealed truth that is proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church.”)
Now, the SSPX is giving credence to the idea that Amoris Laetitia is not only free of heresy; it is “obvious” that it doesn’t even contain “any directly heterodox formula.”
Even though this horse has been well and truly beaten to death on these pages, it is necessary to consider the following limited examples yet again:
– “One may be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently than to knowingly persist in the mortal sins of adultery and fornication.” (cf AL 301, in opposition to Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV)
– “At times, persisting in the mortal sins of adultery and fornication is the most generous response which can be given to God.” (cf AL 303, in opposition to Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XVIII)
– “At times, God Himself asks us to persist in the mortal sins of adultery and fornication.” (cf AL 303, in opposition to Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon VI)
Now, you tell me, are the three citations taken from Amoris Laetitia “directly heterodox” in their formulation or not?
The answer is indeed “obvious.”
So why, then, is the SSPX, via its promotion of this regrettable article, instructing not only its own faithful, but Catholics the world over, otherwise; as if (let me guess) the citations above merely “promote” heterodoxy?
It seems to me that the Society of St. Pius X, as initially made evident in its publication of Fr. Gleize’s articles, has placed itself on a slippery slope that cannot but lead progressively further away from clarity and conviction.
Oh, but the article does go on to say that its formulas consistently maneuver so as to attack certain dogmas, the moral law, and even the very idea of sure doctrine!
Yes, it does, but think about it…
If the text of Amoris Laetitia does all of this, does that not mean that it necessarily contains that which is “directly heterodox”?
Of course it does!
And so the question that one must ask is why does Mr. Pierantoni – and more importantly, the SSPX – feel compelled to engage in this hair-splitting high wire act as opposed to simply calling a spade a “spade,” heresy “heresy,” and a heretic a “heretic,” etc.?
I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know this:
The truth is straightforward. Defending it is likewise simple. Equivocating for error, however, is quite another story.
As this latest posting by the SSPX aptly demonstrates, the latter requires all manner of contortion and contradiction, and it’s an effort that will even go so far as to make excuses for the enemies of Christ:
“And the Pope himself is the first victim of this doctrinal distortion, even though—and this is a hypothesis on my part—he is not very aware of it, and he is the victim of a general historical alienation that affects large sectors of theological teaching.”
Remember that under discussion here is Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ unwillingness to formally respond to the dubia.
And with this in mind, we’re being asked to believe that Francis is a victim? A victim!
Where does this Claudio Pierantoni person come off hypothesizing about what Francis is aware of or not, and worse, suggesting that he is simply the victim of a poor formation?
(As if that excuse couldn’t be applied to damn near everyone who was educated under the dark shadow of the Council.)
More importantly, why is the Society of St. Pius X putting its stamp of approval on such garbage; thus doing a grave injustice to its namesake?
I’ve said this many times with regard to Amoris Laetitia, but clearly it bears repeating:
No one has the right, or the authority, to make subjective judgments concerning the interior disposition of souls and matters of culpability.
Whether, or to what degree, Jorge Bergoglio may be a victim of the age, God alone is judge. Our task is simply to assess the objective sense of his statements and writings.
All of this having been said, it is not altogether surprising that the SSPX is now disseminating the rubbish found in Mr. Pierantoni’s presentation.
After all, a key component of Fr. Gleize’s quasi-defense of Amoris Laetitia involved yet another subjective judgement that is beyond the scope of mere mortals – in his case, the determination that Francis’ “intent” somehow exonerates him from the charge of heresy.
At this, let’s return to Claudio Pierantoni’s commentary where we will witness the art of contradiction at its finest:
“In this situation the dubia, these five questions presented by four cardinals, put the Pope in an impasse. If he answered by denying the Tradition and the Magisterium of his predecessors, he would be formally considered heretical, and therefore he cannot do that. If, instead, he answered in keeping with the previous Magisterium, he would contradict a considerable part of the main doctrinal actions that he has taken during his pontificate…”
Let’s apply basic logic to this statement.
If Mr. Pierantoni is correct, if Francis was to answer the dubia simply by applying sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church to its questions, the light of truth would be shone on “the main doctrinal actions that he has taken during his pontificate” and “he would be formally considered heretical.”
On this note, he is quite right!
And yet he also states that Amoris Laetitia “cleverly avoids any directly heterodox formula.” Like I said, the art of contradiction at its finest.
Look, the fact of the matter is we need not wait for Francis to act in order to apply sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church to the dubia and by extension to Amoris Laetitia and its author.
In fact, we are obligated to do so; both for our own good and for the good of those in our charge. If we simply do this, revealed in the process is nothing less than heresy.
In spite of his evident disorientation, even Mr. Pierantoni gets this right.
How many more souls must perish before the Society of St. Pius X does what must be done and warns the world accordingly?
In a related article, 7 priests of the SSPX in France have spoken out against the agreement between Rome and the SSPX regarding marriages.
Here’s the article on the Non Possumus website. The little American flag icon on the upper right side of the page will need to be clicked in order to translate it into English.
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/05/diez-superiores-de-francia-y-todos-los.html
Correction: in order to translate the above Non Possumus article, the British flag icon will need to be clicked in order to translate into English (there’s no American flag icon, as I mistakenly mentioned in my previous post).
It would appear that the SSPX has also been infiltrated with NWO protagonists as well as the Vatican & Episcopates. Making excuse after excuse for PF & his cronies (particularly his ghostwriter) is erroneous as both are clearly culpable in their promotion of heresy.
Fr. Gleize said “I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’’ Does this mean that he is prepared to give the Most Pure & Most Holy Body & Blood of Christ Our Saviour to unrepentant & intransigent sinners? When was the Catechism rewritten to exclude the necessity of Confession & with the advice of the priest to amend one’s life prior to approaching the altar to receive our most coveted ‘prize’? Or, maybe like PF himself & Martin Luther whom he has such respect for, Fr. Gleize questions the validity of Christ’s Presence in the Holy Species?
How can the SSPX agree with the idea that a second relationship while one’s spouse is still living has merit & therefore both partners (in crime?) can rightly receive Holy Communion without having confessed & duly repented their situation & properly resolve to amend their lives? Agreeing to making children a scapegoat in their culpability is a dreadful denial of the Church’s duty to the original & valid marriage over which they presided & verified (Marriage Certificate) in order to appear ‘merciful’ while facilitating the scuppering of that marriage. AL must be completely rescinded & it is simply astounding the SSPX hasn’t come out well before now & stated so.
It is becoming clear why the SSPX did not throw their weight behind the Dubia & those promoting it. By not doing so they have lost IMO a great deal of credibility & have become no more than another puppet of the PF administration.
To answer your last question Louie, many more souls will be lost until those who are left who hold the true Catholic faith stop giving their allegience to a bunch of heretics who wear vestments and occupy real estate that were once Catholic. It is the contradiction of having a hererical pope that confuses the remaining faithful. Enough already! There is no Catholic Pope! Instead of these stupid talks with heretics, Fellay needs to organize the remaining faithful to elect a new Pope. Until then, souls will wallow in confusion.
The takeover or infiltration seems to have occurred 6 to 12 months after Francis was apparently elected to the Chair of Peter.
Another group of sellouts.
Matthew 7:15-20
A Tree and Its Fruit
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
.
Jesus gave us this gift; and so you do not need to be a canon lawyer, educated or even intelligent – it is very simple how the ordinary faithful can come to the correct conclusions by applying this Scripture. It is far past the time for making excuses for lousy leadership.
.
The objection will be: “But wait – Jesus picked Judas didn’t he? so we have to be patient with errant clergy!” . Well, yes He did, and when Judas realized his error he hung himself. Now – where did I put that rope…….?
.
Michael F Poulin
Does anyone remember JP2’s “indult” for the TLM. An indult is a permission to do something that is illegal or forbidden. B16 revealed JP2’s “lie” when he declared the TLM was never forbidden and, therefore, no indult was necessary. This situation reminds me of Francis’s “indult” for the SSPX to perform marriage rites, provided they follow the “rules”. If this doesn’t make the SSPX leadership suspicious of anything coming out of the Modernist postconciliar Vatican, then they are willingly heading in the wrong direction—-the slippery slope, as Louie words it.
Alas, as a wise man once said, it is a lot easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.
Louie; I’m not expecting you to answer this question, of course, but I’m curious as to why you (and to be fair, the Dubia brothers and others as well) single out the error contained in Amoris Laetitia as the heresy we should all focus upon as the convincing evidence that the pope is a heretic. Do you not believe that the many, and far more serious errors of the Second Vatican Council are evidence that the pope is a heretic? Is this ignored simply because a few cardinals have not drafted a Dubia on some of those issues?
There are many heresies contained in the Council documents, but certainly the false ecumenism and the “revised” doctrine of Religious Liberty are both heretical teachings which this pope embraces. Moreover, by almost any measure those teachings have been far more devastating to the faith than allowing the divorced/remarried to receive the Holy Sacrament. And if there is a more blatant falsehood in the Vatican II documents than the false teaching contained in Nostra Aetate it has escaped me. Yet, the pope does not deny this heresy either.
Okay, he didn’t “write” the Vatican II documents, but if that’s the defense one is relying upon, it’s a thin reed. So unless we are now expected to believe that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are not heretical at all, but merely a “modern way” to look at the truth, I am puzzled why you and other faithful Catholics now focus so much attention on Amoris Laetitia, without explaining that this heretical thinking is all related to the Modernist heresy of Vatican II.
To be perfectly clear, I do not defend the heresy of Amoris Laetitia, for a moment. a But a serious concern I have with your columns is the fact that you have been regularly training your guns on the SSPX. The attacks on the Society are frighteningly suggestive of Arther Miller’s play, The Crucible. It is not enough that they are willing to acknowledge that the Exhortation may well be heterodox, they must also agree with you and declare the pope to be a heretic. Their failure to come straight out and say so now seems to place their orthodoxy in question. That’s troubling.
Most bothersome of all as far as I’m concerned (and it really should for you as well), is the fact that this issue was initially raised by four men who all support the heretical teachings of Vatican II; yet, little if anything is said about that. There is certainly no reason not to believe they aren’t right in this matter, but for any of us to be chasing these Modernist bishops down the road in search of the truth, seems to me to be very mixed up indeed.
Good morning Louie,
Thank you once again for your clarity in truth and may Almighty God dearly bless you and yours’. The “operation of error” that Saint Paul, under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost as a matter of the Faith, allowed for our understanding of, is plainly alive, well, and active in the intellects of those who either should be or would seem to be otherwise, among “even the most elect”. As you so pristinely point out, this proposition that these authors yield, to suggest that they indeed read into the deepest interiority of the being of the human person which Almighty God alone can view and has known into all eternity for each and all, in this case the person of the “Pope” as Francis, as you suggest, places an affront to the law of non-contradiction the likes of which would make an anti-Thomist blush. It is a contradiction because those same authors suggest that while they can stake claim that Bergoglio is somehow a “victim” here, it would be wrong to at once suggest that he is a manifest heretic here. Most simply stated, we can either read into the heart of the other, whether suggesting the other indeed freely chooses evil as the privation of the good which is due in the act considered, or we cannot. We simply cannot suggest that the other has a benevolent intent in their commission of error, by virtue of their own misunderstandings, for whatever reason or reasons we may offer, unless they show us that this is the case through their repeated words or acts which specifically allow us to know their intent. As Holy Scripture also teaches us, we can know them by their fruits. If their fruits remain consistent in their rottenness than we know them by their rottenness.
Ultimately, what these authors are accomplishing is to demonstrate for us their very denial of the Reality of Grace, as they suggest an “Holy Roman Pontiff”, as Francis, is purely a victim of his theological malformation, which they suggest to be the reality in this post VC II climate of malignant exegesis and its resultant catechesis. As if a truly holy Roman Pontiff would not receive the grace of the intellective lights to see through the fog of this manifest, diabolical disorientation that has gripped the post-Conciliar Church. Of course he would, as he submitted into the Charism of the Holy Ghost, with utter humility, and not rejected Him by virtue of his vitriolic hubris.
It is simply consistent with right reason to see that what we indeed have in our very midst is the loss of the Faith in Rome, which has become the seat of the anti-Christ, as Our Lady of Akita foretold. We have two Churches. One is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and its Vicar of Christ in this world is now not visible. The other church is the “new church” or “VC II church”, contrived in the mind of Lucifer, whose preternatural, intellective gifts were given to his servants, the men at the highest levels of the Church who betrayed the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride. These men instead submitted their free wills to the Prince of this world, in exchange for the power of domination over souls, riches, and sodomite sex. What we bear witness too now, consequently, is this carnage of souls who are deceived into believing that men the likes of Roncalli as John XXIII, through Bergoglio as Francis, can actually be the benevolent Kings of Christ’s Church in this world, as His Vicars, leading His flock to Him into His eternity. This is the diabolical disorientation of the mind which Our Lady promised would occur under the circumstances which we live existentially in the “new church”. It really is simple common sense, as that which an innocent child would have and approach this reality with. Our Blessed Lord and Savior commanded that only those who approach the Faith as an innocent child can enter the Kingdom of God in Heaven. Lastly, as Saint Paul proclaimed in his letter to the Romans, chapter one, versus 18-32, “they have no excuse”, as we either submit to Him and receive His grace, that which overcomes all intellective blindness, or we reject His grace, and we face the diabolical from our own immanence, which will lead to our utter destruction each and every time. May our Blessed Triune God, in His Three Divine Persons, shower His mercy upon us in this time of unprecedented darkness, perhaps leading to the revelation of the person of the anti-Christ, as only time will tell. In caritas.
Don’t worry folks. the SSPX is just waiting until after they have tricked Pope Francis into signing a deal, then they’ll come out ‘all guns blazing’ to denounce heresy just like the good ol’ days. Why, I bet they’ll even start preaching against slacks for women, TV, and pop music…and pigs fly…
Of course, the fact that the quotes from Amoris Laetitia are fake and not actually in the document doesn’t bother anyone here.
I could be falsely told that Francis led a satanic mass and I couldnt think any less of him than I already do. That horse is WAY out of the barn. I personally wouldnt waste my time reading AL (the summations Ive read by actual Catholics are good enough for me)….but I trust Louie to tell the truth. What is it that you are referring to as fake?
The quotes upon which this article is based, highlited in bold at the begining. They are not in AL at all.
Louie has long been pointing out the errors in Vatican II. For years now. Has that gone anywhere? Obviously not. Amoris Letitia is current and being talked about. Now far more eyes are open. Louie has also written extensively on how Vatican II led us to Amoris Letitia. Look at his past posts, his lectures with the Fatima center, and I’d also recommend his talks with Michael Voris, but those aren’t available any more.
That’s because Louie is not quoting Amoris Letitia.
He’s listing the errors in Amoris Letitia then listing the section of Amoris Letitia these errors are contained in alongside other Councils which it contradicts.
“One may be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently than to knowingly persist in the mortal sins of adultery and fornication.” (cf AL 301, in opposition to Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV)
Amoris Letitia 301.
For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be
—in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently —
and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.
Council of Trent Session 6
CHAPTER XV.
That, by every mortal sin, grace is lost, but not faith.
In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ.
– “At times, persisting in the mortal sins of adultery and fornication is the most generous response which can be given to God.” (cf AL 303, in opposition to Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XVIII)
– “At times, God Himself asks us to persist in the mortal sins of adultery and fornication.” (cf AL 303, in opposition to Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon VI)
Amoris Letitia 303
Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now
—is the most generous response which can be given to God,—
and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what
—God himself is asking—
amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.
Council of Trent Session 6 Canon XVIII
If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent Session 6 Canon VI.
If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter XVI
On the fruit of Justification, that is, on the merit of good works, and on the nature of that merit.
Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner,-whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost,-are to be set the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord; for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name; and, do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. And, for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits. For this is that crown of justice which the Apostle declared was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting.
Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. Neither is this to be omitted,-that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. And forasmuch as in many things we all offend, each one ought to have before his eyes, as well the severity and judgment, as the mercy and goodness (of God); neither ought any one to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything; because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged, not by the judgment of man, but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works. After this Catholic doctrine on Justification, which whoso receiveth not faithfully and firmly cannot be justified, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all may know not only what they ought to hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun.
Of course, Mcirish3, the fact is more likely that you are more bothered that anyone is criticizing Amoris Letitia, than Louie’s clumsily bolded text that might be easy to confuse for direct quotes, which is likely Louie’s fault for inaccurately referring to them as ‘citations.’ But they pretty much paraphrase precisely what is actually contained in Amoris Letitia, most of the words directly lifted from Amoris Letitia. Louie just does us all a favor by getting rid of the flowery modernist verbiage surrounding them to point out directly what they are referring to – excuses for Adultery.
Thanks for the comments, all.
.
I was recently asked by a friend to clarify the references to AL in this post, so obviously it has confused more than one.
.
When you see (cf AL 303) or similar, the “cf” is an abbreviation of the Latin “confer” which means “compare.” It is used to in order to indicate that the preceding statement is not a direct quote (in this case, of AL 303), but rather that one will find that what is stated is sufficiently supported by the reference (AL 303).
.
As Johnno was kind enough to provide direct quotes of AL, I challenge anyone to provide a reading other than the one I gave in this post and elsewhere; i.e., there is no question whatsoever that “adultery” and “fornication” are the activities under discussion in the paragraphs cited.
Pope St Pius X, warned the world as to Modernism, all clergy,pastors,confessors, preachers, religious superiors swore an oath to God against that Modernism.The oath was broken by all who signed the documents at Vatican II Pastoral Council. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre regretted his signature, and he and Bishop Anthony de Castro Mayer (who never signed ) stated so and went on to be falsely accused of schism.
Now please read http://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/journey-catholic-who-not-confused-29091, Bishop B.Fellay,BishopT.de Mallerais,BishopA.de Galarrita, still follow Archbishop M.Lefebvre;.”if my work is of God He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her” I believe this and support the F.S.S.P. X.
This is something I’ve mentioned before: what about all the heresies of Vatican II that most have seem to “put up with” if they’re not completely ignorant of the true Faith to begin with (most – ignorance being a punishment for sin). Where has been the outcry on those heresies which paved the way for this one? Vatican II is the problem and nobody who wishes to be a true Catholic should be following any “pope” or bishop who promotes ANY of these heresies. The Church is in eclipse as we were told at LaSalette, and in order to follow our Baptismal vow of rejecting Satan and ALL his pomps and works, we must take our feet to worship only at places which truly hold the cherish the unadulterated CATHOLIC Faith. We don’t need indults nor PERMISSION to follow our Faith, as we respect the Papacy and await the day when “Rome” returns to the True Catholic religion.
This is the conclusion we are called to come to at this time. We must imitate St Athansius and his followers, because this situation is far worse than what he was faced.
Then why is it in quotes? If it is his spin then it not a quote. Hence blatant dishonesty. what he just did is completely unethical by saying it’s a quote when he knows it is not.
Um…there is no confusion. He put quotes around the text. That litteraly means he is saying its a quote. Your mental gymnasts to cover for him are laughable.
Your, use of quotation marks depite clarifying here makes your article continue to be sladerous.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/fr-gleize-author-heresy-series-interviewed
Fr. Gleize answers the objections. SOme people just have to have something to complain about…