INTRODUCTION
Dogma: “A truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful … A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (cf 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Heresy: “Outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God.” (cf Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., Catholic Dictionary)
With this in mind, consider:
“Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.” (James 13:1)
“If any one saith … that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself… let him be anathema.” (cf Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon VI)
Dubium 1: Does the teaching “God never wills evil” qualify as dogma?
Dubium 2: Does the teaching “One’s conscience can come to see with a certain moral security that persistence in adultery is what God himself is asking” qualify as heresy?
RESPONSE:
As to Dubium 1, the answer is AFFIRMATIVE.
As to Dubium 2, the answer is AFFIRMATIVE.
HOW DID YOU RESPOND?
If you answered NEGATIVE to either Dubium, you just might be a DUMMY!
If you answered AFFIRMATIVE to both Dubia, but you are unwilling to publicly defend the Church’s dogma and the holiness of Almighty God by calling a heresy a heresy and a heretic and heretic, you are definitely a COWARD!
Catholicism isnt that hard to get. We have to simply start calling wolves wolves and stop making excuses for them. I had zero faith in Burke when the dubia came out, just like I have zero faith in Fellay as he gets ready to sell his soul. Am I THAT smart? Heck no. Im just not that stupid.
Publishing more Dubia’s for Dummies that included the refutation of all of the heresies of Vatican II and distributing them far and wide would still not make a single bit of difference to those committed to Modernism. They want to be Modernists rather than Catholic.
Hi Katherine,
As you suggest, “Modernism” is the objective manifestation of one who has fully received into their deepest interiority, the “operation of error” by Almighty God, as he obstinately denies Him and His Truth, as Truth Incarnate. There is no spiritual vacuum to be had. When an human person pertinaciously rejects the Truth of God as He has chosen to reveal it in His Church and Her authentic Magisterium, he cannot somehow persist in grace, as Grace is a gift which is both freely given and completely undeserved, and like any gift, left wrapped it can be of no use to the receiver. In this state of being, that same human person is then given the operation of error, as he requests it in his rejection of the grace of justification, himself then choosing to be self-righteous, and as it can only then be understood, on his path unto eternal perdition. May Almighty God have mercy on His people who freely choose Him. In caritate.
I would be interested to see if Louie can quote a dogma directly, and then provide a quotation from AL that DIRECTLY contradicts it. That is what he will need to do to show that AL teaches heresy. It can’t be a quote from AL that seems to contradict the dogma or that logically contradicts it. It must be a direct contradiction.
Good afternoon JPeters,
So have it your way. Accept the language and conclusion of Fr Gleize, as Pope Bergoglio having simply accomplished through A.L., an act of “promoting heresy”, in some sense of the contradistinction from his being an actual, manifest heretic. This then logically beckons the question: which is worse, a man committing adultery himself, or a man who considers himself to be the Vicar of Christ in this world, occupying the Chair of Saint Peter, promoting adultery as not only not always and everywhere a mortal sin by virtue of the intrinsic evil that it is, but the actual act of adultery for some men, as being the “most generous” act which they can return Almighty God at that point in time in their lives. In caritate.
The real heretic behind AL is JP2 when he said non Catholics can recieve communion in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Modernists are embarrased by the Real Presence. So they aim to downplay its significance. AL is just one more nail in ridding themselves of troublesome sacramental theologies of the past. Begining with the new Rites of Ordination and the NO, coupled with a new eclessiology and understanding of the priesthood, I dont know what is the big issue with AL myself. It is extremely doubtful that any adulterer who recieves an NO host is getting anything other than a piece of unleavened bread.
Why are you so defensive? All I asked is if Louie could demonstrate that anything in AL is directly heretical. Either it is or it isn’t. If it is, let it be demonstrated. If not, then have the courage to admit rather than allowing your emotions to effect your judgment. If we are going to “call a spade a spade”, we need to make sure the spade isn’t a shovel.
I can certainly understand your rejection of Cardinal Burke, but I’m not so inclined to write off Bishop Fellay and the SSPX––notwithstanding the position expressed by Father Gleize . Nevertheless, you seem to be saying that you have “zero faith” in any Catholic organization to teach the Catholic faith correctly and consistently. If so, is it your belief that the true teachings of the Catholic Church are as you, alone, determine them to be?
No, on the contrary. None of us need to “determine” what the teachings of the Catholic Church are – they were handed down to all of us over nearly two thousand years, by some 260 Popes and 20 Ecumenical Councils. They are crystal clear and anyone can see them in the catechisms (eg the Tridentine catechism, Baltimore catechism, catechism of St. Pius X, etc), in the great doctrinal works of the saints and Doctors, and in the manuals of Catholic dogma (such as Denzinger), etc.
It is not our task to determine what the Catholic doctrines are; it is our duty to conform to them as they were taught to Catholics of all ages.
If your opinion was correct, the Catholic Church would never have been able to condemn ANY heresy or heretic, because none of them ever specifically said “the Church teaches dogma xyz but I declare that dogma xyz is false and the opposite is true”. You’re grasping at straws. Louie has shown very clearly that AI directly opposes the dogmatic teachings of Trent. If it’s not enough for you, nothing will ever be.
The NO and its hierarchs (esp Wojtyla) have made a mockery of the First Commandment and broke it willfully and publicly on countless occasions over many decades. Breaking the First Commandment (and promoting such heinous acts so that others may also do so) is certainly infinitely worse than breaking the Fifth, or the Sixth… So it does seem odd that Catholics (?) suddenly object to the Novus Ordo’s abandonment of the traditional stance on moral issues and marriage, when they never bothered about the far more grievous offenses against God Himself. The abandonment of the moral teachings is just a natural consequence of the denial of the true doctrines (which happened decades ago).
No heretic ever said ““the Church teaches dogma xyz but I declare that dogma xyz is false and the opposite is true”? Try visiting your local baptist Church, tell them that the Catholic Church defined as a dogma that Mary is the Mother of God, and ask if they believe the dogma. Then you will see that how false your statement is.
It never ceased to amaze me how sedevacantist heretics use every excuse in the book, and every possible technicality to excuse the pre-Vatican II popes of heresy, while claiming the same technicalities don’t apply in the case of the post-Vatican II popes. Why the double standard?
Anyone who thinks that any good will come out of these “Dubia” is a fool.
This is just a Kansas City Shuffle by the gay enablers Burke and Bergoglio.
https://onemillimeterpeter.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/dubia-dubia-dubia-dubia/
No true Pope ever taught Heresy. If you believe it is possible that a true Pope can teach heresy then you are contradicting the teaching of the Church on the nature of the Papacy and thus declaring yourself a heretic.
Does the teaching “One’s conscience can come to see with a certain moral security that persistence in remaining in a “chapel” that is not in communion with the Pope is what God himself is asking” qualify as heresy? Fixed it for you.
If it is heresy, than uh oh SSPX chapel adherents. Uh oh, sedevacantist chapel adherents. Uh oh, independent traditionalist chapel adherents.
I find it fascinating how defenders of the NO V2 sect can condemn tradionalists but can’t condemn protestants, pagans, muslims, or jews. How is it that these religions contain elements of salvation but traditional Catholicism does not? Earth to Ganganelli! Vatican 2 repealed EENS, so we traddies are just as saved as anyone else according to your modernistic faith based NGO you call a Church.
Please understand that I wasn’t criticizing or even arguing with Rich on this point, nor for that matter, am I taking issue with what you have to say. But I am interested in learning how other Catholics are understanding and following their faith in light on these ongoing developments. These are very unusual times in the Church as the faithful have clearly been abandoned by the pope and the bishops since the Second Vatican Council.
That being said, I believe that you have taken the same position as Rich, as you seem to be making a similar argument; namely, that there is no “organization” upon which you feel the need (or the willingness) to rely upon for understanding the true teachings of the catholic Church. You are saying that you believe the true and correct teaching of the Catholic Church is whatever you believe it to be––as understood by your reading and interpretation of the Scriptures and the many other Church writings since the time of Christ.
And, as I said, I’m not arguing with that approach, I’m simply trying to understand how other Catholics are approaching this very strange period of Church history we seem to be embarking upon. Before all this began, many faithful Catholics regularly read the Scriptures and other Sacred documents for knowledge and guidance, but the Church had always cautioned Catholics to proceed with care in doing so, inasmuch as there was always the risk of misinterpretation. We were told that the final and correct interpretation of whatever we read must be as understood by the leaders of the Church––hence, the nihil obstat. This, of course, was before Vatican II.
Protestants, as we understood what they were taught, were free and even encouraged to read the Bible and interpret it in the way they, as individuals, believed to be the truth. As a result, many different and often conflicting points of view are held by Protestants. Now it’s true that the history of Protestantism only dates back to the 16th century, while the Catholic Church has an incredibly rich history of brilliant theologians that began with the Apostles and was carried on through the writings of the Church Fathers, the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas and many other great theologians, as well as the encyclicals of our saintly popes. So there can be no fair comparison with Protestantism.
Still, is not the approach of the Protestants much the same as the approach that is now being suggested by you and Rich (and many others to be fair)? Certainly, the Protestants have far less to rely upon for discerning the truth (although many will take great umbrage at that suggestion), but at the end of the day, both the Protestant and the Catholic (who goes it on their own) will have reached a conclusion as to what they, as an individual, believe to be the truth, without the leaders of their religion weighing in.
I do understand, of course, that it is the obligation for all Catholics to know and follow the truth––regardless of what the pope or any other person may teach. I also understand that the issue at hand is that the current pope, in Amoris Laetitia, is teaching what appears to be heresy. It also appears that Father Gleize, while acknowledging that error, refuses to label the pope as a formal heretic. But does this misstep of the SSPX (if indeed it is a misstep), or the many missteps of Pope Francis (which appear to be clear missteps), justify going it on our own like the Protestants? Those of us who are members of an SSPX Chapel have determined that those bishops and priests have recognized the errors of Vatican II and have, therefore, assumed the position of being the faithful leaders of the Catholic Church who we can depend upon for the truth. You seem to reject that line of thinking. Am I wrong in that regard?
Anyhow, I can’t help but wondering that If Father Gleize had not written what he did, but instead, took the position that the pope should be found to a formal heretic for not denouncing Amoris Laetitia, would those who have essentially thrown both the “modern” Church leaders and the the SSPX overboard, still be taking the position that their reading and interpretation of the Scriptures and Church writings, alone, is all that is necessary for the correct guidance in true Catholic teaching?
If you put AL in the context of all that has preceded it, it is a natural and unexceptional extension of Modernism.
Also, remember that the mission of the Modernists is not to teach and preach the Catholic faith as the only true faith, because they have clearly stated that it is merely a subset of the Christian faith; rather, its mission is false ecumenism. Every word, every “reform”, and every change has been centered on false ecumenism.
Recall, that JPII allowed non-Catholics to participate in the partaking of what they (the Modernists) believe to be communion so why should it be surprising if they want to extend this to the divorced and remarried “Catholic.” (I put Catholic in quotes because a Modernist cannot be logically considered to be Catholic.)
Also recall that the Modernists created what they call “Ordinariates” which are Anglicans pretending to be Catholics. The Ordinary of St. Peter is an example. Here is what they say about themselves:
In Vatican II’s “Decree on Ecumenism” (Unitatis redintegatio), the Catholic Church (Modernists) specified what it would look like to bring all Christians together into communion. The Council said Christian groups would bring their own distinctive traditions to the Catholic Church; they would not be suppressed or absorbed. The Vatican’s remarkable ecumenical gesture in establishing the Ordinariates {the Chair of St. Peter} affirms the Catholic Church’s (Modernists) view that the patrimony of different Christian spiritualities and liturgies is a treasure meant to be shared within the Catholic tradition.”
https://ordinariate.net/about
Don’t misunderstand me. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy in Louie’s original formulation. He wants it to be heresy if Pope says “adulterers” can “can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God”.
He doesn’t want it to be heresy if schismatics and heretics in the Eastern Orthodox Church ” can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God” because that would implicate John Paul II.
And he certainly doesn’t want it to be members of the SSPX or sedevacantist chapels who ” can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God”.
My position is that, as always, the Holy Father Francis is correct and I’m sure there are people who attend sedevacantist chapels not in communion with the Holy Father and are therefore in objective grave sin but who subjectively believe “with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God.”
TC: I’ve asked the same question numerous times with absolutely no response. Why the breaking of the First Commandment, publicly and persistently by those who are supposed to be the Vicar of Christ has had no condemnation and no outrage except by those hated sedevacantist’s is a mystery.
By the way, the latest from Francis is his mockery of the Holy Trinity; a breaking of the Second Commandment:
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/03/25/woman-knows-read-pope-francis/
“My position is that, as always, the Holy Father Francis is correct…”
Holy cats! Francis is always correct? What kind of cognitive dissonant gyrations would someone have to go through to actually write that?
The utter ignorance of you sedevacantists is incredible. The Church has ever taught that a Pope cannot TEACH heresy. What the Church teaches is that a Pope cannot err when he DEFINES a doctrine for the entire Church. Pope Honorius taught that Christ had one will. He said “the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ was one only”. That is more clearly a heresy than anything in A.L.
If you deny the conditions for infallibility as set down by Vatican I, then you declare yourself a heretic.
I will agree that it seems the SSPX lives a contradiction of resisting authority. And all trads will agree that sedevacantists are not in communion with Modernist Rome. I do not agree with that any Trad, no matter what he professes, is in objective sin based on Modernist Rome V2 NO theology. Modernists are at heart ecumenical and condemn no one who follows God with a sincere heart. So while it may be consistent for a Trad to call a Novus Ordoist a heretic, Novus Ordoists cannot by definition call anyone (including trads) heretics.
“You are saying that you believe the true and correct teaching of the Catholic Church is whatever you believe it to be”
You are misrepresenting what I wrote above. No, it is NOT what I, rich or anyone believes it to be – it is what has been infallibly taught by ALL the Popes and Councils over the ages. It’s not some opinion of any particular theologians or even of saints (all of whom can err), but rather the dogmas (set in stone, so to speak) of the Church. All the catechisms (up until VII) taught the same Catholic Faith – so how can you say that when we follow that which ALL our Catholic ancestors (and Popes, saints, etc) believed we are guided by our own opinion or interpretation?? The other sources, such as Denzinger, list all the Catholic dogmas (dogmas that have to be believed by all Catholics, at all times and everywhere). How is any of this our own judgment or interpretation? Surely you can see the utter absurdity of comparing it to the Protestants. If anyone can be compared to the Protestants, it’s the modernists of the Novus Ordo.
Nobody cares what the tens of thousands of new Protestant sects say – the Catholic Church has not condemned each and every false teaching of 50,000 (or how many there may be now) of sects. I was referring to the heresies specifically condemned over the ages by the Church.
When you claim that a true Pope can teach heresy to the universal Church, you are contradicting more than 200 Popes, Doctors of the Church, early Church Fathers, saints, and renowned theologians over 1900 years. If you believe you know better and they were all wrong and you are right, fine with me – your soul is your responsibility, not mine.
I worry until midnight, and from then on I let God worry.
St Louis Guanella
You are entirely misunderstanding how the Church defines doctrines and teachings that ALL Catholics must believe. Only a tiny part of the Church doctrines have ever been defined by the solemn magisterium (ie ex cathedra by a Pope). The vast majority are defined by the universal ordinary magisterium (UOM) – ie when the bishops teach something of faith or morals in union with the Pope, to be held by all Catholics. The UOM is also infallible, as the Church has clearly declared (incl at Vatican I). If you only believe what was defined by a Pope ex cathedra you discard the vast majority of Catholic doctrines and are not a Catholic.
As for Pope Honorius, saints and Doctors of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus de Liguori (among many others) wrote that Honorius was NOT a heretic and that those who judge him to be one are deceived. I could quote extensively from their writings on this case for I have them at hand. St. Robert Bellarmine explains the Honorius case in much detail over some 20+ pages.
What you do not seem to understand is that while a Pope speaking ex cathedra is certainly infaillable, it doesnt mean he can teach heresy as long as he doesnt do it ex cathedra.
Seems that we are all wasting our time by posting on the internet. No matter how much one quotes from any authoritative Catholic texts, or points out the universally accepted opinions of saints, Doctors, Popes and theologians, in order to try to make some sense of what’s happening (so as to keep the true Faith), the result is always the same: Novus Ordites and some supposed traditionalists resorting to ad hominem attacks, accusing anyone leaning to the sedevacantist opinion of heresy, schism, pride, ignorance, etc etc etc.
I understand that ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations are the last resort of an exhausted mind lacking any actual arguments, but it’s tiring nevertheless. I believe that our time is better spent on more productive activities. Every Catholic of good will can, in this day and age, easily find and verify the true Church teachings. It’s pointless to argue with those who don’t want to do so and prefer to cling to their personal opinions, while incessantly bashing those of us who are simply trying to keep the Faith by looking for answers within the doctrines and teachings of the Church of all ages.
When you claim that a true Pope can teach heresy to the universal Church, you are contradicting more than 200 Popes, Doctors of the Church, early Church Fathers, saints, and renowned theologians over 1900 years. If you believe you know better and they were all wrong and you are right, fine with me – your soul is your responsibility, not mine.
Plus, the Novus Ordo (post VII) teachings have been taught by all bishops in union with the ‘Popes’, for many decades now – so this being UOM it would be infallible – IF these were true Popes. If you really believe the true Church could impose false doctrines and teachings, false morality, false rites, evil laws (ie laws that if followed lead souls to Hell), that’s your problem. But it certainly contradicts what the Church believes.
Sorry, Tom A. My comment was for JPeters.
Anyhow, it’s pointless to keep arguing. Everyone is responsible for their own soul and shall try to keep the Faith the best way he can.
“modernist” Rome doesn’t deny that objective sin exists. It correctly understands the Traditional teaching that not all of those who are in objective sin, including those who attend Catholic chapels not in communion with the Pope, are culpable for their sin. Big difference.
I would argue that given the “ecumenical spirit” of V2, that not being in communion with “modernist” Rome is no longer one of those objective sins. In fact, it seems that one does not even have to be a Christian to be saved in the modern religion. So certainly, independent Traditionalists have a “desire” to be in union with Rome, but because of some invincible ignorance we think the See of Peter is empty. We just need someone to accompany us home. I dont entirely mean to be facetious here, Gaganelli, but you have to admit that this is exactly what “modernist” Rome teaches. As far as what is an objective sin in the eyes of the “modernist” church, I dont know, maybe littering, since adultery and sodomy are quickly be “normalized.”
The same sort of cognitive dissonant gyrations someone would have to go through to call Bergolio a Catholic.
I understand the OUM perfectly, probably much better than you do. And if you are a sedevacantist heretic, I can almost guarantee that you understanding of the OUM is entirely false. What you don’t seem to understand is that if a pope teaches and error or a heresy, the error or heresy he is teaching is not a teaching of the OUM. So this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
And to Tom A, if you think a pope is prevented from teaching heresy when he is not defining a doctrine, you are holding an opinion that the Church itself has never taught, which means you can’t say it is heresy to reject it. That is only an opinion of some theologian, and many reputable theologians reject it.
Don’t worry. Be happy, man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3HQMbQAWRc
Really. Please quote “200 popes” who taught that a Pope cannot teach heresy when he is not defining a doctrine.
“My position is that, as always, the Holy Father Francis is correct…” Does that mean all the Popes before Francis had been wrong in teaching that if someone is (objectively) a public adulterer that he or she should be prohibited from the Holy Eucharist. Check out the New Catechism CCC 1650.
No because even in the 80’s when FC was promulgated there were still nations that prohibited divorce like, for example, Ireland. Pre-nuptial agreements were rarer and some Protestant religions still frowned on the practice. Hopefully in a future where pre-nuptial agreements are banned, no-fault divorce is banned, the Dallas “cheerleaders” are banned and pornography is banned, we could return to a stricter discipline regarding the divorced and remarried.
here is your reply “No because even in the 80’s when FC was promulgated there were still nations that prohibited divorce like, for example, Ireland” And here is my question including your original claim “My position is that, as always, the Holy Father Francis is correct…” Does that mean all the Popes before Francis had been wrong in teaching that if someone is (objectively) a public adulterer that he or she should be prohibited from the Holy Eucharist. Check out the New Catechism CCC 1650.” So are you saying that before Francis became a Pope, there are countries that do not allow divorce, so therefore for those countries that do not allow divorce the practice of the all the Popes before Francis made sense? It seems your position is not logical, if all the countries on earth do not allow divorce then there is actually no need for the Church and all the Popes since St. Peter (based on the teachings of Christ) to impose prohibition of partaking Jesus in the Holy Eucharist by the remarried persons because divorce can not take place. The world is always wicked, in the time of Christ he condemned divorced and remarried, and the act of public adultery will exist when Christ comes back the second time. Beside there is Canon 915 to mandate the priest to refuse the Holy Eucharist to any (objectively) public adulterer to avoid scandal, yet another teaching of Christ (millstone on the neck of those who caused scandal) and St. Paul (partaking Eucharist unworthy drinks his own judgment). Subjectives like full knowledge and full consent are irrelevant because the Church does not judge the interior. Only God knows if someone is in mortal sin or not (unless one is given the ability to read heart like St. Jean Vieanny).
Did you know that the Church used to deny communion to anyone who received interest on a loan? Why did that change? Because the society around the Church changed an usury became “normal”. Now the Church could have continue its previous practice of refusing communion to usurers but that wouldn’t have worked very well when basically we are all usurers according to Traditional Catholic teaching. If the entire society refuses to believe that marriage is indissoluble and even goes so far as to encourage pre-nuptial agreements, the Church has to decide if it should change its practice with the assumption that those in second marriages, much like usurers, are not guilty of mortal sin.
I’ve already posted, several times (in comments to earlier articles on this site) many of their names. You can also easily find it by doing some research – entire books with such quotes have been written in the last 20 or so years. If you want just a quick summary, read chapter 30, book II of St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice. He summarizes the various theological opinions and lists many of the names of the Church Fathers, saints, theologians who believed that a Pope who would become a manifest heretic (or schismatic or apostate) would lose his Pontificate IPSO FACTO. Thus a true Pope cannot teach heresy to the universal Church, for he would at that very moment cease to be Pope.
PLUS, the Code of Canon Law (canon 188.4) states the very same thing!! (The respective canon even clearly cites – in annotations – among sources for this law the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV.) How any Catholic could disregard all that is beyond me.
And you keep misrepresenting what I said. I never said it was “200 Popes” but “200 Popes, saints, early Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church and renowned theologians”.
I shall not repeat any of this again on this site – it’s an entirely fruitless exercise. Having posted these things a number of times, the result is always the same: people like you never present any valid counter-argument (based on actual Church teachings and/or Church laws) but instead resort to attacking those of us who are trying to contribute something.
Since you’re the wisest, most informed and most learned, not to mention most humble, gracious and charitable of all; while, based on the judgment of your infinite wisdom and God-given authority sedevacantists are wretched, ignorant, prideful, heretical, non-Catholics on the road to Hell; you should go and write a theological treatise explaining why all those great saints and Doctors and Popes were wrong and why your opinion is the true one, and thus enlighten the poor Church which has been wrong for some 19 centuries.
I’ve wasted enough of my time here.
All the best.
Ever mindful–Best advice I’ve heard in a long time. Thanks!
For the curious:
http://www.servantsofcharity.org/guanella.html
Bravo, TC. Bravo!
Again, I suggest those who are interested in usury to first consult some historical background.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is a good place to start.
Ganganelli is the pen-name of the heretical John Paul II-loving “Father Z” who is hoping that he can win more Novus Ordo fans by proving his “Anti Rad Trad” cred with foolish posts on blogs like this one.
Seriously, visit his website. It’s painfully obvious. He starts selling “Ganganelli” merchandise, and at the very same time, his “Ganganelli” sockpuppet starts posting his blasphemous gagagoogoo over here.
We are working on an expose of the perfidious Father Z soon.
In the meantime, don’t forget to visit our site for more solid Traditional articles (with a capital T)!
https://onemillimeterpeter.wordpress.com/
Ganganelli? Does this word have an English translation by any chance?
Given your stated position as a former trad, now a NO adherent, the unbelievable proposition you seem to shovel on to the page is that traditional Catholics- some who you label as sedes, are in sinful lifestyles on account of their rejection of the New mass, V2 and other Assisi friendly acts ie ecumenism, beggars belief.
Pilgrim. Did you not realise that False Shepherds go on the hunt for Lost sheep?
Their calls to deception are ignored by the flock and the “found” to the extent that the found don’t care for the voice of the Hireling, doesn’t want to be seduced by Apple products. They don’t understand “heresy 101 language” Period.
Seriously how do you keep a straight face within the lines of you suggestions “can only do the best they can” waffle for God Himself. Are you serious?
Second place is not the prize, its Heaven (after Purgatory of course) or NOTHINGNESS…Outer Darkness…
I wondered if the trait was in the first four letters of your title- no disrespect to your other family members BTW.
May I suggest you increase the length of your spoon when you next sup with the Hireling, and keep your toes away from his hearth.
In caritas
Baaaaaa
Well said TC
. Its time for a Crusade to take back the Holy City perhaps?
Enlist the leaders of the Heavenly Armies – those that Our Lord spoke to Pilate concerning his Kingship- whom would have been in a flash at the throats of the Jews. Imagine what their desolation must have been when for the first time having seen our Lord in human form, and cared for him since His birth, adolescence and so on, to be held back as the barbarians fastened Him with nails- for the Angels it must have been devastation and desolation.
They had ministered to him, after that 40 days and the Devils temptations, just to witness the ultimate sacrifice.
Change has to come from above.
We all agree that.
We just don’t know When. Many put great store on this year 2017 for the Fatima anniversary. Pope St Leo heard the conversation at the foot of the Altar, there was mention of 100 years to wreck the Church.
I guess that task is well in hand by the likes of Nikita Roncalli and his followers to their regret now, I opine.
Its a time. something like “hurry up and wait” which is no more than “Watch and Pray” direct instructions from the Master & Bridegroom
St Michael is so powerful in the rescue of souls from the Church Suffering that does anyone think that we ask him what he thinks – clearly he has seen all this before, and know we must or how to intervene.
Perhaps a cold shower for a start to settle the palpitations..
St Michael Ora pro nobis come to our side – Please?
Ganganelli is the surname of Pope Clement XIV. A weak man who suppressed the Jesuits thus paving the way for the French Revolution.
Irishpol
This assumption of an air of innocent questioning, when in fact your intent is to discredit another, is both dishonest and dishonorable. The position of Rich and TC is clearly stated, yet you feign confusion and uncertainty while casting their opinion as one of pride and heresy. It’s clear that you, with modernists everywhere, believe that contemporary churchmen are somehow empowered by their offices to redefine Christ’s Church. That is, however, not Catholic. The dogma of the Church cannot be changed by any man (or woman). Shame on you for your use of deceit and sophistry.
What is more interesting is the constant attempts by modernists to deflect from the real issue. There IS unqualified heresy in AL. However, to try to cover over it, you demand that it be formulated as a direct statement contradicting a dogmatic statement. Thus, to such as you, the statement “never murder on Sunday” would not be considered a denial of the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”. But it is. Even so, when AL states that a person who, in full knowledge, persists in mortal sin, is acting according to God’s own wishes, it is INTENTIONAL heresy. Trying to mitigate this by claiming a lack of understanding of the plain meaning of the language is just lawyer-talk and reveals a spirit of deception that has no proper place in a Catholic soul.
Thanks Steve. You have an interesting site, exposing the rotten fruit. The straight talk is refreshing. Good stuff.
I posted Sorondos comments about” one or two” children from the abortion banquet- in the pulpit.
. Beggars belief men like this even have a vocation, let alone got through the seminaries. Crazy ideologies. Sad imposters and the gullible actually fund these hustlers for the Devil.
St Michael ora pro nobis.
I do not accuse all trads of sin. I am in favor of the restoration of communion between the SSPX and the Holy See. I have family members who remain traditionalist some of whom are sedevacantists and many of whom are fine Catholics. While I am tough on traditionalists it is because I believe many are frauds who pick and choose which Catholic teachings to adhere to.
You must be new here. I’ve been posting here as Ganganelli for years, even back in the days when it was called “harvesting the fruit of Vatican II”.
And I don’t think you have much knowledge. The reason the odious Fr. Z is hacking Ganganelli merchandise besides being the glutton and grifter that he is, is because Pope Ganganelli suppressed the Jesuits. And know who else is a Jesuit?
But I just read your site and I’m thinking to myself a guy who dislikes Hilary White, Ann Barnhardt and the first divorced and re-married president Reagan can’t be all that bad.
And I have a strong suspicion you’re a fraud. See link below.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Steve+Sojac%22+notary