Has Pope Boniface actually been helpful in pointing out a serious issue with one of our members?


Fratres,

Est a vir notus ut Roberto U. , quisnam quoque est notus in penitus secundum nomen “Anticlimax” , quisnam adsuesco assuesco insensatus rail obviam Apostolic Cathedra. Iam Senior Deus has vindico him super ut immodicus schismatic erroris. Suus intentions erant quam primum bonus , tamen turbatio quod perfidia has iam reigned in him. Is quam primum sought ut exsisto nusquam tamen fidelis ut dogmatic canonus of Concilium Orange. Tamen per a misinterpretation of lingua of bovis nostri Decessor Pius V , is has ostendo sum Romanorum Templum futurus necessarius vacuus ullus caput capitis utpote omnimodus concilium of Trent  est iam emanio suus virus in varius penitus nuntius forums.

Nos scisco fidelis ut fio conscius is vir , quod vito him. Sit quoque inclutus inclitus namque singulariter vitiosus. Is magister ut concilium of Fossa est haereticuм , quod Tridentine Vulgus a diabolus codex rectorum antiquorum vox. In effectus is is quoque videor ut reprobo potestas of Romanorum Pontiff utor vox claustorum accerso ancient ritus in a videlicet chartae caput ita organize is ut accerso super a maioribus affero ut Fides.

Deus has punitor Roberto U. pro audacia ut rail obviam apostolic animadverto quod has vindico Roberto U. videor futurus occasus sui usque causidicus parumper novus anti catholic sect.We foveo Robert U. declino ex talis a damnable civitas of darkness.

Sedes Apostolicuм

 
 

Brethren,

There is a man known as Roberto U., who also is known on the internet according to the name “Anticlimax”, who used to irrationally rail against the Apostolic Throne.  Now the Lord God has delivered him over to excessive schismatic errors.  His intentions were at first good, but confusion and faithlessness has now reigned in him.  He at first sought to be nothing but loyal to the dogmatic canons of the Council of Orange.  But through a misinterpretation of the language of the bull of Our Predecessor Pius V, he has declared the Roman Church to be essential without any head since the universal council of Trent.

Robert U. is now spreading his poison in various internet message forums.  We ask the faithful to be made aware of this man, and to avoid him.  He is also renowned for being especially vicious.  He teaches that the council of Trent is heretical, and the Tridentine Mass a satanic codification of the natural ancient rights.  In doing this he also appears to reject the ability of the Roman Pontiff to use the power of the Keys to bring the ancient rites into a clearer codified existence and so organize it as to bring about a greater contribution to the Faith.

God has punished Roberto U. for daring to rail against the apostolic see and has delivered Roberto U. to confusion.

Robert U. appears to be setting himself up to advocate for a new anti catholic sect.

We encourage Robert U. to turn away from such a damnable state of darkness.

The Apostolic See

A quote from my thread on Fr. Stepanich:


Things get a bit comical, really ridiculous, when the "Finishers" bring in the "homemade popes," as if to make their grand finale triumphal argument against sedevacantism. They even name them - at least ten such "homemade popes" (and perhaps still counting?). And they provide pictures of most of them, too. Their point is that the "homemade popes" are all sedevacantists, and look what happens to sedevacantists! But the "Finishers" don't tell you those "popes" are wrongheaded and wrong-way sedevacantists who took things out of God's hands, and into their own hands, then proceeded to go off the deep end, where there is no Chair of Peter.
The "Finishers" could have had some fun by suggesting that the "homemade popes" arrange a "convention of homemade popes" somewhere, maybe in Florida, where they could have an honest election for "homemade pope No. 1." And since there isn't room for all of them to sit on Peter's Chair, at least not all at the same time, some big-hearted carpenter might be persuaded to build them a long enough bench for them all to sit on at the same time, and they could call it "Peter's Bench."
To bring all this anti-sedevacantist fiasco to conclusion, let us simply say that the "Finishers" succeeded only in "finishing themselves off" as reliable and reputable authorities on Sedevacantism.

Editor's Note
Fr. Martin was ordained in 1941, and holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Catholic University, Washington DC. He offers the traditional Latin Mass, and since Vatican II has carried on an extensive correspondence with Catholics throughout the United States who resist the changes. He celebrates his 60th priestly anniversary in May.

A quote from my thread on Fr. Stepanich:


Things get a bit comical, really ridiculous, when the "Finishers" bring in the "homemade popes," as if to make their grand finale triumphal argument against sedevacantism. They even name them - at least ten such "homemade popes" (and perhaps still counting?). And they provide pictures of most of them, too. Their point is that the "homemade popes" are all sedevacantists, and look what happens to sedevacantists! But the "Finishers" don't tell you those "popes" are wrongheaded and wrong-way sedevacantists who took things out of God's hands, and into their own hands, then proceeded to go off the deep end, where there is no Chair of Peter.
The "Finishers" could have had some fun by suggesting that the "homemade popes" arrange a "convention of homemade popes" somewhere, maybe in Florida, where they could have an honest election for "homemade pope No. 1." And since there isn't room for all of them to sit on Peter's Chair, at least not all at the same time, some big-hearted carpenter might be persuaded to build them a long enough bench for them all to sit on at the same time, and they could call it "Peter's Bench."
To bring all this anti-sedevacantist fiasco to conclusion, let us simply say that the "Finishers" succeeded only in "finishing themselves off" as reliable and reputable authorities on Sedevacantism.

Editor's Note
Fr. Martin was ordained in 1941, and holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Catholic University, Washington DC. He offers the traditional Latin Mass, and since Vatican II has carried on an extensive correspondence with Catholics throughout the United States who resist the changes. He celebrates his 60th priestly anniversary in May.

If the good Padre feels himself able to judge the vacancy, then he ought, for the good of the Church, partake in electing a true Pope.  Does he not care for the good of the Church?  Cannot true Catholics unite to end this crisis?  That is, after all, how true Catholics would behave.  His mockery of the Finishers only betrays his own hypocrisy.  He offers no valid reason as to why he should not jump on the train and take it to the logical conclusion.  At least the home-made Popes are honest enough to take the next step, after all, they do form the true Church don't they?  What kind of "true Church" is impotent in the face of its own destruction?  Such an inability to restore itself proves that they do not comprise the "true Church."  This fact alone reveals the personal charade of dogmatic sedevacantists.  

Oh, Emerentiana, I am certain Matthew knows that we are not like CM or Anticlimax, I think Fr. Martin Stepanich speaks for our side and does so quite well. It is folly to allow these people who pretend to be sede to post when we can see what one of our great teachers says on this subject.
All it does is scandalize persons who come here searching for the true faith.

So long as you think that forming a personal opinion about the status of Popes and bishops comprises part of "the Faith" you will continue down a dark path, all in the name of alleged "truth."  It is nothing but a fabricated truth and even if it were true, judging about some matters is simply illicit.  The appeals to "truth" are totally without foundation.

No I do not believe that. Nor does my priest or anyone I attend Mass with. We say the Fatima prayer after each  decade of our rosary Sunday morning before Mass.

So do all of you think it's OK to come here and say that Fatima is a hoax, diabolical, and so forth?

As I told my priest when he met Eamon Shea, I learned most of what I believe to be the truth of our faith  from  Mr. Shea. Father was well impressed with that as he was well impressed with Eamon.

So do all of you think it's OK to come here and say that Fatima is a hoax, diabolical, and so forth?

:applause:

I don't understand what that means about your priest and Eamon?

Elizabeth you were asking what we believe. I am telling you what I believe and where I learned it.
I thought I vaguely remember you from Bellarmine and you were sede then or am I thinking of another Elizabeth?

I am just telling you that we do not hold to these extremism's  and I think that shows from our posts.