Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Stevus, a note about your sig --  (Read 1877 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raoul76

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4803
  • Reputation: +2007/-6
  • Gender: Male
Stevus, a note about your sig --
« on: May 08, 2011, 04:28:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just happened to come across some information about Père le Floch, the priest who gives the ill-sounding quote in your sig, Stevus.  He was associated with the Action Francaise movement condemned by Pius XI, for the reason that it puts the state above the Church.  

    Maurras, the leader of Action Francaise, was not Catholic himself but wanted to use Catholicism as a force for order.  This pragmatic, state-centered attitude infests France even today.

    Abbe Le Floch would not submit to Church teaching and was REMOVED as rector of his seminary by Pius XI.  Perhaps this is why he worried about people becoming too obedient to the Pope in a time where the exact opposite was the real problem?  

    Oh, and lest I forget to mention, Abbe Le Floch taught Abp. Lefebvre in seminary, and apparently Abp. Lefebvre created a sort of cult of hero-worship about Le Floch within SSPX circles  :rolleyes:  

    Why am I not surprised that Stevus didn't go dig up his own quote?  Stevus, you are an SSPX lapdog / parrot to your very marrow.  

    The SSPX has more cultish tendencies than I realized at first.  I was at my friends' house the other day, who used to be in SSPX, and she had a book about Abp. Lefebvre that calls him on the cover "a modern-day saint."  Talk about, to borrow gladius' term, drinking the kewl-aid.  Now they do their own canonizations, I guess.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline herbert

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 578
    • Reputation: +114/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #1 on: May 08, 2011, 06:34:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • i never heard of that so i google and found they do actyally exist!


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #2 on: May 08, 2011, 08:32:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    I just happened to come across some information about Père le Floch, the priest who gives the ill-sounding quote in your sig, Stevus.  He was associated with the Action Francaise movement condemned by Pius XI, for the reason that it puts the state above the Church.  

    Maurras, the leader of Action Francaise, was not Catholic himself but wanted to use Catholicism as a force for order.  This pragmatic, state-centered attitude infests France even today.

    Abbe Le Floch would not submit to Church teaching and was REMOVED as rector of his seminary by Pius XI.  Perhaps this is why he worried about people becoming too obedient to the Pope in a time where the exact opposite was the real problem?  

    Oh, and lest I forget to mention, Abbe Le Floch taught Abp. Lefebvre in seminary, and apparently Abp. Lefebvre created a sort of cult of hero-worship about Le Floch within SSPX circles  :rolleyes:  

    Why am I not surprised that Stevus didn't go dig up his own quote?  Stevus, you are an SSPX lapdog / parrot to your very marrow.  

    The SSPX has more cultish tendencies than I realized at first.  I was at my friends' house the other day, who used to be in SSPX, and she had a book about Abp. Lefebvre that calls him on the cover "a modern-day saint."  Talk about, to borrow gladius' term, drinking the kewl-aid.  Now they do their own canonizations, I guess.


    Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.
    Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.
    Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.
    fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.
    fifthly, you cited no sources
    sixtly, Action Francais after being uncondemned by Pope Pius XII stated they were condemned for political reasons.

    You entire hate filled rant sounds like it came from the modernists. You seem to have a hatred of the SSPX.

    Oh and Le Floch was suspected of being with Action Francais, even if he was, he was removed by order of the french government. A masonic structure that wanted to preserve the Republic.


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #3 on: May 08, 2011, 09:32:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholicism the state religion in france again.


    Was Charles Maurras the leader?  Yes.  Did he once say, "A true nationalist places his country above everything"?  Yes.

    Maurras' perspective was necessarily flawed for he looked at France (and the world) through a necessarily naturalistic lens.  How could he, lacking supernatural faith, do otherwise?

    Quote
    I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.


    Mike (Raoul) is decidedly NOT anti-monarchist.  He is well aware of the prophecies of the Great Monarch and, like all sane men aware of the GM's role in setting things right, very much looks forward to his advent.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #4 on: May 08, 2011, 09:37:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul, with all due respect, I'm getting tired of your attacks against Archbishop LeFebvre. You like drinking the certain flavor of kewl-aid that some other sedes are gulty of drinking, not giving ABL his due credit for preserving the Mass of all-times. Without him and the SSPX, the SSPV and FSSP wouldn't exist either. And there's a small priestly group in the mid-west (can't think of their name) that also wouldn't exist, as their founder broke away from the Society as well.

    Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.

    I don't mind criticisms of Bishop Fellay. Because let's face it, what Fellay did to Bishop Williamson was wrong. But I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL. I'm not saying I agreed with everything the man did (I think he should have used a pre-1962 Missal, and he originally went along with the Vatican II docuмents, although he later regretted it) but his mistakes aside, the man is in fact a Saint and will be recognized as one after the Crisis is over. You're just being stubborn, Raoul. You'd rather give anonymous sede bishops the credit for preserving Tradition rather than a man who fought as hard as he could to save the Mass that you attend every Sunday.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #5 on: May 08, 2011, 09:44:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.


    No.  His name is Cardinal Lienart, and your understanding is correct -- i.e., even if Lienart was, as some say, a Mason, albeit unknown at the time, such would NOT affect the validity of his actions.

    Quote
    I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.


    I do not think anyone does.  Mike (Raoul) can answer for himself, of course, but I imagine he would say his 'attack' is not illogical.  If I understand his motive correctly, his OP is about setting (or trying to set) the record straight about Fr. le Floch, etc.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #6 on: May 08, 2011, 09:48:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan
    you cited no sources...


    Neither did you.  While I know there was BOTH a condemnation AND a lifting thereof, Mike's failure to provide sources is no more 'grievous' than your own.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #7 on: May 08, 2011, 10:16:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I
    Quote
    don't mind criticisms of Bishop Fellay. Because let's face it, what Fellay did to Bishop Williamson was wrong. But I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.


    For you, it's "illogical" to say anything against ABL because you are told constantly in your community that he's a saint.  Go to France sometime and talk to some sedes and you will see how the other half lives.  And when the sedevacantist position becomes OFFICIAL, as it should have become long ago, watch Abp. Lefebvre's reputation plummet.  

    I doubt anyone will ever say he deliberately sold out the trads, but he will be quietly swept under the rug, probably treated like a doddering uncle no one wants to talk about.  He will not be canonized.  We can make a bet if you want, if we get to heaven we will resolve it there, unless we both live to see the Church restored.  But time has a way of revealing who the real heroes are, and it's impossible to call Abp. Lefebvre that.  The contradictory nature of his position and of his sermons is far too apparent.  Saints make mistakes, but this is something else, sometimes the way he spoke was so paradoxical that it is reminiscent of the Modernists.  

    On top of this, he was a bitter enemy of sedes, who sedes now, for some reason, try to enlist into their cause with the famous "deathbed conversion" ( see under:  Malachi Martin, Napoleon, George Washington, John XXIII ).  

    I hope the man is in heaven, but we don't need him as a sede mascot.  He was famous in his time, but time will reveal there were others who were greater and who were forced into the shadows by the somewhat artificial light of Abp. Lefebvre -- believe me, he would not have been as famous as he was if he were teaching the FULL truth.  The condition for being the "hero who saves the Church" and for getting all that press was he had to be compromised, intentionally or not.  Sad but true.  This is a time where the devil has full media control.

    Perhaps he is a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full figure.  You either see him as someone who helped preserved the Mass, or else someone who dragged trads kicking and screaming back into the false church in Rome.  He is hard to condemn, but equally hard to lionize, sort of like Liberius when he was allegedly against Athanasius ( a good comparison, since Liberius is considered a saint by some but officially is not ).
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline Cristian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 445
    • Reputation: +67/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #8 on: May 08, 2011, 10:28:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: LordPhan


    Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.


    Are you sure of this? I once read that Fr. Le Floch renounced as a way of protesting because of the resignation (dismissal?) of his friend Card. Billot, but I don´t really know if the source is trust worthy.

    Quote
    Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.


    Because they asked for it and repented.

    FWIW, the first condemnation of Maurras was made by St. Pius X himself, and Benedict XV didn´t want to condemn L´Action Francaise during the first world war for prudential reasons, something that was done later by Pius XI who called L´action "political modernism".

    FWIW2: Maurras himself in his deathbed recognized the condemnation was correct.

    Quote
    Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.


    Sincerely I never heard this before.


    Quote
    fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.


    The fact someone is against monarchy doesn´t mean he supports democracy or liberalism. Primo de Rivera is an example of this.

    Quote
    fifthly, you cited no sources



    This includes me of course... if you wish I can check it later and quote something here. The books I´ve read about this are: "Primacy of the spiritual" of Maritain (I perfectly know who was Maritain... but the book dates from the late ´20 and if I´m not wrong Pius XI himself asked him to write it), and then the docuмents of the Popes related to the condemnation (Boucaren has an interesting resume of all of them in his "Canon law digest"). The fact that Maurras recognized the condemnation was just is taken from a book written by the priest who administered him the last Sacraments.

    Quote
    sixtly, Action Francais after being uncondemned by Pope Pius XII stated they were condemned for political reasons.


    The question is if the condemnation was made for prudential reasons or because of doctrinal reasons. I think it was the last one.

    Quote
    Oh and Le Floch was suspected of being with Action Francais, even if he was, he was removed by order of the french government. A masonic structure that wanted to preserve the Republic.


    No doubts many Catholics had sympathies with L´Action but the Church reproved it.

    Cristian


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #9 on: May 08, 2011, 10:34:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lord Phan said:

    Quote
    Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.


    He was removed by Pius XI.

    Quote
    Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.


    Refer to Cristian's post above, I had never heard about this.

    Quote

    Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.


    From the way they talk, the suggestion is that the monarchy would subordinate the Church rather than the other way around.  The Action Francaise has a scent of statism, of Gallicanized fascism.  It is very subtle, but something is not quite right about it, in my opinion, an extra-Catholic movement that grudgingly supports Catholicism for political reasons?  No.  

    It's good that it's against Masonry and Jєωry, but that is no reason to compromise and to hitch our wagon to an agnostic, politicized, statist star.  I hope someone out there understands that sentence.

    Even the king, should he have arisen, would probably have been a puppet of Maurras, who was the real intellectual leader of that movement -- and an agnostic.  That is the problem, Catholicism is de-spiritualized and turned into a "force for order and civilization" only, it's heartless and wrong.  I believe if Action Francaise were successful, Catholicism would quickly grow cold under their auspices, because there is an unpleasant kind of fascist smell to it.

    I will say this, we are opening a huge can of worms here and this is something I want to research further.  I once defended Action Francaise here, I believe, but the priest I know in France is always vehemently against it.  For a while this confused me.  Then I saw why -- in France, there is a skinhead-type network infiltrating trad Catholicism, that seems to emanate from the Action Francaise mentality.  Everything is about the state, about organization and rule.  To a casual observer, it may just sound like the usual patriotism you might have heard in Catholic Spain... But it's not, it smacks more of communism and fascism, there is a kind of dehumanized collectivist spirit that I pick up on there.

    Quote
    fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.


    From what I have heard about Action Francaise, I believe it is Gallican-tainted and puts the monarchy above the papacy, and that is never what I have been about.  I admit though, that is hearsay, an impression, and I have to study this more.  Now is the time, because it has just hit me that this controversy has important consequences for the future, there is something very significant going on here.

    As for whether I hate SSPX, I hate compromise and false theology, and for that reason I hate the SSPX.  However, since they probably don't teeter over into heresy, I have to recognize them as Catholics and love them for that reason, not the organization but the people :farmer:
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #10 on: May 08, 2011, 10:51:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm sorry my writing is so sloppy, I am so flooded with ideas and thoughts that I'm literally shaking.  I think I'm seeing how the anti-Christ will arise so soon after the Great Monarch, and this is why.  The devil is already setting it up.  This is what Action Francaise is about, it's like a foreshadowing.  This subject, I now realize, is absolutely CRUCIAL, I want to lock myself in the house and read for months.

    With Action Francaise, you can see how there are certain good elements but yet it feels wrong, spiritually wrong, in a very subtle way.  

    So how does Satan twist the glorious Restoration into a sick and monstrous freakshow so soon?  Here is your answer:  

    After the Monarch dies, Satan will use his agents to pervert the Great Monarch's kingdom with a kind of super-macho, statist, fascist attitude.  He will not have to work hard, he will just have to tweak the spirit of people just a little to set them on the wrong course.  

    Where the Catholics under the Monarch were MASCULINE, Satan will make them MACHO --

    Where the Catholics under the Monarch were FEARLESS, Satan will turn that into HARDNESS AND LACK OF CHARITY AND VIOLENCE FOR THE SAKE OF VIOLENCE;

    Where the Catholics under the Monarch LOVED THEIR ENEMIES even during wartime, Satan will turn that into HATE AND PRIDE, not just for enemies but for each other;

    Where the Catholics under the Monarch were PATRIOTIC, Satan will turn that into WORSHIP OF THE STATE AND OF STATE POWER ABOVE GOD

    Look what a perfect transition this is to Anti-Christ!  

    He will be a weakling whose tough talk and taste for violence and atrocity masks his own cowardice.  He will be an Anti-Great-Monarch as well as the Anti-Christ.  The Monarch will be tough but gentle and loving and pious, a true Catholic man, while the Anti-Christ will be a perverted wimp hiding behind his thugs.  This is how I feel about the skinheads as well, that they are really weak and they try to hide it behind overdone rhetoric.

    I'm not saying this is an official prophecy or that I had a vision, these are just ideas, but they're coming to me in a wave.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #11 on: May 08, 2011, 11:51:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • IMO, the GM will die in battle (after 25 years or so as the ruler of the world), vanquished by the rising Antichrist, whose reign of three and one half years will begin once the GM is killed.  Like Josias, the GM will receive a mortal wound on the battlefield at Megiddo, but will give up the ghost on Mount Olivet.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #12 on: May 08, 2011, 11:57:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm probably going too fast for people and making connections that they don't see yet.

    I don't know how to explain it though.  It has to do with the French "scene."  The French traditional scene is an entirely different world than the American one.  More is happening there, there is more ferment.  This is ALL  about France, the prophecies are coming true.  A week ago, I had a fantasy about France, now I have gotten in contact with the French and know that many brilliant Catholics really exist there, and a revolution is about to happen.  In America, if traditionalism is predominantly about older ladies, in France it's all hyper-intellectual young men.  That is just one difference. I have been fighting jealousy, it's like I've discovered a whole secret colony of people smarter and more pious than me, ha ha.

    The problem is that there is a false nationalist attitude infecting European Catholicism ( I say "false" because patriotism in itself is not bad, it's good to be patriotic about France ).  Some of them are skinheads.  To listen to some of these people talk, you would have no idea that they had anything more than a nominal faith.  Everything is about the state, about the government.  It's clear to me now that this is the new offshoot of Action Francaise, a virulent strain of Action Francaise.

    The devil knows very well that France is the scene of his defeat.  So he is doing everything he can to infect it with the wrong kind of ideas.

    I recommend reading this thread at Ignis Ardens about Vincent Reynouard, who was jailed for denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but who also admires National Socialism and its "natural law," whatever that means... A very contradictory and disturbing figure.  Some people want to defend him as a martyr since he is questioning the major shibboleth of our times, but another part is revolted by his support for the nαzιs.  I don't know who it is out there that is trying to associate Catholics with nαzιs, but it won't work.  It certainly won't work on this half-Polock.  

    http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=483
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #13 on: May 09, 2011, 12:06:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • gladius_veritatis said:
    Quote
    IMO, the GM will die in battle (after 25 years or so as the ruler of the world), vanquished by the rising Antichrist, whose reign of three and one half years will begin once the GM is killed. Like Josias, the GM will receive a mortal wound on the battlefield at Megiddo, but will give up the ghost on Mount Olivet.


    Not by the Antichrist himself, but by those who are preparing the way for him, would be my guess, though it's really the same difference.  The Monarch is literally invincible while he is fulfilling the prophecies, he is protected by God Himself... This will strike such terror into people that no army can stand up to him, they will sense that he is invulnerable.  Therefore, I believe he can only be killed by a betrayal, not by normal means in battle.  Woe to the one who betrays him.  Since the Monarch is a mirror of a certain facet of Christ ( Christ as conqueror, as avenger ) he will almost certainly meet with his Judas.  

    I read somewhere, in one of the Great Monarch prophecies, that the Antichrist will be born during the reign of the Angelic Pastor.  Now, the Angelic Pastor works contemporaneously with the Monarch, and will likewise be an invulnerable, miracle-working, apocalyptic and unheard-of figure ( to the point he can stroll casually through scenes of carnage and war and not be touched by a bullet, and will convert enemy soldiers with his mere presence ).  That means that the fall of the Restored Church will be very quick, probably within 30 years of the height of the Restoration.  Another prophecy says the people will show themselves "ungrateful" for what the Monarch did and this will unleash Anti-Christ.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #14 on: May 09, 2011, 12:32:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let me boil it down further -- what does the devil want?  To stop the Monarch from arising.  So what will he do to make this happen?  He will take advantage of the similarities of the Monarch with Hitler ( being against the Jєωs ) and try to associate French Catholic monarchism with nαzιsm.  He has got his agents and plants in there doing just that.  He wants to make sure that, in the popular imagination, "reactionary" Catholics are seen as brutal nαzιs, because this will keep people from joining with us.  It doesn't get any more crude and obvious, folks.  More guilt by association tactics.

    THIS is how the devil uses Action Francaise and its statist offshoots.  He uses Catholicism for his own ends but he twists it.  Action Francaise hides behind all the right ideas -- the monarchy, the Catholic state, the fight against ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry -- but it feels unstable, like at any moment they can just cut out the Catholicism part, leaving only the state...
    This explains the discomfort that many feel with Action Francaise, why it is so alienating.  Yes, it tells a lot of the truth, but something isn't quite right, the attitude is sinister, insincere, heartless, it smacks of communism and fascism, of the collective.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.