It is a naturalistic and defeatist spirit that loosely aligns itself with the spirit of the world, the enemy of God. This is one more surrender and subjugation to the world, on the part of the liberal and modernist hierarchy, which since the Second Vatican Council has been at the service of the Revolution inside and outside the church.I don't know PV, yes it's good they said something, but man, what a lame response imo. He had a perfect opportunity to give a scathing response befitting the occasion, but instead limped out what amounts to little more than a squeak, again imo.
Good to hear. Perhaps his compatriot, Archbishop Vigano, is giving him courage. He might have mentioned the flesh and the devil in there as well. The men of the Church blessing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions... that is more than just alignment with the world, it is utterly diabolical.
I don't know PV, yes it's good they said something, but man, what a lame response imo. He had a perfect opportunity to give a scathing response befitting the occasion, but instead limped out what amounts to little more than a squeak, again imo.
Good to hear. Perhaps his compatriot, Archbishop Vigano, is giving him courage.
Dear Rev. Fr. Pagliarani,
Once again, as with the "jab", it is time to choose!
What has the Superior General directed the priests of the Society to DO? He should boldly and clearly tell them to say No to these blasphemous blessings. He should tell them that the SSPX will provide them the attorneys and funds for legal expenses sufficient to protect them for YEARS of litigation..
Statement of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana regarding the Declaration Fiducia supplicans, published by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith and approved by Pope Francis on December 18, 2023The manifest purpose of the Declaration of the Holy See, Fiducia supplicans, is to allow “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples”. At the same time, the docuмent insists that such blessings are performed “without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage”.The fact that the docuмent does not give permission for the “marriage” of same-sex couples should not blind pastors and faithful to the great deception and the evil that resides in the very permission to bless couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples. Such a blessing directly and seriously contradicts Divine Revelation and the uninterrupted, bimillennial doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church. To bless couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples is a serious abuse of the most Holy Name of God, since this name is invoked upon an objectively sinful union of adultery or of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity.Therefore, none, not even the most beautiful, of the statements contained in this Declaration of the Holy See, can minimize the far-reaching and destructive consequences resulting from this effort to legitimize such blessings. With such blessings, the Catholic Church becomes, if not in theory, then in practice, a propagandist of the globalist and ungodly “gender ideology”.As successors of the Apostles, and faithful to our solemn oath on the occasion of our episcopal consecration “to preserve the deposit of faith in purity and integrity, according to the tradition always and everywhere observed in the Church since the time of the Apostles”, we exhort and prohibit priests and the faithful of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana from accepting or performing any form of blessing whatsoever of couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples. It goes without saying that every sincerely repentant sinner with the firm intention to no longer sin and to put an end to his public sinful situation (such as, e.g., cohabitation outside of a canonically valid marriage, union between people of the same sex) can receive a blessing.With sincere brotherly love, and with due respect, we address Pope Francis, who – by allowing the blessing of couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples – “does not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel” (see Gal. 2:14), to borrow the words with which Saint Paul the Apostle publicly admonished the first Pope in Antioch. Therefore, in the spirit of episcopal collegiality, we ask Pope Francis to revoke the permission to bless couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples, so that the Catholic Church may shine clearly as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) for all those who sincerely seek to know the will of God and, by fulfilling it, to attain eternal life.Astana, 19 December 2023+ Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
.True, plus (as of now) the "blessings" are up to each bishop, that is why Bishop Peta and Schinder are able to forbid it in their diocese.
Oh, I highly doubt any SSPX priests are going to be blessing sodomite or illicit unions (apart from annullees, but that's another issue). That seems extremely unlikely to me.
.Dear Yeti, That is exactly why they are going to need attorneys and legal expenses money to answer the lawsuits for discrimination in the USA.
Oh, I highly doubt any SSPX priests are going to be blessing sodomite or illicit unions (apart from annullees, but that's another issue). That seems extremely unlikely to me.
I don't know PV, yes it's good they said something, but man, what a lame response imo. He had a perfect opportunity to give a scathing response befitting the occasion, but instead limped out what amounts to little more than a squeak, again imo.
Agreed. "Squeaks" seem to be the best that they can do. Kind of amazing that they said anything at all, but they needn't have bothered. Archbishop Lefebvre would have given them (Rome) what-for, I'm sure.Yes, I totally agree with all the above comments. Menzingen's protests, which are few and far between, are always expressed so calmly, so serenely, out of all due proportion to the monstrous and diabolical darings of this Pope. The SSPX ought to marching on Rome. As is said above, he says enough to maintain a facade of traditionalism to deceive those who want to be deceived. We see this same kind of calm and gentle criticism from New Bishop Huonder, lacking all due measure and holy indignation. It is what one would expect of a Freemason, in fact, if he had infiltrated the SSPX and wanted to destroy it. I'm not saying Fr Pagliarani or Bishop Huonder are Freemasons, but there can be no doubt they are in the SSPX and largely responsible for its new direction.
The will just resist harder! :laugh2:
How does someone "resist harder"? That doesn't make sense.To be historically forgotten to history would be to do the bare minimum, protect Faith and morals. The Vatican II religion struck out.
To be historically forgotten to history would be to do the bare minimum, protect Faith and morals. The Vatican II religion struck out.
Does not the SSPX already bless sinful unions? Do they not accept invalid annulments from the local bishop and bless adulterous unions?I'm not aware, is that a fact? My experience with the old SSPX was to the contrary which I witnessed on more than one occasion, absolutely guided by sound principles on this matter. They also had the St Charles Borromeo Commission set up to investigate the Conciliar annulments. It would not surprise, though, since there is a gradual drift of the neo-SSPX towards recognition of things conciliar.
I still don't understand how someone is supposed to "resist harder." What does that mean?It is poking fun at people that are always losing battles yet never change their tactics. It’s like the people after the 2020 election who still think voting is the solution. “We just need to vote harder next time”
It is poking fun at people that are always losing battles yet never change their tactics. It’s like the people after the 2020 election who still think voting is the solution. “We just need to vote harder next time”
I still don't understand how someone is supposed to "resist harder." What does that mean?
Basically, it is certain sedevacantists putting other traditional Catholics down, and trying to make them look stupid, right? Same old SV tactics.
Still, no one can really resist harder, which is why I wanted to know how resisting harder is supposed to be done. We already resist error, as Stubborn has pointed out many times, just as Scripture tells us to do.
Homoerotic singer ...
It's rightfully "putting down" the R&R position. If anyone employs the tactic of making gratuitous drive-by insults without any substance, it's you. This "resist harder" expression is a very concise and cleverly pithy expression of the problem that SVs have with the R&R position, in principle.
Basically, it is certain sedevacantists putting other traditional Catholics down, and trying to make them look stupid, right? Same old SV tactics.If Francis only wore LGBT rainbow vestments, would we simply photoshop papal garb on him before his picture is hung up in the vestibule?
Still, no one can really resist harder, which is why I wanted to know how resisting harder is supposed to be done. We already resist error, as Stubborn has pointed out many times, just as Scripture tells us to do.
If Francis only wore LGBT rainbow vestments, would we simply photoshop papal garb on him before his picture is hung up in the vestibule?
Who is "we" in your question above?Societies that hang a picture of Francis in their chapels and who seek to get novus ordo approval.
Societies that hang a picture of Francis in their chapels and who seek to get novus ordo approval.
Like I said just avoid the obvious evil by covering it up. It's a intellectual play on the condition of the novus ordo hierarchy.
It's true that the SSPX, for example, doesn't say much about the evil deeds of Francis. However, the SSPX has ALWAYS hung a photo of the pope in their chapels. ALWAYS. Are they supposed to stop this practice now, just because of the latest Francis' outrage? JP2 and B16 committed outrages too, but still, their photos still hung in the chapels. Maybe they don't want to be thought of as sedevacantists or schismatics?Loyalty to the crucified Savior is the measure. Bergoglio should have a unbleached candle on either side of his photo.
Loyalty to the crucified Savior is the measure. Bergoglio should have a unbleached candle on either side of his photo.
Loyalty to the crucified Savior is the measure. Bergoglio should have a unbleached candle on either side of his photo.What do you mean by this?
However, the SSPX has ALWAYS hung a photo of the pope in their chapels. ALWAYS. Are they supposed to stop this practice now, just because of the latest Francis' outrage?
They're supposed to have stopped this practice long ago because they put up a picture and pretend that this suffices to remain in communion with what they claim to be the Holy See.
What do you mean by this?The man is spiritually dead. Like a funeral.
I have no idea of what you are talking about above. Can you re-phrase it?
The delirious Declaration Fiducia Supplicans, recently published by the parody of the former Holy Office renamed the Dicastery, definitively pierces the veil of hypocrisy and deception of the Bergoglian Hierarchy, showing these false shepherds for what they really are: servants of Satan and his most zealous allies, beginning with the usurper who sits – an abomination of desolation – on the Throne of Peter.
...
Bergoglio’s operation is an outlet of the Faith, where you can find everything from the rites of pre-1955 Holy Week to LGBTQ “Eucharists,” as long as nothing is called into question about his “pontificate.”
...
The hallmark of the conciliar and synodal church, of this sect of rebels and perverts, is falsehood and hypocrisy. Its purpose is intrinsically evil, because it takes away God’s honor, exposes souls to the danger of damnation, prevents them from doing good, and encourages them to do evil. Those in the Bergoglian Church who continue to follow the doctrine and precepts of the Catholic Church are out of place and sooner or later will end up separating themselves from it or giving in.
The Catholic Church is the only ark through which the Lord has ordained the salvation and sanctification of mankind. Wherever what appears to be the church acts and works for mankind’s damnation, it is not the Church, but rather her blasphemous counterfeit. The same is true of the Papacy, which Providence willed as a bond of Charity in Truth, and not as an instrument to divide, scandalize, and damn souls.
What he wrote is as clear as day. I’d have no idea why you can’t understand it.
A photo of the Heretic in Chief is so passe. They should move on to this:
Pope Francis Cardboard Cutout (lifesizecustomcutouts.com) (https://www.lifesizecustomcutouts.com/H48005-Pope-Francis-Cardboard-Cutout-Standup)
I have no idea of what you are talking about above. Can you re-phrase it?
It's a commentary on the fact that R&R believe that paying lip service to a "Pope" and/or putting his picture up in the vestibule satisfies all obligations that the faithful have to obey a Pope and maintain ecclesiastical communion with him.
Okay. Thank you for explaining it.Meg, it seems he thinks that having a picture of the pope at SSPX chapels is lips service, but quoting Fr. Fenton's teaching that popes can never teach nor fall into heresy and can in no way harm the faithful, as they keep right on repeating that the pope is not the pope because he's a heretic, teaches heresy and harms the faithful.
I don't think that the SSPX sees the situation as you do, even though they are obviously compromised, in that they do not follow the good example of their founder. I'm pretty sure that it was their founder that insisted on putting up photos of the Pope in chapels. I don't believe that the reason that +ABL wanted photos of the pope in chapels was for the reason you describe at all. +ABL was loyal to the Popes, but also resisted their errors, which is something that you believe to be untenable.
Okay. Thank you for explaining it.
I don't think that the SSPX sees the situation as you do, even though they are obviously compromised, in that they do not follow the good example of their founder. I'm pretty sure that it was their founder who insisted on putting up photos of the Pope in chapels. I don't believe that the reason that +ABL wanted photos of the pope in chapels was for the reason you describe at all. +ABL was loyal to the Popes, but also resisted their errors, which is something that you believe to be untenable.
Meg, it seems he thinks that having a picture of the pope at SSPX chapels is lips service, but quoting Fr. Fenton's teaching that popes can never teach nor fall into heresy and can in no way harm the faithful, as they keep right on repeating that the pope is not the pope because he's a heretic, teaches heresy and harms the faithful.
Since it's obvious he is very confused and obviously has no idea wth he is talking about, pay no attention to him saying a picture in the chapel is paying lip service to the pope.
I actually don't recall putting pictures of the V2 papal claimant in the vestibule to have been "a thing" during the lifetime of +Lefebvre.
Selective memory? Were you affiliated with +ABL when he was alive? How old would that make you?
Put one in the sanctuary.Is there an emoji for running around screaming if that happens?
Stubborn, I'm not sure what it'll take to explain this. We don't believe that a POPE can lead the faithful into error or promulgate for use by the faithful something that Father Wathen referred to as a "Great Sacrilege". But, you see, the key thing you're missing is that we don't believe that these men were POPES. You keep assuming (begging the question) that these men are legitimate Popes.In the words of +ABL: "The truth is that the Pope, even though he is Pope, can err. Apart from cases where the Pope engages his infallibility, he can err. Today we see the Pope err and spread the error and even heresies. To denounce it is not a sign of sedevacantism, but of Catholicism."
And of course putting the Pope's picture up in the vestibule is nothing more than lip service. Somehow you think you're faithful to the Pope by saying, "Yep. He's the Pope." while on the other sides of your mouth having a chapel that's not under his authority, excoriating him for his heresies, and even when he teaches something true, completely ignoring him as if he doesn't exist. It's a token without any reality behind it. More than anything it's become a symbol of "We're not [evil] sedevacantists." than anything else, but it has no real meaning.
Is there an emoji for running around screaming if that happens?:laugh1: :laugh2:
Is there an emoji for running around screaming if that happens?
:laugh1: :laugh2:
In the words of +ABL: "The truth is that the Pope, even though he is Pope, can err. Apart from cases where the Pope engages his infallibility, he can err. Today we see the Pope err and spread the error and even heresies. To denounce it is not a sign of sedevacantism, but of Catholicism."
This is pretty much where the situation begins and ends for all trads - except sedes.
Selective quotation, as usual, from the early 1980s when he was trying to cut a deal with Wojtyla. You deliberately ignore the quotes where he says that opposite and where he affirms that SVism is possible. But that’s just because 1) you’re dishonest and 2) desperately need to find some rule of faith as a substitute for the Catholic Magisterium that you’ve discarded and thrown under the bus at the altar of the V2 Anti-popes. Neo-SSPX also cherry-pick quotes from the early 1980s to back their assertion of being the “faithful heirs” of +Lefebvre.You need to view this matter without your sede goggles.
You need to view this matter without your sede goggles.
It is as I said, this is pretty much where the situation begins and ends for all trads, I should add that it always has and always will.
Saying it is or can be corrupted, you prove that do not know what he Catholic Magisterium even is.
Stubborn, just to be clear here, you still believe that councils of the Catholic Church confirmed by a pope can contain or teach error, correct?QV, just to be clear, I believe V2 contains and teaches error. I believe councils are infallible to the extent the pope makes them infallible via his defining doctrines concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
QV, just to be clear, I believe V2 contains and teaches error. I believe councils are infallible to the extent the pope makes them infallible via his defining doctrines concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
Do you believe that all true councils before Vatican II and confirmed by the pope contain no error whatsoever?Yes, I believe that.
Yes, I believe that.
How do you know that they contain no error whatsoever?The same way we all know. I think Fr. Wathen best describes it.....
The same way we all know. I think Fr. Wathen best describes it.....
"….All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity. Therefore, anyone who in any way teaches contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness and of course the truth of God. And if anyone comes forth and presents a doctrine contrary to it, he necessarily rouses the ire of Almighty God because he substitutes his puny human ideas and preferences to the holiness of the Divine Revelation."
V2 is guilty of the underlined.
That doesn’t answer the question, I asked: how do you know *the councils* don’t contain error?As I said, the same way we all know, because what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it [the Councils' teachings] all mean one thing, it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.
As I said, the same way we all know, because what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and Through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it [the Councils' teachings] all mean one thing, it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.
In knowing the truth, we know what is lies. Last Tradhican provides that analogy below....
"U.S. Treasury agents who specialize in forgery detection, when they are being trained, are never shown any forgeries, they are strictly immersed in learning every minute detail of the real thing. That way, they can spot the forgery instantly..."
OK, are you claiming that the “doctrine” on ecuмenism promoted by Unitatis redintegratio at Vatican II doesn’t have the same authority as the doctrine of Papal infallibility that was defined at Vatican I? If not, why not?I have not read any of the V2 docs except for skimming some of them for evidence, nor do I recommend anyone read any of them - except perhaps to skim for evidence.
I have not read any of the V2 docs except for skimming some of them for evidence, nor do I recommend anyone read any of them - except perhaps to skim for evidence.
What I can say is if the new doctrine of ecuмenism that the NO preaches comes from Unitatis, then "the single cloth which is woven from the top so that there are no seams" puts a giant hole in it.
Also, don't forget that V1 taught that the Holy Ghost Ghost was not promised to popes so that they can preach new doctrines. He was only promised to popes so that the popes would faithfully expound the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Note that V1 does not say that a pope cannot preach new doctrines, which are heresies, what V1 does say is no divine protection should they do such a thing.
So, how do we know that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (at Vatican I) is not erroneous? Remember, there were some prominent theologians, scholars, and bishops arguing against it.It is because V1 was called specifically for the purpose of condemning errors and defining the doctrine of papal infallibility, that doctrine is what everything is about within that Council.
Would this do? (https://i.imgur.com/X3GzO0q.gif)Yes! Perfect! I may be able to use this on a daily basis!
It is because V1 was called specifically for the purpose of condemning errors and defining the doctrine of papal infallibility, that doctrine is what everything is about within that Council.
Whatever prominent theologians wanted to argue, we can see plainly now, in hind site, that they were wrong. I've read what many theologians taught and published almost immediately after V1, and even decades after V1 which should have been condemned because they taught new ideas as regards papal infallibility, just as if these ideas were taught at V1 when they were not.
Unlike V2, with V1, "the single cloth which is woven from the top so that there are no seams" remains the single, seamless cloth.
“You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose. How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?”
Well of course everyone insisted it was authoritative as all the other councils, would you expect them to say the whole thing was diabolical?
But, numerous theologians, nearly all bishops at Vatican II, and your unholy father Paul VI insisted that Vatican II was just as authoritative as any other council.
This is from a Letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 29, 1975:
Now, please give me one good and logical reason why any potential convert would believe you over your “st” Montini?
Well of course everyone insisted it was authoritative as all the other councils, would you expect them to say the whole thing was diabolical?
As for the letter to +ABL, you forget that Pope Paul VI wrote that letter actually believing that he had this other infallibility that Fr. Fenton preaches.
Which is to say that pope Paul VI actually, truly and firmly and positively believed that divine protection prevented him from ever harming the Church, and that obedience of the faithful to his disciplinary and doctrinal directives can only be pleasing to God - exactly as Fr. Fenton teaches.
While the sedes use this error of additional infallibility in their effort to prove popes are not popes, the conciliar popes use the exact same error to do whatever they want, assured of divine protection.
It's an error that begets a double tongued conundrum.
Actually you have made yourself pope. Congratulations!🎊🍾🎉🎈LOL, funny.
LOL, funny.
All I am doing is answering your questions as charitably as I can. I think I understand much of what and how sedes think and why. I find it somewhat amazing.
I think it boils down to sedes, like the conciliar popes, both believe the pope has an additional infallibility because some theologians taught it. V1 teaches the pope is only infallible when he defines a doctrine on faith or morals to the whole Church, and V1 specifically teaches that new doctrines have no divine protection . Not complicated, at least not to me and many other trads.
But I've made myself pope. LOL, funny.
If I miss you, have a blessed Christmas QV.