Controversial in what way?  Can you summize what he said.  Do you know what aspect of it was controversial?

I watched the John Salza one about the Third Secret being an EMP attack on America by Russia which I thought was a bit crackers.  He seemed to suggest that the entire power grid would be taken out and America left totally inert and blind while Russian and Chinese troops just roamed in with little or no resistance; because you were so busy defending yourself from roaming biker gangs and escaped convicts who had broken out of jails en masse.

I am pretty sure that the US would counter with a massive Thermonuclear strike on any country that tried to attack it with EMP weapons and that the Army and Air Force are shielded against such an attack.  I'm also pretty sure that in the event of a natural disaster the prison governers have pretty strict orders not to let the prisoners go, but rather die of dehydration in their cells if there is no alternative. After all, the first people they would go after would be the governer's and prison guard's families.  So they sort of have a big incentive to keep them locked up or let them die.

After all, look at New Orleans.  And they were not convicts.

On one the these forums a poster is, or was, a prison guard so he might have a better idea, but I bet they don't unlock the doors and let them go in a natural disaster under any circuмstances.

Really looking forward to listening to it now.

This is what Monsignor had to say about the issue this past Sunday. He plans on giving the talk sometime at Our Lady Help of Christians. Maybe if there is anyone out there who goes to OLHC can record it or post a transcript. It sounds like a good listen...

Sermon for the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary Commemorating the 17th Sunday after Pentecost – September 15, 2013 by Monsignor Patrick Perez

Monsignor began the sermon by reciting the Hail Mary.

I just returned from speaking at Father Gruner’s conference. The first thing I want to do is to thank those of you who prayed me there and back safely. That was much appreciated.

Because of being gone all week, I didn’t have time to prepare a proper sermon. But I just want to say a few words to you. The conference was a good one; I think one of the best ones they have had so far. I wanted to apprise you of the fact that it doesn’t seem that my conference is to be found on line. I only can speculate as to why, but I think that my speculation is probably pretty good. I guess I kind of let the Novus Ordo have it so much that Father Gruner was afraid if he posted it on line he would lose his Novus Ordo support, which is fairly considerable. So they haven’t posted it as yet. The other possibility is that maybe they are editing it. In any case, I am considering giving the talk here in the parish maybe in a few weeks when the dust settles.

I’ll give you a little foretaste. Father wanted me to speak on theological and philosophical reasons why the popes since Pius XII have not consecrated Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. What I went on to prove in the course of the talk is that first of all – remember, I told you that the Church is firmly in the grip of modernism so I told them what modernism was and what the chief teachings of modernism were and what the previous popes, Pius IX, Pius X specifically, had condemned as errors. So they knew what modernism was at this point. And then I showed them that these errors appear in the Vatican II docuмents as positive teachings of the Church all of a sudden. Pius IX and Pius X condemned things that the bishops now wrote into the docuмents of the Church. Even Cardinal Ratzinger (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) said that the Vatican II docuмents, particularly Gaudium et Spes, were a counter syllabus, the Syllabus being the first really big condemnation of the error of modernism. Even Ratzinger said, Yeah, now it is a docuмent of the Church. It was condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.

From there I went on to show that the popes since Pius XII have been modernists. As I was getting to this point, (there were a few Novus Ordo bishops and Novus Ordo priests in attendance), and there started to be a little rumble when they saw where I was going. By the time I got to the point where I was just pointing out facts mostly (some of it my opinion) of things they don’t want known – for example, John XXIII who is up for canonization was removed from two teaching positions for being a modernist. He was removed from his position as teacher of theology at the Seminary of Bergamo, later he was removed from the Lateran University, and then he became pope, and now up for canonization. That was kind of interesting.

When I got to the present pope – Well, picture, if you will, a one-quart Mason jar filled with hornets. You screw on the top really tight and you shake them up and then you put your hand right on the jar so that they think they can get to you to sting you but they can’t. So they’re just bashing themselves against each other in the glass and getting more and more angry and frustrated. Well, that’s what these Novus Ordo types were doing by this point.

And I said, Well, let’s just look at what this pope has done so far and I named a few of the things. I said specifically you can see on line at the Mass he did in Brazil, the last Mass there. John Vennari did an eight-minute reduction video because everything was hours long. And I said from this we can deduce that the current pope either doesn’t know or doesn’t believe the teaching of the Church about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I said he was a modernist, too, basically.

I don’t want to give away any punch lines, but one of the other tenets of modernism is that they don’t believe in objective truth. They don’t believe, for example, that the Mother of God actually comes and appears to people. This is one of the beliefs of modernism. What they believe is that it’s all sentiment. And you see how sentimental the recent popes – and even this pope is extremely sentimental – but what they believe is that it is a kind of sentiment that comes from the inside of you, and then you believe that you have seen the Mother of God and she told you to do things like consecrate Russia. The conclusion was that the modern popes, including the current one, haven’t consecrated Russia because they don’t believe that the Mother of God said it, although that was the mortal end of things. Not only did I tell them about modernism, but I told them about the modernist Mass; they need to get out of there and find the true Mass, the traditional Latin Mass.

Anyway, I was the, as far as I know, the only speaker to get a standing ovation — (Monsignor laughing) – which even made them more mad. I don’t know what the level beyond hornets just bashing each other and trying to sting somebody, but they were there in any case. One of the speakers who speaks at every conference came up to me afterwards because they had a series of compromise candidates, like Chris Ferrara that is mostly Novus Ordo and part traditional. She was being very, very frustrated. She is a very learned and good woman. She came up to me and said, “Monsignor, you saved the conference”.

In any case, even if they don’t ever put it on line, these bishops and priests of the left persuasion have heard maybe for the first time ever – and one of them is a really good friend of the current pope, as a matter of fact, a bishop from Argentina. This may be the first time they’ve ever head someone tell them that. So it would have been all worth it for that. We were dangerously close to Niagara Falls so wherever I went after that, I was holding on to something. (Monsignor laughing)

I should tell you; I know you’ve all heard the expression of being “to the right of the John Birch Society”. Well after my lecture another of the speakers approached me to shake my hand and to say just that. I said, Well, thank you very much John.” It was John McManus, the head of the John Birch Society. (Monsignor laughing)

I do thank you. You know, you don’t really want to pat yourself on the back but I felt that this talk really exceeded my self, meaning that – You know, I have been praying constantly. I did a Novena to the Holy Ghost before this and praying constantly that what He wanted said would be said, and I really felt that it was. And I really had the idea that a lot of it wasn’t coming from just me and my talk at the time. And I have to attribute it – it’s the Holy Ghost but not to my own prayers, but to yours for me.

At the first opportunity – first opportunity means when it is cool enough to stand in the hall over there and talk for an hour – but if they are not going to post this, I would like you to have the same conference. So we’ll be happy to do that. And thank you once again for all your prayers.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen

The part were he says that he has figured out who the Antichrist is.  Are you ready?  TA-DAH!  It's our own prez Obama!!

Not John Paul II, as the Dimond Brothers claim?  :scratchchin:

He's figured this out because it says in the Bible that, "I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening".    If you look up 'lightening' in a Hebrew dictionary & then 'from heaven', it translates "Baraq O-bamah".  And there you have it!  "I saw Satan fall like Baraq O-bamah".  Proof that Obama is Satan.  He says that you can Google this.  Just Google Obama/lightening.  I did & there's several You-Tube videos.

:applause:

I've never had a priest base his sermon on a You-Tube video but I guess there's always the first time.

That figures.

When Ratzinger lied about the Third Secret in June 2000 Father Gruner immediately began to question how it was possible that the secret could have been "revealed in its entirety", which Ratzinger's docuмent claimed.  He knew it was a smoking gun and said as much

When Ratzinger became Pope, Gruner went completely silent on the issue and when pressed he started using terms like "mental reservation" and making all manner of contorted excuses as to why the lie was not really a lie.  I.e. he back peddled.

Thanks for posting what Monsignor Patrick Perez said at the conference Montfort.  I imagine it was very interesting.  But I believe the idea of the conference was to get Bishop Emeritus Antonio Baseotto from Argentina and the three other bishops that were there to relay to Pope Francis a good reason to Consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart.  Not to piss him off.  I imagine everything that Monsignor Perez said was true but was it the time to say it.  Did he lose the objective of the conference, which was to give good reason for a proper Consecration.  It just doesn't make sense when they were trying to get Pope Francis to do a proper Consecration to make Pope Francis look like the enemy.  Of course Pope Francis is a modernist, just like about 95 % of Catholic prelates these days are modernists.  But the Pope is needed for a proper Consecration.  That means they have to deal with modernists to get a proper Consecration of Russia done.  But how do they expect to get modernists to do a proper Consecration if they dump a one-quart Mason jar filled with hornets over their heads.  Some times Father Gruner and some of his other speakers are guilty of this too.  If there was ever a reason why Trads are their own worst enemy then this is it.  I mean do they want a proper Consecration of Russia done, or not?  What's the sense of getting all puffed up with pride if you have lost the objective of the conference.  Sheesh

Yes, thank you Montfort, for posting that.  Very informative, in more ways than one!!

I wanted to post right after Montfort but decided to pray to the Holy Ghost first, which I did and then I listened & I think He said that it would be all right to post what I got out of it.  Let the down-thumbers get their left thumbs ready.

Back in the day, I don't know if it was the law or rule or just common practice, but every priest ALWAYS based his sermon on the Gospel & sometimes the Epistle.  He would more fully explain certain parts & then show us how to live our lives today based on the lessons taught therein that Our Lord wanted us to learn. Sticking to the Gospel prevented a priest from going off on tangents, either about himself or things that weren't based on dogma.  I always thought that that was a good rule.  It was proven to me when the changes in the church started & the priests started to stray more & more from this rule and their sermons got less & less 'doctrinal' if you will.  

Now let's look at Fr. Perez's sermon.  Was it Gospel based?  Nope, not a word.  It was all about HIS speech at the conference, about what HE said, how people congratulated HIM, how HE almost (or did, I can't recall) got a standing ovation, etc.,  I,I,I.  

He could have very easily given a short but sweet sermon instead of an excuse for not having one, and at the end mentioned about the conference & that he is going to give the same speech in Father Schell Hall at a future date to be announced.  

A little true humility goes a long way.   He may have prayed to the Holy Ghost,but did he listen?