Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Pizzagate has to be kept in the headlines.  When posting on Breitbart, I bring up Pizzagate when possible.  The other day someone immediately replied to one Pizzagate reference that "There is no such thing as Pizzagate."  Another person gave a sarcastic response to me.  So they may well have their people or supporters out there to watch "comment" sections to do the usual of disparaging the subject, or at least keep it from getting publicity when possible. Don't give up!  :boxer:      
Thank you for not giving up; I still believe many more of these revelations will continue to come out as we approach the 100th anniversary of Fatima. 8)
Sounds like New Order to me!  NCCB have supported abortion since the 70's, that I know of.
Pizzagate has to be kept in the headlines.  When posting on Breitbart, I bring up Pizzagate when possible.  The other day someone immediately replied to one Pizzagate reference that "There is no such thing as Pizzagate."  Another person gave a sarcastic response to me.  So they may well have their people or supporters out there to watch "comment" sections to do the usual of disparaging the subject, or at least keep it from getting publicity when possible. Don't give up!  :boxer:      

I think in many of these discussions that we forget the fact that we have a guardian angel that often prompts us of danger. You should thank your guardian angel when He warns you and you listen to him. 

Jesus and Mary,
Baptism of Desire and Feeneyism / Re: John Calvin
« Last post by BumphreyHogart on Today at 11:49:27 AM »
You are wrong. I do not reject the OUM. I reject what you consider the OUM. The OUM cannot be saints, doctors, catechisms etc. because they can err and/or contain error.

You reject it because your understanding of it is a false understanding.

Yes, when a particular PERSON, such as this Saint, or that Doctor, published something, they were NOT protected from making errors against faith or morals. However, that WORK they published MIGHT NOT have anything against faith or morals. Then the CHURCH steps in and scrutinizes the work for errors to decide whether the works can be given to the general public for belief. Then we are certain there is no error against faith or morals, and it is a serious sin to question the Church for having approved.

You insist to remain looking at their act of publishing and no further, but AFTER that comes the Church approval and non-controversial use. It is impossible for such to be against previous taught solemn dogma.

No, St. Thomas did not teach against a Dogma like I said before, and you falsely characterize my position. All or most of the Popes after Pope Pius IX's definition have officially approved of the Summa, a document with plain heresy in it (i.e. contrary immaculate conception) which no one is free to hold now.

No, I have your number. I didn't mis-characterize what you are believing. I have already explained this and you have just turned your head in ridicule. The one small statement St. Thomas made in a huge Latin volume of the Summa was IMMEDIATELY cause for concern by contemporary theologians. They debated it, some saying it was against the Immaculate Conception, others saying it wasn't. It was KNOWN to be questionable and NOT SOMETHING the Church taught. It was never taught anywhere else, and those who had the ability to read the Summa in Latin already knew what was controversial.

We are talking in this thread about NON-controversial and fully accepted works positively allowed by the Church to teach the general public, with the knowledge they were completely safe. You are smarter than the whole Church and consider them dangerous and possibly against former dogma. It's outrageous what you believe.

Name one priest living now who you claim thinks like you on this. Just one.

You beleive that to adhere to ex cathedra pronouncements against any contrary opinions is heresy? Wow. Amazing.

A plain logical fallacy of the straw man you just keep pushing here. I NEVER said or intimated any such thing. You are also "begging the question" because the question is that all these catechism and books approved by the Church and peacefully accepted are NOT opinions, and they do NOT go against previous solemn dogma. It is YOUR claim they do, but they do not.

SSPX Resistance News / Re: Fr. Giacomo Ballini Mass circuit
« Last post by Student of Qi on Today at 11:48:38 AM »
Fr. Bellini shall next be Celebrating a High Mass this Sunday, April 30th, 5:30 pm, at Stella Maris chapel in Lamarque. I believe there are hamburgers afterwards and the presentation of Bishop Faure's seminary in France.
Feelings aren't everything!
In my previous post, I want to clarify that I'm not referring to "feelings" of the emotional or sentimental type. The "sense" of Satan is primarily in the intellect.  Sometimes negative emotions follow.  Often, I don't "feel" anything.  I just suddenly "know" something is spiritually very wrong, so I take action, by prayers, by avoidance, by removing myself if possible.  I've been this way for as far back as I can remember; say, 2 1/2 - 3 years.  
I rarely talk about it, even among fellow trads, because it has led to other thinking and then gossiping that I'm mentally ill, or myself under demonic influence,  which I certainly am not!
Often, the place, person, object to which evil has attached itself is NOT discernible via the physical senses, or else it is, but is concealed at first. A few examples where later on, the presence of evil was confirmed.  I was waiting at night on the sidewalk for a city bus.  Everything I stood adjacent to a dry cleaning business, closed until morning, I "sensed" evil.  If I moved away from the dry cleaner, about two storefronts down, everything seemed fine.  I didn't give it much thought or try to analyze, I simply stood back from actual bus stop and jogged up to the bus when it arrived.  It wasn't until I was in the bus and pulling away that I saw the upper floors of the building housing the dry cleaner.  On about the 6th or 7th floor was the office of a psychic, the window lit up by a large flashing neon sign.  
I've met people, yes, even traditional Catholics, whose outward appearance and demeanor looked fine, only to later discover what was wrong.  A couple in their 60s, members of the Rosary Society, who allowed their 30 year old son to live in their basement with his male "partner."  A young teacher who spoke sweetly, but was later dismissed when it came to light she was listening at night to death metal music, an avid fan.  Conversely, there are times when a person whose physical appearance and demeanor is distasteful, but give me no dense of evil.  This happens normally with non-Catholics.  Most of the time, however, I never learn what's wrong.  
And what are the pewsitters in my favorite northern country doing about it?  Do they have tar and feathers up there?   
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Fr. Giacomo Ballini Mass circuit
« Last post by Matthew on Today at 10:36:21 AM »
Do we know what other locations he will be at, for those who would like to travel one nearby?
I'm pretty sure he's going to be at Stella Maris Chapel outside Houston, as well as Fr. Zendejas' other chapels, but beyond that I don't know the exact details (times, dates, and locations).

I'm not Fr. Zendejas' right hand man; I'm the coordinator of St. Dominic's Chapel. And that's about it.

Anyone out there who wants to chime in, please feel free to post when Fr. Ballini will be visiting your chapel.
SSPX Resistance News / Eleison Comments - God Enlists (no. 511)
« Last post by Matthew on Today at 10:34:55 AM »
Number DXI (511)
April 29, 2017
God Enlists
God is the Master of the cosmic frame –
Men twist and turn, Heav’n fills up just the same.

Fr Jean-Michel Gleize, Theology Professor at the Écône seminary of the Society of St Pius X, has written on burning problems of today two articles which throw interesting light on their solution. Firstly, can the Pope fall into formal heresy? Answer, maybe, because Popes have not always been held to be so free from error as they have been held to be in the last few centuries. And secondly, does the Papal document Amoris Laetitia show that Pope Francis has fallen into formal heresy? Answer, strictly speaking, no, but in effect, one may say so, because neo-modernism undermines doctrine while pretending to uphold it. This second question will have to wait for another issue of these “Comments,” but if Fr Gleize did not want to be caught between sedevacantism and liberalism, he had to broach the first question first.
In the first and shorter article, he says that from the Protestant “Reformation” onwards, Catholic theologians in general, notably St Robert Bellarmine, have held that the Pope cannot fall into conscious and stubborn denial of Church dogma, i.e. formal heresy. They quote Our Lord telling Peter to confirm his brethren in the Faith (Lk. XXII, 32), which presupposes that Peter cannot lose it. And they argue that never in Church history has a Pope fallen into formal heresy. On the other hand prior to the Protestant revolution, says Fr Gleize, Catholic theologians from the 12th to the 16th century generally judged that a Pope can fall into formal heresy, and this opinion has continued into modern times, albeit less commonly.
Fr Gleize concludes that especially in view of the Conciliar Popes, the later theologians have not proved their point. As for Peter always being protected by Our Lord from formal heresy, faith is an act of the mind pushed by free-will, and God rarely interferes with free-will. And as for Popes in history, Honorius for ex ample was anathematised by his successors for having favoured the Monothelite heresy. This conclusion is for sure disputable and disputed, but if one looks at the question from the historical standpoint of the Seven Ages of the Church, it does make sense.
By three Ages (Apostles 33–70, Martyrs 70–312, and Doctors 312 to about 500 AD), the Church climbed to the Fourth Age, the 1,000 year triumph of Christendom (about 500–1517). But by the late Middle Ages the Devil and original sin were eating into Christendom, and men launched into the Fifth Age of Apostasy (1517-?), whereby degenerating Christians invented one form of hypocrisy after another (Protestantism, Liberalism, Communism amongst others) to pay homage to Christian virtue and civilisation even while “liberating” themselves for the latest vice, e.g. same-sex “marriage.” Now God could have made the Middle Ages go on for ever, but He would have had to interfere with free-will. As it was, He gave to His Church a special crop of Saints to lead the Counter-Reformation, and over the next half-millennium He obtained, to vary the population of His Heaven, a harvest of post-medieval Saints. But to counter-act the corruption of post-medieval man, God chose to re-inforce authority in His Church, so that souls wishing for salvation but no longer enough so by inner virtue, could at least be directed by outer authority towards Heaven. Then of course the Devil set to work especially on churchmen in high positions of authority and after nearly half a millennium it is as though the Lord God said, “If you do not want My Church, then have your own Newchurch,” and that was Vatican II.
So now Church authority is damaged beyond all human repair, and He will use some other means to wring out of our spiritually exhausted world yet another harvest of souls. A Chastisement will ensure the initial brilliance of the Church of the Sixth Age, but the Devil and original sin will have a human nature to work on that has been weakened in depth by the Fifth Age’s liberalism, so that it should not take too long to bring on the Seventh Age of the Antichrist. But that will be an Age of some of the greatest Catholics of all Church history – a crop of especially great Saints.
Kyrie eleison.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by SMFPacks WYSIWYG Editor