.

This is hilarious! I have to say, you have a kind of ... disturbing ... sense of humor.

I must say that I didn't quite get the Soros/Simpson one.  Is the idea that Death randomly plucked Simpson when he was fishing for Soros?

Here is the page from Jone's Moral Theology where he talks about various types of wine and whether they are allowed or not.

So, it's a little detailed. There are precise rules about doing weird things like making wine out of raisins, but that's about it. From what I can tell, it has no problem with squeezing juice from grapes and fermenting it, which is what I believe is correct. You don't want to add anything to it; you don't want to use it before it ferments or after it decays into vinegar.

Other than that, wine is pretty foolproof.

.

Wine is very easy to make. You press the juice out of grapes and allow it to ferment. You want to put it in a clean container and seal it with an air lock, such as you can get at any home brew store.

You don't even need to press the juice yourself. You can get raw grape juice at a local winery and use that. I don't know if they have wineries in India, but that's how you do it.

Some priests grow their own grapes and make their own wine. The grapes naturally have yeast on the skins, which gets into the juice when you squeeze them, and causes the sugars to ferment. I would recommend using a hygrometer to measure the alcoholic content, since you want to be sure it is wine before it is used for Mass. I think the rules say the wine should be at least 8% alcohol (normal table wine is 12-14%, so this is on the low end).

I would suggest he go to a local home brew shop, if such things exist there, and ask them how to make his own wine. But really, wine is not difficult to make, which is part of the reason God used it for the Mass.

All true.  I've made quite a bit myself.  However there are specific canonical requirements, the details of which I don't recall.  I don't believe it's limit to simply ferment the juice, but you must use the whole grape and only press the skins once.  Again, I don't recall the details.

Thank you for these words, that means so much especially now. I saw statement on sspx.org and they try again to distance themselves. It doesn't look like a sincere repentance and apology. I feel sorry for many priests that are good and trying their best not to drift towards modernism.
Maybe SSPX leadrrship and Rome already made a secret agreement. And they are doing it slowly, not to shock ther faithful laity, and priests.

This case with now deceased bishop Hounder, holy oils, is a sign also.
It's outrageous that bishop Felkay said that he accepts 95 % of Vatican II!!!
There is clear departure from the defined doctrine, in some texts and docuмent. One heresy or error is too much.

Yes, the SSPX (the organization, leadership) is not right with God in this matter. They are not good willed.

That doesn't mean every priest and every parishioner is evil, or participated in this evil. So that's reason #1 not to despair.

Reason #2 is that the SSPX is not the WHOLE of Traditional Catholicism. There are many other groups keeping the Faith, and frankly doing a better job of it at the moment. The Resistance, for starters. But there are some sedevacantist groups as well that I would have to say are keeping the Faith (those that don't get schismatic like the Dimond Brothers or Fr. Cekada with his "anti Una cuм" nonsense novel doctrine). And there are micro "groups" of 1 chapel all over the place, affiliated with no one, but keeping the Faith.

And yes, it only takes one heresy to become a heretic and lose the entire Faith. The Faith hangs together like Our Lord's main garment, woven without seam. You can't just cut a piece off, without the whole thing unraveling into thread.

And yes, saying that "Vatican II is 95% good" is a clear red flag, a sign that one has lost the plot with regards to Traditional Catholicism/Vatican II resistance. That's like saying a poisoned beverage is "99% good" because only 1% of it is arsenic. That's foolish! The whole thing needs to be thrown out before someone gets hurt!

+Fellay and others need to point out what parts of Vatican II are "Catholic". Because if they happened to repeat some truth accidentally, it wasn't VATICAN II because that wasn't unique to Vatican II or defined there! You could still say ALL of Vatican II is from satan and must be thrown out. Because even the apparent truths in Vatican II docuмents are A) found many places elsewhere, so nothing would be lost, and B) those truths are mere VEHICLES to deliver the poison. You can't have pure evil. A rotten apple needs an apple. Without those truths uttered by Vatican II, no one would have accepted the heresy! So even the TRUTHS in Vatican II served the devil. So again I say, the whole council needs to be cast into the rubbish bin of history, flushed down the toilet into HELL where it belongs.

satan quoted the Psalms during the temptation of Our Lord after His forty day fast. "He hath given his angels charge over thee...". Nevertheless, ALL of the devil's words and works are evil and to be opposed. You don't call his stolen words from Scripture "the devil's words" do you? No, those quotations are excluded from what we excoriate as being "the devil, his words, and his works". They aren't *his* to begin with. But we must oppose 100% of what proceeds from the devil's (or Vatican II's) mouth, because EVEN SCRIPTURE QUOTES and other truths coming from that infernal throat are ONLY UTTERED for the purpose of evil, deception, and the destruction of souls. Even truths or Scripture quotes become part of an infernal machine, an infernal package. So the fact remains: 100% of what the devil uttered -- the whole package taken as a whole, as it were -- was evil and to be opposed. You don't say, "The devil is 30% good, because Scripture!"

You can't love or serve God too much.
You can't say too many good things about Our Lady and her many virtues.
And you can't excoriate, oppose, or hate Vatican II enough. It IS a superheresy. Bishop Fellay was dead wrong when he specifically mocked this idea. That's when I knew he was a lost cause.