Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20

SSPX Resistance News / Re: Dinner with +Stobnicki

« Last post by StBoniface on Today at 08:31:19 AM »

I dont want this to devolve in a discussion but just a few words:

It is not about the Pope first and foremost. If you say the Novus Ordo is not catholic... something non-catholic cannot procede from the catholic church.
What happened at Vatican II was the Protestant Revolution, but inside the Church worldwide. Almost all clerics of the official church held unto a new religion.
If you agree with that, then it follows that the "Official Church" cannot be inside the true catholic church as defined by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis.
Then follows the conclusion: The Head of a protestant sect cannot be at the same remain the legitimate successor of Peter.

Research the Protestant Revolution in Germany. There were former Catholic Bishops joining the Lutherans. They lost their office by adhering publicly to Lutheranism.

SSPX Resistance News / Re: Dinner with +Stobnicki

« Last post by BaldwinIV on Today at 08:22:38 AM »

Quote from: StBoniface on Today at 07:56:19 AM

That is kind of strange. I could swear that he said once he held the Thesis (Cassiacuм).

Maybe, he had quite a journey with various sede organisations. But now he sees it as either problematic or dangerous (can't remember the exact word).

I asked Fr. Marcel de la Croix (he's in contact with +Stobnicki) about the Thesis and he said "well, according to St. Thomas, matter without form is just matter in potency" (and the papacy is not "in potency", but "in act"). But Fr. Marcel also said "we don't make the pope into some matter of faith, as Lefebvre also worked with sedevacantists - if someone doesn't want to pray for the pope, then it's not the pope for them personally, okay". But he also supported Fr. Hesses idea that "it's safer for the priest to pray for the pope even if I personally don't believe he's the pope - even if I'm wrong, God cannot fault me as a priest for it, whereas the opposite is more of a gamble". Against this is the idea that "nobody is in schism for doubting the pope if there is serious positive doubt about his election" (so, Viganó is definitely not in schism, because the case of a "pope emeritus" is simply unprecedented in Church history and nowhere in canon law).

SSPX Resistance News / Re: Dinner with +Stobnicki

« Last post by StBoniface on Today at 07:56:19 AM »

That is kind of strange. I could swear that he said once he held the Thesis (Cassiacuм).

SSPX Resistance News / Dinner with +Stobnicki

« Last post by BaldwinIV on Today at 07:40:25 AM »

Since this forum is mainly American, there's not a lot of posts about +Stobnicki. I recently had the opportunity for Mass and dinner with him, so I'd like to report a bit. For anyone who doesn't know, this is his story, from the SSPX to his ordination as a bishop by +Williamson:

https://rexcz.blogspot.com/2024/06/per-mariam-ad-iesum-interview-with.html

To sum up the evening:

+Stobnicki is not sedevacantist, as some have claimed. He spent a lot of time in sede-land with various organizations yes, but he even sees sedeprivationism as dangerous. He has to deal with Polish families who stay at home and think the Church has failed. So this is simply the danger of extreme sedevacantism. However, he gives credence to +Viganós opinion that Francis' election may be canonically invalid (due to Benedict still having "half" of the office) and Leos election may also be canonically invalid (due to too many cardinals being in the conclave). He says there's no "real Catholic pope" to clear up the confusion, so he allows some liberalism as to whether they do or don't name the pope. He is very good friends with +Viganó.

Pastorally, he is a child of +Williamson, he got his tires slashed three times (by Antifa, likely) and had two court cases for preaching about the people who crucified Our Lord (both dismissed already). He now publishes his sermons on a Telegram group, but they're all in Polish anyway. He and one other priest in Warsaw serve about 20 locations in Poland and some missions in Croatia and Prague.

He also talks to a lot of NO priests and tries to get convince especially one Polish priest who leads an entire seminary (he met with this priest four times already and says he's close to asking for conditional re-ordination). The priest in question is not easily replaceable and stopped saying the Novus Ordo last month and now only says the TLM. So, that's progress. But, he says, it's not easy to leave the "official" Church.

In regard to Fr. Hewko, he signs what +Ballini discussed with him, but he says one has to be careful not to fall into Donatism (re: Hewkos "the new Mass cannot give grace" clashing with ex opere operato). For now he didn't say more than that and I didn't want to put too many words in his mouth.

Note: I wanted to help a bit to smooth this "True / False Resistance" stuff from Fr. Hewko - my theory is that it's safer to say one cannot obtain grace at the NO and to also argue with STIII Q82 A9 that we should not take communion from sinful / formally heretical priests (NO, FSSP and post-2012 SSPX) - this avoids the problem of Donatism while also avoiding the idea that "valid consecration = licit to go there". I want to stay a lot more respectful to the late +Williamson than Fr. Hewko has been, but I also noticed that it's not Fr. Hewko himself that is rabid anti-Williamson, more the people behind him. At least that's my impression.

Other than that, he's definitely not silent (neither are the other bishops, except for +Ballini and +Morgan, I'll write up some stuff to refute Fr. Hewko on this once and for all). He discussed something about the latest Vatican doctrinal nonsense but I was distracted with multiple people talking at dinner. I wanted to find out who this "Mgr Gérard de Nice" was (a "bishop?" who came out in support of +Williamson), but he warned me about shady people disguising themselves as priests or bishops, especially "Old Catholics" now re-inventing themselves as VII-trads, while being actual heretics for rejecting Vatican I. He also has WhatsApp, Telegram, everything and gave me all Mass locations for Poland, etc. and was very open about where he is. There will be a full map coming later this year, once I have Fr. Chazals locations.

In Berlin, some FSSP priests questioned whether he was a real bishop because "you need three bishops for validity" (no you don't) and one SSPX priest even said that it would be a "grave sin" to go to Resistance Masses, as they are "preaching hatred". If there was any hatred being preached, I didn't understand it as I don't understand Polish. He did preach with fervor, I just sadly don't speak Polish. He does his Mass very fast, but still with perfect clarity.

So yeah. I remembered that Fr. Hewko wanted to get in contact with him, but I also want to avoid any further splits and drama and "condemnations" of +Williamson, especially posthumous. +Stobnicki supported my efforts to build a proper apologetics site (will be announced later this year, once we have written and reviewed a proper number of articles - not just for Catholics, but also against Atheists, Eastern Orthodox, Islam, Protestants, Vatican II, Sedevacantists, etc. - mostly following the line of Fr. Hesse overall).

I hope you all are doing well and enjoyed reading this update.

Catholic Living in the Modern World / What happened to the 12 Apostles after Pentecost?

« Last post by cassini on Today at 07:38:50 AM »

Philip Kosloski -wrote this article found on Aleteia website, very interesting .

At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, before describing Jesus' ascension into Heaven, the evangelist presents Jesus saying to his apostles, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations" (Cf. Matthew 28, 19-20). As seen in the book of Acts and in many other Christian traditional writings (apocryphal or not), having a divine mandate to travel the world for the sake of the Gospel, the apostles didn't waste their time.

All early apostolic literature presents them as immediately setting their hand to the plow, engaged in the difficult work of sowing seeds of faith everywhere they went.

So where did they end up? Did they really "make disciples of all nations"?

Peter
It is traditionally believed that Peter first traveled to Antioch and established a community there. He did not stay very long, but he is often known as the first bishop of Antioch. After that he may have visited Corinth before heading to Rome. There he helped form the Christian community and was ultimately martyred in the Circus of Nero around 64 AD in Rome. Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican is built on top of St. Peter's tomb.

Andrew
After Pentecost many ancient traditions point to Andrew, Peter's brother, as the Apostle to the Greeks. It is believed that he preached to Greek communities and was martyred at Patras on a cross in the shape of an X. His relics were eventually transferred to the Duomo Cathedral in Amalfi, Italy.

James the Great
It is held that James was the first apostle to be martyred. In the Acts of the Apostles it reads, "Herod the king laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword" (Acts 12:1-2). He died in 44 AD in Jerusalem, but his tomb is nowhere near this location. After his death his body was transferred to Spain and is currently located in Santiago de Compostela. His tomb is the destination point of the centuries-old pilgrimage, El Camino, still popular today.

John
The author of the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, John was the only apostle not to have a martyr's death. In Revelation he writes from the island of Patmos, Greece, "I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9). He died around 100 AD and is buried near Ephesus.

Philip
In the years following Pentecost, Philip ministered to Greek-speaking communities. Little is known about his adventures, except that he was martyred around 80 AD. His relics are located in the Basilica Santi Apostoli, in Rome.

Bartholomew
Little is known regarding the evangelization efforts of Bartholomew. Various traditions have him preaching in different areas. It is believed that he was martyred and his remains are currently located at the church of St. Bartholomew-in-the-Island, in Rome.

Thomas
The "doubting" apostle, Thomas is widely known for his missionary efforts in India. There is a popular story about one of his adventures that focuses on the conversion of a local "doubting" king. He died around 72 AD and his tomb is located in Mylapore, India.

Matthew
One of the four evangelists, Matthew is most well known for his Gospel. He preached to various communities in the Mediterranean before his martyrdom in Ethiopia. His tomb is located in the cathedral in Salerno, Italy.

James the Less
Scholars believe that Saint James the Less authored the “Epistle of St. James” found in the New Testament. After the apostles dispersed and left Jerusalem, James remained and became the first bishop in the holy city. He remained there for several decades until he was stoned to death by the Jєωιѕн authorities in the year 62. Some of his relics can be found in the Basilica Santi Apostoli, in Rome. It is also believed his tomb is located at the St. James Cathedral in Jerusalem.

Judas Thaddeus
The "forgotten" apostle due to his name being the same as Judas Iscariot, St. Jude preached the gospel in various places. He is revered by the Armenian Church as the "Apostle to the Armenians." He suffered martyrdom around 65 AD in Beirut, Lebanon. His remains are currently in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Simon the Zealot
Simon is often depicted with Judas Thaddeus and some believe they preached together as a team. This is due in part because a tradition states they were both martyred in Beirut in the same year. Some of his relics are believed to be located in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Matthias
After being chosen as the "replacement apostle," one tradition states that Matthias founded a church in Cappadocia and ministered to Christians on the coasts of the Caspian Sea. It is believed that he died a martyr’s death, and was beheaded with an axe in Colchis at the hands of the many pagans there. Some of his relics are said to have been brought to Rome by St. Helena.

SSPX Resistance News / Re: ORDINATION VALIDATION

« Last post by ElwinRansom1970 on Today at 07:15:29 AM »

Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on Yesterday at 05:53:13 PM

One group of trad clergy with solidly valid orders are the Old Romans. They exist in several distinct groups, the most prominent being these four: the Old Roman Apostolate, the See of Caer Glow, the See of Terra Nova, and the Old Roman Catholic Church - Latin Rite.

Unfortunately, the Old Romans too often are confused with the schismatic and heretical Old Catholics because of similarity in name and both Old Romans and Old Catholics derive their Holy Orders through the ancient See of Utrecht.

https://bishopmeikle.com/

https://oblatesofstaugustine.org/

The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism / Re: God didn't deceive us

« Last post by cassini on Today at 07:10:35 AM »

Quote from: IndultCat on June 29, 2025, 02:59:47 PM

Pius XII's 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" is the first modernist encyclical. It is beloved so much by the Novus Ordo Church that they cite it in the front of every one of their Bibles (e.g. the dreadful New American Bible).

"Divino Afflante Spiritu" contradicts Pope Benedict XV's 1920 encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus" which is a more liberal (albeit not modernist) version of Pope Leo XIII's 1893 encyclial "Providentissimus Deus".

If you read all of the 3 above-mentioned encyclicals in order of their publications, you will easily see the "slow and gradual" liberalism creeping into Catholic Biblical Studies/Biblical Interpretation.

However, it isn't until Pius XII's above 1943 encyclical that "modernism" is completely advocated/recommended when it comes to Biblical studies/interpretation.

'Pius XII's 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" is the first modernist encyclical.' No its not IndultCat, it was in fact Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus. In it he writes:

‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence, they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers, as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us, “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.’--- Providentissimus Deus.

Here the Pope makes Galileo's way to heretical meanings of Scripture 'Catholic teaching.'

‘Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age-old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude. The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science. Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.’--- Fr Paul Robinson.

Is that a fact now Fr Paul? Didn't Bellarmine and Pope Paul V decree the moving-sun was a matter of faith because Scripture said it was. As for matters of nature, doesn't Scripture recorded the ‘vapours’ coming from the sun, a phenomenon not discovered until the 20th century. Then there is the shape of the Earth (Is.40:21-22), its floodwater-caused geology, its water cycle (Eccles.1:7), its fixity of kinds, diversity of species, assessments of nutrition, methods of generation, its sanitation laws (Deut. 23:12-14), its rules for quarantining (Lev.13:1-5) and other references:

The second encyclical on the correct way to read Scripture was Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus who also had to follow Pope Pius VII's decree. He wrote:

‘Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are - no less than are the aforementioned critics -- out of harmony with the Church’s teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo XIII on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence, they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples’ narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with “sensible appearances” and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo XIII’s Encyclical -- viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error?’

Here are a few examples of the fact that Pope Leo XIII had to obey the modernist Scriptural U-turn of Pope Pious VII and every other pope after that.

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’---Fr James Brodrick, SJ: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.

‘A century ago (1893), Pope Leo XIII echoed this [Galileo’s] advice in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’--- Pope John Paul II: Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission.

‘Galileo’s principle has apparently become the official hermeneutic criterion of the Catholic Church. It is alluded to in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII (1893), referred to in Guadium et Spes of the Vatican Council II (1965).’---The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998, p.367

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’--- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’---Vatican Observatory website 2013.

Health and Nutrition / Re: Average U.S. men and women heights and weight

« Last post by WorldsAway on Today at 06:43:41 AM »

Quote from: C6H12O6 on Yesterday at 05:20:50 PM

You're welcome. I eat pasta but I seldom eat other grains. Not much protein but there is a study that says matching 1 gram of protein for every 4 grams of carbs increases and speeds recovery. I did it a few time and it does seem to work. But even the little protein that I usually consume, as long as my sugar/carb intake is high, my recovery and energy levels are still great. I used to drink pea protein powder shakes with lots of refined sugar and chocolate syrup, and one serving is still less than 10 grams of fat but around 25 grams of protein. I still have a whole container of it. I need to drink it up so it doesn't go to waste. Protein is generally overrated. Minimum is necessary, yes, but overrated in terms of performance. Too much protein hurts your liver/kidney.

Thanks again, so I guess no meat/animal products? And do you have any beginner resources you would recommend for this type of diet? I take it you do a lot of cardio, what about resistance training? I've mostly used free weights but have been looking into calisthenics for better control over the body

SSPX Resistance News / Re: ORDINATION VALIDATION

« Last post by ElwinRansom1970 on Today at 06:33:22 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 06:29:45 PM

I understood that the Old Roman Catholics had just about terminated operations, thinking there was no further need for them ... but then Vatican II happened, and they retained the Tridentine Mass.

Yes, this is correct. Archbishop Bernard Mary Williams, the successor in Great Britain to Archbishop Arnold hαɾɾιs Mathew as leader of the Old Romans, came to believe by the 1940s that the Old Romans had no reason to exist any longer because circuмstances that had necessitated the existence of Old Romans had ceased, that ordinations would cease and all Old Roman congregations would be rolled back into the official Roman Catholic Church.

However, the ascendency of Liberalism and Modernism with Vatican II obliged the Old Romans to alter course and resume a full apostolate for Tradition.

The history of the Old Romans is a bit different in North America. After +Bernard Mary died in the 1950s, Old Romans divided into two different groups in Great Britain. However, the North American Old Romans trace themselves through Archbishop Carfora and Archbishop Landes Berghes, the latter having been sent to the USA early during the First World War by +Mathews because +Landes Berghes was an Austrian national and, thus, enemy national in Britain during the Great War. Most North American Old Romans receive their Holy Orders from +Mathew (who was consecrated by Archbishop Gul of Utrecht) through +Landes Berghes and +Carfora, whereas most UK and continental Old Romans receive their Holy Orders from +Mathew through Archbishop Shelley and Archbishop Paget King. Although, there is plenty of crossover in the ordination lines, which tend to be short and clear, unlike so many odd-ball "Orthodox Old Brazilian Catholic Apostolic United Chaldean Church of the National Celtic Ancient Eastern Templars" groups of dubious orthodoxy and even more dubious validity in Orders and sacraments.

Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: Scapula medal?

« Last post by Birdie on Today at 06:28:10 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on Today at 06:25:26 AM

Wow, never heard of that. Do you need to follow five separate devotions if you wear it?

Not that I recall. I just said the rosary every day (of course).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20