Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLVII - May 17th, 2014 (Read 3959 times)

Defender · « **on:** May 17, 2014, 09:01:09 AM »

Number CCCLVII (357) 17th May 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY -- III

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic.

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

To this one may object that a Pope is certainly infallible only when he engages the four conditions of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium by teaching 1 as Pope, 2 on Faith or morals, 3 definitively, 4 so as to bind all Catholics. Whereupon sedevacantists and liberals alike reply that it is Church teaching that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is also infallible, so – and here is the weak point in their argument – whenever the Pope teaches solemnly even outside of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he must also be infallible. Now their liberal Conciliar teaching is solemn. Therefore we must become either liberals or sedevacantists, depending of course on who is wielding the same argument.

But the hallmark of teaching which belongs to the Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not the solemnity with which the Pope teaches outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but whether what he is teaching corresponds, or not, to what Our Lord, his Apostles and virtually all their successors, the bishops of the Universal Church, have taught in all times and in all places, in other words whether it corresponds to Tradition. Now Conciliar teaching (e.g. religious liberty and ecuмenism) is in rupture with Tradition. Therefore Catholics today are not in fact bound to become liberals or sedevacantists.

However, both liberals and sedevacantists cling to their misunderstanding of Papal infallibility for reasons that are not without interest, but that is another story. In any case they do not give up easily, so they come back with another objection which deserves to be answered. Both of them will say that to argue that Tradition is the hallmark of the Ordinary Magisterium is to set up a vicious circle. For if the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, exists to tell what is Church doctrine, as it does, then how can the Traditional doctrine at the same time tell what is the Magisterium ? Either the teacher authorises what is taught, or what is taught authorises the teacher, but they cannot both at the same time authorise each other. So to argue that Tradition which is taught authorises the Ordinary Magisterium which is teaching, is wrong, and so the Pope is infallible not only in his Extraordinary teaching, and so we must become either liberals or sedevacantists , they conclude.

Why there is no vicious circle must wait until next week. It is as interesting as why both sedevacantists and liberals fall into the same error on infallibility.

Kyrie eleison.

If four conditions are not all in play. The Popes can err in what they teach or say.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:08:19 AM »

.

In context of this EC warning against the dangers of sedevacantism, any student of the subject should not ignore this sermon, which likewise warns against those dangers. It's 50 minutes long, given in Canada May 4th by Fr. Pfeiffer.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2014, 09:19:15 AM »

.

In this paragraph, H.E. states the theme of his EC and proposes a syllogism to demonstrate the shortcomings of sedevacantist thinking:

Quote

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

Do you see the syllogism?

It is clearly stated as one, but he does not identify it as one, as I am doing here.

A syllogism is a logical argument in three statements, that is, three propositions, in this format: the Major proposition, followed by the Minor proposition, followed by the Conclusion.

H.E. gave this format as follows:

Major proposition:
Popes are infallible.

Minor proposition:
But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal.

Conclusion:
Therefore they are not Popes.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2014, 01:03:06 PM »

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2014, 04:24:18 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

H.E. gave this format as follows:

Major proposition:
Popes are infallible.

Minor proposition:
But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal.

Conclusion:
Therefore they are not Popes.

But is this what sedevacantists believe? I didn't think so. At least that's not how I think.

Could it be that +W is trying to prove something that isn't even part of the SV thought process?

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2014, 04:31:29 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

H.E. gave this format as follows:

Major proposition:
Popes are infallible.

Minor proposition:
But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal.

Conclusion:
Therefore they are not Popes.

But is this what sedevacantists believe? I didn't think so. At least that's not how I think.

Could it be that +W is trying to prove something that isn't even part of the SV thought process?

You are right, beating a straw man is just that: beating a straw man.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2014, 04:37:21 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

H.E. gave this format as follows:

Major proposition:
Popes are infallible.

Minor proposition:
But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal.

Conclusion:
Therefore they are not Popes.

But is this what sedevacantists believe? I didn't think so. At least that's not how I think.

Could it be that +W is trying to prove something that isn't even part of the SV thought process?

You are right, beating a straw man is just that: beating a straw man.

Ok, thanks. I knew something was off about it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** May 18, 2014, 10:09:41 AM »

.

If you have a better logical argument that more accurately expresses your thought process, then post it.

What do you disagree with, the Major, the Minor or the Conclusion?

Hurling flaccid epithets of "straw-man" is not an argument. It's a cop-out.

The nice thing about a syllogism is that it condenses the process to its essential core, where it is most clearly communicable and understandable. When liberalism is thus defined, it becomes exposed for what it is, as too Modernism. The Modernists of 110 years ago couldn't explain their own Modernism, but when Pascendi came out and explained it very well, they said to each other, "If you want to know what we believe and how we think, go read Pascendi." To that extent, they were honest. They didn't say, "Look at this silly straw-man of Pius X."

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2014, 10:18:06 AM »

.

Express the way sedevacantists like yourself think and conclude that the-pope-is-not-the-pope. Express it in a syllogism of not too many words. Show us why yours is correct and how +W's is wrong. Prove yourself, that is, if you can.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2014, 10:43:19 AM »

Sadly this is another of the good Bishop's non-conclusory parables.
I do not fault his intentions but, once again we have folks inquiring of each other of what they think he really means.
We are not in a time when ambiguity is a good thing to have.
It is a very grave time in the life of the Church, when men must speak clearly and forthrightly as to exactly what they mean and what they mean should be unmistakable in its intent.

Much of Tradition is confused and confounded. If these clerics wish to comment and thus influence the minds of the faithful, they should not have the luxury of couching their rhetoric in poetic flourishes or vaporous concepts which leave one wondering about the meaning.

The faithful need guidance today, not entertainment. It appears that not many are willing to state clearly something that is irrevocable and by which they must stand.

Forgive my raining on the parade, but this has been a recurring observation.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2014, 03:50:37 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Express the way sedevacantists like yourself think and conclude that the-pope-is-not-the-pope. Express it in a syllogism of not too many words. Show us why yours is correct and how +W's is wrong. Prove yourself, that is, if you can.

.

Ambrose is probably better equipped to respond to this properly. I'm not sure how I would explain my thinking in the way you would like me to do so. I just know that the way that +W explained it is NOT the way I think.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2014, 11:26:52 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

Express the way sedevacantists like yourself think and conclude that the-pope-is-not-the-pope. Express it in a syllogism of not too many words. Show us why yours is correct and how +W's is wrong. Prove yourself, that is, if you can.

.

Ambrose is probably better equipped to respond to this properly. I'm not sure how I would explain my thinking in the way you would like me to do so. I just know that the way that +W explained it is NOT the way I think.

I really appreciate your honesty, 2Vermont. Thank you. I'm not trying to be rude or offensive. This is hard logic, and nothing more (I hope!).

If you wouldn't mind to bear with me for a while, maybe we can get to the bottom of this controversy.

+W has published his theory, or you might be more comfortable with "his hypothesis" in this EC, and you guys say that's not how you think (I'm being curt and vague to save space).

When it comes to these devices, you can examine each part and find out where the discrepancy lies. So please look at the Major Proposition and tell me if you disagree with it:

Major: Popes are infallible. ---- Is that a statement you can make yourself, or not?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2014, 11:44:19 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Sadly this is another of the good Bishop's non-conclusory parables.
I do not fault his intentions but, once again we have folks inquiring of each other of what they think he really means.
We are not in a time when ambiguity is a good thing to have.
It is a very grave time in the life of the Church, when men must speak clearly and forthrightly as to exactly what they mean and what they mean should be unmistakable in its intent.

Much of Tradition is confused and confounded. If these clerics wish to comment and thus influence the minds of the faithful, they should not have the luxury of couching their rhetoric in poetic flourishes or vaporous concepts which leave one wondering about the meaning.

The faithful need guidance today, not entertainment. It appears that not many are willing to state clearly something that is irrevocable and by which they must stand.

Forgive my raining on the parade, but this has been a recurring observation.

J.Paul, I disagree. +W has not provided here "entertainment." This is not "ambiguity" or "poetic flourishes or vaporous concepts" or "non-conclusory parables" any way you slice it. That is, unless you think that logic and clear reasoning are somehow tricks of magic.

If that's what you think (someone is trying to play a trick on your mind by stating logical arguments), you're not alone. You would have LOTS of company.

We don't often hear points of doctrine pronounced or sound logic applied to real life these days because it's "politically incorrect" to do so. Politicians get elected when they DON'T make sense to sound and sane thinking about what they say.

.

hugeman · « **Reply #13 on:** May 19, 2014, 12:10:21 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Sadly this is another of the good Bishop's non-conclusory parables.
I do not fault his intentions but, once again we have folks inquiring of each other of what they think he really means.
We are not in a time when ambiguity is a good thing to have.
It is a very grave time in the life of the Church, when men must speak clearly and forthrightly as to exactly what they mean and what they mean should be unmistakable in its intent.

Much of Tradition is confused and confounded. If these clerics wish to comment and thus influence the minds of the faithful, they should not have the luxury of couching their rhetoric in poetic flourishes or vaporous concepts which leave one wondering about the meaning.

The faithful need guidance today, not entertainment. It appears that not many are willing to state clearly something that is irrevocable and by which they must stand.

Forgive my raining on the parade, but this has been a recurring observation.

H.E. gave this format as follows:

Major proposition:
Popes are infallible.

Minor proposition:
But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal.

Conclusion:
Therefore they are not Popes.
[/quote]

Quote

Before we get to the syllogism, we must at least agree on the terms we are using. And for that we have to start at the first word.

"Popes"
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).
Now, we must say, that St. Peter just testified that Jesus Christ was God-- the Catholic God. Francis, on the other hand, has just testified that there IS NO CATHOLIC GOD. Two totally different characters. two totally different testimonies.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:

Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church.

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same;
Now we must observe that the Scripture is silent about any refusal of St. Peter to accept the office Our Lord gave Him. Yes, we know he fell in the time before the strengthening by the Holy Spirit; but St. Peter accepted Christ's office. Jorge "Francis", on the other hand, has specifically NOT ACCEPTED the office "no Monsignor-- you wear it-- the carnival is over" when [presented with the mantle of the office. he, again, publicly refused the office of Supreme Judge, when he stated to the world's news reporters, regarding their questioning of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and priests "Who am I to judge?"

The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church.

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

And now we must acknowledge that Francis makes no pretense that the church he is the pope of is not the Catholic Church. He recently sent warm, heartfelt greetings to ecuмenical Methodists, Lutherans and Evangelicals meeting in Texas. In his message, Francis referred to one of their "bishops" as his "dear brother bishop", and he stated that his faith is the same as their faith. So, there is absolutely no justification of seeing Francis as the pope of the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of how Fellay and Co. want to dress him up. You can put all the lipstick you want on a pig-- but, at the end of the day, it's still a pig. Francis says in plain English (okay, Italian), that he is not of the Roman Catholic Faith of 2,000 years-- he's of a new conciliar faith of 40 years! Francis makes no pretense of seeing the Church as those who acknowledge Jesus Christ.

He ( the pope) is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.

As we have seen, Francis is not joined at all to the foundation of the Catholic Church. Wherever the rock of faith is (and Roman Catholics know it is with them), Francis has certainly slipped off it-- if ever he was even on it! There is not a theologian in the world who could make an argument that the HEAD of the body does not have to have the unity of faith WITH the body. The Lutherans would never stand for a Catholic to be their Archbishop; the Jєωs would never hold sway over a Roman Catholic being appointed Chief rabbi of Rome; The Mormons would never accept a Catholic as President of the Council of Elders. only Traditionalists are foolish enough to accept the lie that someone not of the faith could be their head?

"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One:

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.
As we now must understand, this head must be the principle of stability, unity and increase-- a diseased head cannot and will not protect the body. The relationship between Christ and His Church is exactly the same as the relationship between the head and the body. When the body turns right down the road, the head necessarily is with it; when the head becomes a communist, the body necessarily follows it; when the head proclaims there is no "Catholic" God, the body proclaims the same.
Now, this promise of the protection of the Church of Jesus Christ , which is being just now established by Christ upon the Rock, from the "Gates of Hell" is a powerful protection. These "Gates of Hell" Christ speaks of have great strength and power. Very soon, His Disciples will see the power of these Gates of Hades. Hades was the realm of the dead of the Old Testament. All, it was believed, went into Hades, which held tightly, all the saints, until Christ would descend therein and free them. Even this great power of Hell, which Christ will soon experience, and from which His disciples will flee and hide, Christ is promising that even this great power will not be able to stymie His Church, when he rises from the dead. This power of death, which Christ was soon to pass through, and which His faithful would soon fear exceedingly, would be absolutely no match for Christ's Church, faithful to His teachings. And to confirm this, he told them "All authority , in heaven and on earth, has been given to me"
We also see that strong cities were guarded by strong gates. these gates, of substantial girth and weight, kept the city walls fortified and secure, and ensured that only friendly entrants gained entry. The gates required two essentials: (1) the solidity of the foundation. This WAS the ROCK, upon which the faith was to be built. Peter confessed this faith, and Christ testified that this confession came straight from Almighty God. As straight as the tablets being given to Moses; as straight as the charge being given to Saul (St Paul).Our Lord was promising them that, keeping the faith He have them, no gates, even the gates of hades, would prevail against the new Church.
And (2), the second requirement? The Gatekeeper, Peter. Christ had already "given him the test", so to speak. And he passed with flying colors. He testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Living (Catholic) God" while, of course, Francis testifies and teaches that there is NO Catholic God!

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:

And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.

In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" — words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.

So, we already have seen that Peter certainly accepted and received the keys to heaven, because Peter fully intended to fulfill the commands of Christ "feed My Sheep"; "Bind and Loose"; And the mark of the head of the Church is that he accept these commands and accept Christ's mission. But Jorge Francis? "the Circus is Over", "There is no Catholic God" ; Who am I to judge"; " Atheists go to heaven"; "Jєωιѕн people are justified in awaiting the messiah" these teachings, public and solemn, given as instruction to all people everywhere, can only come from the mouth and the heart of a man not Catholic. Who, in their right mind, would give the keys to the house to a thief? Who would bestow the keys to the city upon a murderer of souls? What God would give the keys to the Kingdom of Almighty God to a man who did not believe in God-- to a man who followed the devil, and believes that his heaven also holds atheists and communists? Jorge may make a great Jєωιѕн Rabbi; he may be a great Protestant Archbishop; he may even be a phenomenal rock star-- but he's not Roman Catholic.

hugeman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 19, 2014, 12:14:07 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: J.Paul
Sadly this is another of the good Bishop's non-conclusory parables.
I do not fault his intentions but, once again we have folks inquiring of each other of what they think he really means.
We are not in a time when ambiguity is a good thing to have.
It is a very grave time in the life of the Church, when men must speak clearly and forthrightly as to exactly what they mean and what they mean should be unmistakable in its intent.

Much of Tradition is confused and confounded. If these clerics wish to comment and thus influence the minds of the faithful, they should not have the luxury of couching their rhetoric in poetic flourishes or vaporous concepts which leave one wondering about the meaning.

The faithful need guidance today, not entertainment. It appears that not many are willing to state clearly something that is irrevocable and by which they must stand.

Forgive my raining on the parade, but this has been a recurring observation.

J.Paul, I disagree. +W has not provided here "entertainment." This is not "ambiguity" or "poetic flourishes or vaporous concepts" or "non-conclusory parables" any way you slice it. That is, unless you think that logic and clear reasoning are somehow tricks of magic.

If that's what you think (someone is trying to play a trick on your mind by stating logical arguments), you're not alone. You would have LOTS of company.

We don't often hear points of doctrine pronounced or sound logic applied to real life these days because it's "politically incorrect" to do so. Politicians get elected when they DON'T make sense to sound and sane thinking about what they say.

.

We agree with the first two paragraphs of J Paul; and with the first paragraph of Neil. The Church cannot remain divided to its core into so many halves, or parts thereof. There is no way we can imagine that all the great defenders off the Catholic faith, including Archbishop Lefebvre, Bp De Castro Meyer, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bp desLauiers and others thought that we would STILL be here, 55 years later, trying to convince " the Romans" not to do this think they are about to do!!
We can accept pacifism no more; real souls are being lost to hell every day! Fellay's playing footsie with satan has a tremendous, tremendous cost. They have virtually wiped off the books almost forty four years of priestly training and ordinations under the guidance of Arbp Lefebvre. A thousand priests have now been marginalized, destroyed, compromized or modernized-- and not by the illuminati or the communist intrigued of Bella Dodd or of masonry; but by Bernsrd Fellay, Rostand, Schmidberger, Anglais and their ilk.
Every single Sunday in which this new gospel of Paul VI, Ratzinger and Jorge of peace, LUV, cooperation is preached, the faith of more and more Catholics is being stolen.
It is time for a new paradigm in the battle for souls, and for the Truths of the Catholic faith. It is no longer possible to resist one evil empire, we must br about building God's Kingdom. When the Israelites, our fellow Catholics, were given a leader, we murmured and complained, because we listened to the enemies of God within our very camps.
God has seen fit not to give many Catholic priests, and people , a clear leader-- so what? We've all been taught our faith, and we know what to do. Even though Christ is to "in a little while" leave us, He is always with us. We have His promise that He'll be with the faithful all days-- even unto the end of time! Why do we insist that God give us a leader like Ratzinger or Brogoglio, two evil men who have not the same faith as we, and who have not the same God as we ?
Bishop Williamson is Catholic; and he's traditional; and he's hanging on to something that is no longer there: vestiges of the faith once in Rome still evident only in statuary and museums. Were ABL alive today, he would once again beat the air, proclaiming" these are not just empty words, dear people!" ; "Rome has lost the faith! They have deserted the Church! They have become the enemies of Jesus Christ"! "This is painful, dear people! Yes, this is serious, serious! We have spent forty five years trying to show them the errors! And now we must move on-- we must preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ--in season and out!"
"These are not easy steps, dear faithful. These are not easy times. But we must do that which Our Lord ordains us to do-- to spread His Church. Those who are with us, are with Him. And as He taught us, those who are not against us, are with us!"

Let's get on with the battle and stop the endless debates.