Author Topic: Great Post on AQ Condemns Bishop Fellay (Read 11523 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2012, 01:02:00 PM »

Nishant2011 the broken record repeats the same arguments.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:29:44 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Quote from: Seraphim
Still fixating on the quality of the deal, ratheer than asking why we are talking about a deal at all the doctrinal issues remain.

Any talk of a deal while Rome is unconverted is an implicit acceptance of dogmatic pluralism in the Church.

No Catholic, much less Archbishop Lefebvre, would stand for this!

Dear Seraphim, well, I really don't mean to be contentious here, but are you sure the Archbishop would have rejected a priori any offer whatsoever of canonical regularization?

Quote from: On 6 Sept, 1990, Archbishop Lefebvre
Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so.

This is Bishop Fellay's own justification for being open to the possibility, through prayer and prudence, that this may be God's will - i.e. there are no prior grounds to think that it absolutely cannot be, nor did Archbishop Lefebvre say that he would absolutely refuse to consider it, even at that time. He merely said he would put the discussion on the doctrinal level, and this the SSPX under Bishop Fellay has done, and done, in my humble opinion, very well.

I think the virtue of prudence also calls for heeding the advice of one's confreres, and reasonable honesty with those souls under your pastoral care, and in this regard I feel Bishop Fellay should do more, without simply resorting to threats or appeals to obedience, to state plainly and clearly why he believes this is the course God is laying out for the Society.

Also, when you say again that nothing has changed regarding doctrine, I ask, what of the works of Msgr. Gherardini, Bishop Athanasius Schneider et al? Is the present environment at the least not a vast improvement from the Archbishop's day when many persons and groups were simply uninterested in discussing or considering doctrine at all?

Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:

1) Just prior, he rules out any talk of a merely practical deal

2) But then proceeds to discuss, as a theoretical exercise and afterthought, why such talk is nonsense anyway when the Romans are set against it

3) You would have this snippet evince that were the Roman not opposed at that time, ABL would sign?

4) Shame on you.

Nishant · « **Reply #32 on:** May 14, 2012, 11:04:53 AM »

Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.

Quote from: Seraphim

Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:

Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link to the full speech.

Quote

What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...

There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.

So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circuмstances.

But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #33 on:** May 14, 2012, 02:57:04 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.

Quote from: Seraphim
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:

Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link to the full speech.

Quote
What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...

There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.

So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circuмstances.

But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.

Not sure you are reading the same article you pasted a link to?

I would invite the faithful here to read it, and decide for themselves whether any reasonable person would conclude from it that ABL entertained the possibility of agreeing to a purely practical agreement.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:38:32 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Anthony M, well, I had hoped to avoid casting personal aspersions, but anyway.

Quote from: Seraphim
Your post of this ABL snippet is disengenuous, as proven by the context from when it was clipped:

Here, then, is a larger portion, two entire paragraphs, of the relevant passage, along with a link to the full speech.

Quote
What is going to happen? I do not know. Perhaps the coming of Elias! I was just reading this morning in Holy Scripture, Elias will return and put everything back in place! "Et omnia restituet" —"and he will restore all things." Goodness gracious, let him come straightaway! I do not know. But humanly speaking, there is no chance of any agreement between Rome and ourselves at the moment.

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did. Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988...

There is one simple consideration that proves your position untenable in the first place - why Archbishop Lefebvre even considered signing an agreement with Rome for the removal of prior irregularities in 1988 at all.

So, on the contrary, it does indeed show that Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider accepting an offer of regularization as intrinsically evil (which contradicting the faith or "implicitly accepting doctrinal pluralism" would be).
else he would never have considered it under any circuмstances.

But he considered the offer, as he says above, because of the possibility of gaining a Bishop to continue his work. In the present day, by a regularization, Rome would de facto grant ordinary jurisdiction to, and recognize all four of the Bishops he himself chose.

From the same article you are quoting, which will dispel any illusions as to whether ABL was angling here for a practical agreement:

"WE MUST NOT WAVER

"Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?" Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church's life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves. It is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people, in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church's whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. Clearly. So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God.

"What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?" That is God's secret. Mystery. But that we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome, coming from the Pope's own mouth, Cardinal Ratzinger's mouth, Cardinal Casaroli's mouth, of Cardinal Willebrands and those like them, is clear, clear, for all they do is repeat the opposite of what the Popes said and solemnly stated for 150 years. We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." Reply —"Ah, this is not the moment to get into theology, we are not getting into theology now." It is clear. Hence we must not waver for one moment.

"A FALSE CHARITY

"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says" —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

"Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

"This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. "It's a pity we are divided", they say, "why not meet up with them? Let's go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them" —that's a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.

"WE CANNOT COMPROMISE

"That is what killed Christendom, in all of Europe, not just the Church in France, but the Church in Germany, in Switzerland —that is what enabled the Revolution to get established. It was the Liberals, it was those who reached out a hand to people who did not share their Catholic principles. We must make up our minds if we too want to collaborate in the destruction of the Church and in the ruin of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, or are we resolved to continue working for the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? All those who wish to join us, and work with us, Deo Gratias, we welcome them, wherever they come from, that's not a problem, but let them come with us, let them not say they are going a different way in order to keep company with the liberals that left us and in order to work with them. Not possible.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #35 on:** June 05, 2012, 03:45:38 PM »

brainglitch said:

...If Bishop Williamson and Bishop de Mallerais say that the deal is bad, then I would side with them. My instinct right now is to say that a deal is a bad idea-not in principle, but considering the current circuмstances. However, it may not be. We need more info in order to make a judgment like that.

...It is rash judgment to say that Fellay is a traitor...

Well, Mgr Tissier at St Nicolas said:

...So, St. Basil didn't use ambiguous expressions with those who wanted to return to the Church. He demanded that they profess the entire Catholic Faith but using a nice way of saying it. He was prudent, very good, but in professing the true faith. He was not willing to sign ambiguous texts, dear faithful. That's what we must do today. Refuse ambiguous texts, not stop condemning error and correctly professing the Catholic Faith. And when the conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the continual catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, they will repent deeply, and when they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use formulae to help them. But not now; the crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King. That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There's no point in deceiving ourselves, there's no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go ye therefore into the whole world, preach the truth, preach the Blessed Trinity, preach Christ the King, preach Christ the Priest, have likewise confidence in my divine Mother who has all graces, who distributes all graces, it's through her that I will triumph over my enemies, it's through her that I will bring the Catholic Faith back to my Church. Have confidence in my Mother, Immaculate Virgin in her Faith, may the Blessed Mother keep our Faith immaculate. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Have you changed your mind yet?

catherineofsiena · « **Reply #36 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:56:48 PM »

This is a great post Seraphim. Thank you.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #37 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:17:39 PM »

I find it rather telling that now we hear that THE THREE have the doctrinal preamble -- but still, they have not made it public. That tells me they have a reason for not making it public, a reason (since I have faith in their judgment) that is for the good of the Faith and the faithful. They would not have any reason higher than that, for the salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church.

Salus animarum lex ecclesia suprema est
...or something like that.

I'd rather not guess what the specific reason is.

Anyway, since this thread was originally about AQ and a great post there,
you may be interested to know that if Father Pfeiffer were to post comments
on AQ, he would be banned, unless the owner of AQ has changed his tune
over the past decade.

If Pfeiffer's sermons are not allowed on AQ, I would venture to guess that
AQ still marches to the same, old drummer.

cateran · « **Reply #38 on:** June 06, 2012, 11:37:19 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

If Pfeiffer's sermons are not allowed on AQ, I would venture to guess that
AQ still marches to the same, old drummer.

See Grasmeir's warning in his post today:-

http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/06/aq-editorial-nothingness-rebellion-and-the-sspx-split-fantasy/

Distilled down to its essence, he's really saying..."Don't even dream of criticizing +Fellay on AQ".

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #39 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:21:10 PM »

Quote

God knows – as does anyone who’s been here more than a day – we’ve done our share of rebelling on AQ. We’ve also had a disproportionate say in extremely crucial events affecting our Church and our fellow man. Our opinions, musings and philosophies have been heeded by authors, priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, district superiors, webmasters and undetermined VIPs at the very seat of the faith in Rome. To whatever degree possible, we’ve played our part (however large or small) in history, and if God wills it, and only if He wills it, we’ll do more of the same in the future.

Seriously??

Quote

If there’s any part of “sit down and be quiet” that is unclear, you’re welcome to attach great importance to yourself and stand up and be counted – at which point you will become nothing. At least on AQ.

On the old platform, the mods would “ban” users. On this platform, it’s far less dramatic, or at least seems so. We simply choose “no role for this site” from a drop down box. After which you will – without any drama or fanfare whatsoever –become nothing.

Seriously??

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #40 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:28:26 PM »

Why would someone give me a thumbs down when I'm QUOTING AQ?

I continue to love this feature.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #41 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:33:15 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote
God knows – as does anyone who’s been here more than a day – we’ve done our share of rebelling on AQ. We’ve also had a disproportionate say in extremely crucial events affecting our Church and our fellow man. Our opinions, musings and philosophies have been heeded by authors, priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, district superiors, webmasters and undetermined VIPs at the very seat of the faith in Rome. To whatever degree possible, we’ve played our part (however large or small) in history, and if God wills it, and only if He wills it, we’ll do more of the same in the future.

Seriously??

Quote
If there’s any part of “sit down and be quiet” that is unclear, you’re welcome to attach great importance to yourself and stand up and be counted – at which point you will become nothing. At least on AQ.

On the old platform, the mods would “ban” users. On this platform, it’s far less dramatic, or at least seems so. We simply choose “no role for this site” from a drop down box. After which you will – without any drama or fanfare whatsoever –become nothing.

Seriously??

AQ gets its totalitarian streak from the SSPX itself, sad to say.

KyrieEleison · « **Reply #42 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:33:35 PM »

Quote from: cateran

Quote from: Neil Obstat
If Pfeiffer's sermons are not allowed on AQ, I would venture to guess that
AQ still marches to the same, old drummer.

See Grasmeir's warning in his post today:-

http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/06/aq-editorial-nothingness-rebellion-and-the-sspx-split-fantasy/

Distilled down to its essence, he's really saying..."Don't even dream of criticizing +Fellay on AQ".

That boy John needs a good psychiatrist. He's having delusions of grandeur that he's something he ain't. What really gives me a chuckle is the comments of the stepford aq'rs below.

Yes master, the great oz has spoken everyone sit down and shut up or John boy will dubb thee a nobody.

:roll-laugh1:

Matthew · « **Reply #43 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:42:46 PM »

Why not post the whole stupid thing? It's incredibly easy to rip it apart.

Att: Rebels.

We won’t become angry with you, debate you, coddle you or criticize you. We won’t respond, react or even flinch. We won’t attempt to talk you into something, or talk you out of anything.

You see, any of the above would a tacit indication that your opinions, musings and philosophies etc. are important to Angelqueen.org, the SSPX and/or Holy Mother Church at large.

God knows – as does anyone who’s been here more than a day – we’ve done our share of rebelling on AQ. We’ve also had a disproportionate say in extremely crucial events affecting our Church and our fellow man. Our opinions, musings and philosophies have been heeded by authors, priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, district superiors, webmasters and undetermined VIPs at the very seat of the faith in Rome. To whatever degree possible, we’ve played our part (however large or small) in history, and if God wills it, and only if He wills it, we’ll do more of the same in the future.

There is a time for everything. We’ve had our time to rebel and speak out. Now, at least for the time being, we will SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET. If I can do it, anyone can. If there’s any part of “sit down and be quiet” that is unclear, you’re welcome to attach great importance to yourself and stand up and be counted – at which point you will become nothing. At least on AQ.

On the old platform, the mods would “ban” users. On this platform, it’s far less dramatic, or at least seems so. We simply choose “no role for this site” from a drop down box. After which you will – without any drama or fanfare whatsoever – become nothing.

On that note, the wiser amongst you can expand a similar nothingness out to the real world. This great “split” that certain minorities fantasize about will become nothing – or nearly nothing. “Nothing to speak of” I suppose is the term. No schools, no seminaries, no chapels, no convents, no real estate, no meaningful financing and no substantial priesthood.

There will be no massive throngs of passionate faithful gathering for ordinations to a soundtrack of Vivaldi’s joyous horn concertos – as was the case when Archbishop Lefebvre made his bold and historic step into what I and many others believe will be his sainthood.

The battlefield is far different than it was in the 1970s.

The Mass is not diminishing it is expanding. Tradition is not being pushed out the door; it’s kicking in the door. The SSPX is not being abused, ridiculed and cast out, as was the case when angelqueen.org began. The society is being honored and welcomed by church authorities and the lay faithful alike. The heretical baby-boomers aren’t occupying every facet of Holy Church, they are, praise God, dying away.

The Mass has been freed, the excomms have been lifted, the theological talks have been undertaken (they will continue in many ways) and the Holy Father is about to give to the SSPX more freedom and authority than the Archbishop himself ever wished for.

Given all of this, God gave you free will. You are free to choose rebellion over service. You can malinger at the very time Holy Church needs you most. You can remain in your foxhole or, FINALLY, emerge from it and engage as true Church Militant. Cede ground or take it. Allow fear and distrust to rule your mind or let hope and faith fill your heart. You can come home, or remain in the wilderness.

Bishops, priests and faithful, you’ve fought the good fight; as good a fight as nearly anyone at any time in history. You can claim your prize now, and quite possibly in the next life, or you can choose nothing, now and quite possibly in the next life.

Pull out all the stops. Revert to your catechism, scripture, wisdom, prayer, Solomon’s Proverbs whatever it takes. Please choose wisely. You’re needed now more than ever.

brainglitch · « **Reply #44 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:45:53 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

brainglitch said:

...If Bishop Williamson and Bishop de Mallerais say that the deal is bad, then I would side with them. My instinct right now is to say that a deal is a bad idea-not in principle, but considering the current circuмstances. However, it may not be. We need more info in order to make a judgment like that.

...It is rash judgment to say that Fellay is a traitor...

Well, Mgr Tissier at St Nicolas said:

...So, St. Basil didn't use ambiguous expressions with those who wanted to return to the Church. He demanded that they profess the entire Catholic Faith but using a nice way of saying it. He was prudent, very good, but in professing the true faith. He was not willing to sign ambiguous texts, dear faithful. That's what we must do today. Refuse ambiguous texts, not stop condemning error and correctly professing the Catholic Faith. And when the conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the continual catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, they will repent deeply, and when they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use formulae to help them. But not now; the crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King. That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There's no point in deceiving ourselves, there's no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go ye therefore into the whole world, preach the truth, preach the Blessed Trinity, preach Christ the King, preach Christ the Priest, have likewise confidence in my divine Mother who has all graces, who distributes all graces, it's through her that I will triumph over my enemies, it's through her that I will bring the Catholic Faith back to my Church. Have confidence in my Mother, Immaculate Virgin in her Faith, may the Blessed Mother keep our Faith immaculate. In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Have you changed your mind yet?

I'm not sure.....