Author Topic: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V (Read 13264 times)

bvmariae · « **on:** July 10, 2023, 05:26:04 PM »

JOINT STATEMENT OF SSPX-MC PRIESTS: FR. D. HEWKO & Fr. H. RUIZ V.

THE SILENCE OF THE SHEPHERDS... BUT NOT OF ALL OF THEM

IT IS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE DOCTRINAL AND PRUDENTIAL TRUTHS IN THIS HOUR OF DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION, IN ORDER TO GUIDE CATHOLICS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO CLAIM TO DEFEND TRADITION.

THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH IS LINKED TO THE PROFESSION OF THE FAITH

1. THE INTEGRAL AND PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE FAITH IS NECESSARY FOR THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, INDEED, FOR THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.

2. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE AMONG THE CLERGY AND THE FAITHFUL WHO PROFESS THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH, THAT IS, THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH, BECAUSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH IS ONE OF ITS MOST ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT BE DESTROYED. IF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS NOT INTEGRAL, IT IS NO LONGER THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND IF THERE WERE NO LONGER ANYONE WHO PROFESSED ALL THE TRUTHS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED.

3. THE VISIBLE PROFESSION OF THE FAITH IS ABOVE ALL THE MISSION OF THE TEACHING CHURCH (ECCLESIA DOCENS) AND THIS ABOVE ALL BY DEFENDING ALL THOSE TRUTHS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING QUESTIONED. BUT EVEN SO, IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT PASTORS TEACH THE TRUTH, BUT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THEY ALSO DENOUNCE AND CONDEMN THE CONTRARY ERROR.

4. TODAY THE CHURCH ISECLIPSED BY THE ABSENCE OF TEACHING FROM THE MAJORITY OF PASTORS: WE LIVE IN THE AGE OF FAINTHEARTED, MUTE, AMBIGUOUS AND COWARDLY PASTORS. JUST AS THE APOSTLES ABANDONED AND DENIED JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PASSION, SO TODAY THE PASTORS DENY THE CHURCH AND ABANDON IT DURING HIS PASSION.

5. THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH REQUIRES IN ITS MEMBERS FIRST OF ALL A PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE FAITH, THAT IS TO SAY VISIBLE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE ONLY THE NAME OF CATHOLIC. THE CHURCH IS NOT A PRIVATE OR SECRET SOCIETY.

WHERE ARE THE MARKS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY?

1. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT IN ITSELF BE IN CRISIS SINCE IT IS ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC. THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH IS ABOVE ALL THE CRISIS OF THOSE SICK MEMBERS WHO ARE THE BAD CHRISTIANS, AND TODAY UNFORTUNATELY, IT COMPRISES A GREATER PART OF THE CLERGY. BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE FOR ALL, SINCE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS FROM JESUS CHRIST THE PROMISE OF INDEFECTIBILITY, AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE WHO REPRESENT IT IN ALL ITS MARKS, BUT IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT THEY BE IN GREAT NUMBERS.

2. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS FIRST OF ALL IN THE UNITY OF THE FAITH, THAT IS, IN DOCTRINAL UNITY. THE UNITY OF GOVERNMENT IS AT THE SERVICE OF THE UNITY OF THE FAITH AND NOT THE CONTRARY.

3. THERE CAN BE NO AUTHENTIC HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS NO INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH. THE "SAINTS" WHO ERR ON FAITH ARE FALSE SAINTS AND IMPOSTORS.

4. THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH LIES IN HER ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE TO ALL PEOPLE THE TRUTHS OF THE FAITH, OF
WHICH SHE IS THE EXCLUSIVE DEPOSITORY. CONCILIAR EcuмENISM DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT OPPOSES THE SPREADING OF THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

5. OUR ADHERENCE TO THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH IS MADE POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE BY THE BOND THAT WE HAVE WITH THE APOSTLES, BUT THIS IS MAINLY REALIZED THROUGH THE FAITH THAT THEY PREACHED AND THAT HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION UNTIL OUR DAYS, THIS HERITAGE IS ALSO CALLED THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH, IT IS THE TEACHING, THE STABLE EXPRESSION, NOT EVOLUTIONARY, OF ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST, THAT IS WHY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ESSENTIALLY AND IN ITSELF TRADITION.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE CONCILIAR CHURCH

1. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE DURING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A COUNTERFEIT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS SOMETHING NEW, A NEW CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS NOT THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A SECT. POPE FRANCIS IS AT THE SAME TIME THE HEAD OF TWO CHURCHES: OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, IT IS IN THIS THAT THE GREAT DECEPTION, THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION OF THE HOLY PLACE CONSISTS. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS GRADUALLY ECLIPSING THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF REPLACING IT ABSOLUTELY.

2. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SEDEVACANTISM AS A “SOLUTION” TO THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE DENYING THAT ALL THE LAST POPES ARE POPES TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHURCH EVEN THE VERY HOPE OF FINDING A SOLUTION AND AN FND TO THIS TREMENDOUS CRISIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANONICALLY JUDGE THESE POPES, ONLY A TRULY CATHOLIC POPE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.

3. IN THE ORDER OF VIRTUES, FAITH IS PRIOR TO OBEDIENCE. AUTHORITY IS AT THE SERVICE OF FAITH AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE FULL PROFESSION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BEING IN HARMONY WITH AUTHORITIES WHO ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH. AT THE PRESENT TIME THE MEMBERS OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH HAVE ILLEGITIMATELY TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE HIGHEST OFFICES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT IS TO SAY, OF ITS STRUCTURE, IT IS NECESSARY TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IN SOME CASES IT IS LICIT TO DISOBEY MEN IN ORDER TO OBEY GOD. TO DISTANCE ONESELF FROM THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT IN ITSELF A SCHISMATIC ACT BUT SIMPLY A GREATER ACT OF PRUDENCE.

THE POISONED FRUITS OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH

1. ALL THE CONCILIAR DOcuмENTS AND ALL THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM ARE NOT, NOR CAN THEY BE, A DOCTRINAL REFERENCE FOR CATHOLICS. WE MUST REJECT AS A WHOLE ALL THE TEXTS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL TOGETHER WITH ALL ITS REFORMS.

2. PASTORS AND OTHERS WHO CITE CONCILIAR AND POST- CONCILIAR TEXTS AS CRITERIA OF AUTHORITY ARE FOSTERING
CONFUSION AND DISORIENTATION AMONG THE FAITHFUL. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TRADITIONAL MAGISTERIUM FROM WHAT IS NOT. IN ADDITION, ALL THE CONCILIAR TEXTS ARE SO IMBUED WITH THE NEW SPIRIT THAT IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FREE THEM FROM IT, NOR FROM THEIR) CONTEXT, WHICH IS FORMED BY THE OTHER CONCILIAR DOcuмENTS.

3. THE NEW MASS IS THE DIRECT FRUIT OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. ITT WAS CREATED FOR EcuмENICAL MOTIVES AND TO PLEASE PROTESTANTS, THAT IS WHY IT IS SERIOUSLY CONTAMINATED WITH PROTESTANT ELEMENTS, AND IS THEREFORE POISONED. IT WAS NOT LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED, NOR CAN IT BE CONSIDERED A CATHOLIC RITE. IT IS SO VITIATED THAT IT CAN BE SAID TO BE EVIL IN ITSELF AND INTRINSICALLY SO.

4. SINCE THE NEW MASS IS AN INTRINSICALLY EVIL RITE, CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT OFFENDS OUR FAITH, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTACK AGAINST IT, SINCE IN THE LONG RUN THE NEW MASS MAKES THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN IT ACQUIRE A PROTESTANT SPIRIT. CONSEQUENTLY, ATTENDANCE AT THE NEW MASS IS IMMORAL AND THEREFORE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO POSITIVELY ADVISE ANYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. NEITHER IS IT LICIT TO RECEIVE THE HOSTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSECRATED THERE, BECAUSE COMMUNION, BEING THE DIRECT FRUIT OF THE NEW MASS, IS THE MOST PERFECT FORM OF PARTICIPATION IN THIS MASS.

5. ALL THE NEW SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH ARE OBJECTIVELY DOUBTFUL BECAUSE WE CAN NO LONGER BE SURE OF THE INTENTIONS OF THEIR MINISTERS. AND ALSO OF THE NEW MASS AND OF THE EUCHARIST.

6. MIRACLES ARE THE CREDENTIAL THAT GOD GIVES TO HIS CHURCH AS PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY. ‘THE NEW MASS CANNOT BE THE OBJECT OF DIVINE APPROVAL BY MEANS OF MIRACLES. IN THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TODAY THERE ARE SO MANY ABUSES AND ANOMALIES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE CONCILIAR CLERGY ON ALLEGED "MIRACLES" CAN DEFINITELY NOT BE TAKEN AS A GUARANTEE.

7. THE PROCESS USED TODAY IN THE CANONIZATION OF THE NEW SAINTS HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY MODIFIED BY THE NEW CHURCH, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS A DOUBT ABOUT ALL THE NEW CANONIZATIONS, BECAUSE OF A DEFECT OF FORM, ABOUT THEIR REGULARITY AND THEIR VALIDITY. THE CONCILIAR POPES, BEING MODERNISTS, NO LONGER INTEND TO DO ANYTHING ABSOLUTE AND DEFINITIVE, SINCE MODERNISM IS EVOLUTIONIST.

IS COLLABORATION WITH THE CONCILIAR CHURCH LEGITIMATE AND MORAL?

1. IN THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE CHURCH, ONE CANNOT COLLABORATE WITH THE PASTORS WHO, CONSCIOUSLY OR NOT, ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH, BECAUSE THERE IS ALSO A VERY GRAVE DANGER OF BEING ABSORBED BY THE CONCILIAR CHURCH. IT IS A GREAT ILLUSION TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH CAN BE CORRECTED FROM WITHIN, SINCE IT IS A HIERARCHICAL SOCIETY AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROFESS THE WHOLE OF THE TRADITIONAL FAITH WITHIN ITS STRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE WHO TODAY OCCUPY THE HIGHEST POSITIONS ARE DETERMINED TO CONTINUE THE REFORMS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. THIS IS THE ILLUSION OF THE “ECCLESIA DEI" CONGREGATIONS, OF OTHER SIMILAR INDULT CONGREGATIONS AND RECENTLY OF THE NEO-SSPX.

2. FOR THE PARISHIONERS THERE IS ALSO THE GRAVE DANGER OF BEING ABSORBED BY THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH THROUGH THESE ACCORDIST CONGREGATIONS, SINCE BEING SUBJECTED TO THE CONCILIAR ROME THEY CANNOT OPENLY CRITICIZE THE ERRORS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, NOR THOSE OF THE MODERNIST HIERARCHY AND END UP BEING GRADUALLY ABSORBED BY THE NEW CHURCH. THE FAITHFUL OF THE TRADITION SHOULD NOT FREQUENT THESE CONGREGATIONS SINCE IT IS NOT ONLY ABOUT THE MASS AND THE SACRAMENTS BUT ALSO ABOUT THE FACT OF FREQUENTING AN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WHOLE PASTORAL CARE THAT GOES WITH THEM. NOT TO HEED THIS WARNING IS TO EXPOSE ONESELF TO THE GRAVE DANGER OF BEING DISORIENTED AND GRADUALLY ASSIMILATED BY THE CONCILIAR CHURCH. IT IS BETTER NOT TO ATTEND ANY OF THESE MASSES OR TO FREQUENT ANY OF THESE ENVIRONMENTS AND TO WAIT UNTIL ONE FINDS A TRULY TRADITIONAL PRIEST WHO IS NOT COMPROMISED BY THE ACCORDISM OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH.

3. IT IS NECESSARY TO DISTANCE ONESELF FROM THOSE PRIESTS WHO ONLY SPEAK OF "SPIRITUAL" THEMES AND WHO NO LONGER CRITICIZE MODERN ERRORS, NOR THE ERRORS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, NOR THE AMBIGUITY OF THE “ECCLESIA DEI" AND NEO-SSPX CONGREGATIONS. THE TENACIOUS OMISSION OF CERTAIN POINTS AND THEMES OF CAPITAL IMPORTANCE CAN SOMETIMES BE A SIGN OF COMPLICITY. THE TRUTH IS FITHER TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY OR IT IS NO LONGER THE TRUTH, OR IT IS DEFENDED IN ITS ENTIRETY OR ONE IS NO LONGER A TRUE DEFENDER OF IT.

4. THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X WAS FOUNDED BY ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL TO SAVE THE TRADITION OF THE CONCILIAR TIDAL WAVE, TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH AND TO COMBAT THE ERRORS THAT THREATEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT IS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT HE DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM THE CONCILIAR HIERARCHY IN ORDER TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE PRESERVATION AND DEFENSE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

5. HOWEVER, SOME OF HIS SUCCESSORS, IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS CONGREGATION, HAVE BELIEVED THAT THEY COULD DO BETTER THAN THEIR FOUNDER....THE NEW LEADERSHIP OF THE NEO-SSPX IS GRADUALLY LEADING TO THE ASSURED DESTRUCTION OF THIS WORK (OPERATION ѕυιcιdє), WHICH WAS FORMERLY FOUNDED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (OPERATION SURVIVAL). UNDER THE PRETEXT OF “CONVERTING MODERNIST ROME" THEY HAVE ALLIED THEMSELVES WITH IT AND ARE SLIPPING INTO A REAL TRAP.

THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM ROME VARIOUS’ "PERMISSIONS" AND "JURISDICTIONS" IN EXCHANGE FOR A CONCILIATORY ATTITUDE, I.E. THEIR SILENCE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A MAJOR COMPROMISE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER IN ORDER TO MAKE VERY SERIOUS COMPROMISES AND "INSIDE" THE CONCILIAR STRUCTURE, IT SUFFICES THAT THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, WHICH LITTLE BY LITTLE FORM AN AUTHENTIC AND TRUE AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW THE TOLERANCE OF CERTAIN PRACTICAL FACTS BY THE RELIGIOUS SUPERIORS CAN CREATE WITH TIME A REAL LEGAL “STATUS” ...

IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNTHINKABLE WITHIN THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TO GIVE THE RIGHT TO CONFER SACRAMENTS TO THOSE PRIESTS WHO ARE NOT INCARDINATED; IF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEO-SSPX HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED "PERMISSION" BY THE CONCILIAR CHURCH TO GIVE THE SACRAMENTS IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CLEARLY ALREADY INCARDINATED; IF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEO-SSPX ARE ALREADY INCARDINATED IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE NEW CHURCH AND THAT STRICTLY IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO SIGN ANY AGREEMENT.

6. BLINDNESS IS THE FRUIT OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. THIS IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL THE CONGREGATIONS AND GROUPS THAT WERE FORMERLY TRULY TRADITIONAL AND THAT HAVE GONE BACKWARDS AND BECOME COMPROMISING. IT IS THE FRUIT OF A SERIOUSLY RECKLESS "PRUDENCE" BECAUSE IT OBSTINATELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE THAT CERTAIN PRACTICAL ATTITUDES SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE THE FAITH. ALL THESE GROUPS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, GRADUALLY TEND TO ACCEPT THE ENTIRE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND NO LONGER WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN. THE SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS IS EVIDENT! PRACTICAL IMPRUDENCE — IN THE THINGS OF FAITH IS A COMPROMISE IN THE THINGS OF FAITH...!

7. PROOF OF THER DOCTRINAL COMPROMISE OF THE NEO-SSPX, IS FOUND IN THE DOcuмENTS PUBLICLY RELEASED IN 2012, AMONG THEM — ARE: THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION OF APRIL 15, 2012, THE GENERAL CHAPTER STATEMENT OF JULY 2012, THE SIX CONDITIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT WITH ROME AND THE INTERVIEWS WITH BP. FELLAY, FR. PFLUGER AND ETC. THE MOST SERIOUS OF THESE IS THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION, WHICH EXPRESSES ACCEPTANCE OF VATICAN II'S DOCTRINES ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, EcuмENISM, AND COLLEGIALITY, AS WELL AS ACCEPTING THE NEW MASS AND SACRAMENTS AS “LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED", THE NEW PROFESSION OF FAITH OF 1989 AND THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW (WITH NO DISTINCTIONS).

8. DOCTRINE MORALS INFLUENCES MORALS. IF COMPROMISE THERE IS COMPROMISE IN DOCTRINE, THERE WILL NECESSARILY FOLLOW COMPROMISE IN MORALS. EVER SINCE THE NEW-SSPX HAS COMPROMISED IN DOCTRINE, THE MORAL TEACHING HAS SUFFERED COMPROMISE, AS A CONSEQUENCE. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE WEAK STAND ON THE VA**+#%=NES. MANY DOCTORS AND NURSES REVEALED THEIR CONTENTS AS CONTAINING MATTER DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM CELLS OF ABORTED INFANTS, EVEN WHILE STILL ALIVE! THIS FACT ALONE, CONDEMNS ANY SORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THESE VA*#%!)*NES. LAMENTABLY, THE NEW-SSPX PUBLICLY APPROVED OF THEIR USE AND PARTICIPATION, PROVIDED ITS NON-COOPERATION PROVED TO BE A DETRIMENT TO ONE'S JOB. TWO CRIMES ARE ENCOURAGED HERE; FIRSTLY, THE INVOLVEMENT IN INDIRECT ABORTION, AND SECONDLY, DIRECT COOPERATION IN THE EUGENICS PROGRAM WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED BY THE GLOBALISTS AS AN IMMORAL MEANS TO REDUCE THE WORLD POPULATION.

THE THUC LINE

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE EXPRESSED SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY AND LICITNESS OF THE THUC LINE CONSECRATIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE LINKED TO PALMAR DE TROYA, IN SPAIN, HIS POSITION WAS TO AVOID THEM, ALTOGETHER. THERE, THEY WENT SO FAR AS TO ELECT THEIR OWN PRETEND-POPE. THERE ARE SERIOUS REASONS TO DOUBT IF SOME OF THESE THUC LINES ARE EVEN STILL INSIDE THE CHURCH. THE EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION OF A NON-CATHOLIC IS ONE OF THE SEVERAL ILLICIT ACTIONS TAKEN BY ABP. THUC, WHICH LEAVES ONE TO QUESTION IF HE WAS STILL IN HIS RIGHT MIND... (AMONG OTHER WORKS, SEE CLARENCE KELLY'S BOOK "THE SACRED AND THE PROFANE" FOR AN INDEPTH STUDY ON THIS QUESTION, DISREGARDING THE SEDEVACANTIST VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN).

THE PROBLEM OF THE LIBERAL SPIRIT

1. THE LIBERAL SPIRIT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DOCTRINAL LIBERALISM, ALTHOUGH IT IS AN EMANATION OF THE LATTER.

2. THE NEW SOCIAL STATE GENERATED IN THE CATHOLIC STATES TWO CENTURIES AGO BY THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, WITH LIBERAL LAWS AND LIBERAL CULTURE HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO A NEW GENERATION OF SCHIZOPHRENIC CATHOLICS. IN A SECULAR STATE WHERE THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LOST ITS RIGHTS AT ALL LEVELS AND WHERE ALL RELIGIONS AND DOCTRINES WERE PUT ON THE SAME LEVEL, THE SO-CALLED "CATHOLIC" LIBERALISM WAS BORN TWO CENTURIES AGO IN FRANCE. THIS "CATHOLIC" LIBERALISM WENT FROM PROMOTING PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH THE ABNORMAL STATE OF SOCIETY TO ACCEPTING IT AS SUCH.

CATHOLICS WHO HAVE LIVED SINCE CHILDHOOD IN A LIBERAL SOCIETY END UP SEEING THIS SITUATION AS "NORMAL". IN TODAY'S RELATIVISTIC STATE OF SOCIETY, CATHOLICS ALMOST WITHOUT REALIZING IT HAVE GRADUALLY BECOME RELATIVISTIC THEMSELVES. THEY NO LONGER FULLY PERCEIVE THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF UNIQUENESS AND COHERENCE OF
TRUTH. THIS HAS BECOME IN THEM A SPIRIT, A STATE OF MIND, A "SENSIBILITY", A WAY OF LIFE THAT HAS ACCEPTED NOT ONLY THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH THE MODERN SPIRIT BUT, EVEN MORE, BELIEVES THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL OR OF THE CHURCH CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE WORLD.

THE LIBERAL SPIRIT IS NOT A DOCTRINAL BUT A PRACTICAL SPIRIT THAT DOES NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINAL STABILITY OF THE CONCEPTS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. IT IS BECAUSE THE LIBERAL SPIRIT HAS AS ITS FOUNDATION A SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, BY NOT WANTING TO ACCEPT COMPLETELY THE EVIDENT AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TRUTH, THAT IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVERT THOSE WHO HAVE IT.

MOREOVER, THEY ARE OF SUCH A REMARKABLE TENACITY AND SO OBSTINATE THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE "MISSION" TO CONVERT DOCTRINAL CATHOLICS, AND THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THEIR BLINDNESS. THOSE WHO HAVE THE LIBERAL SPIRIT CAN TEMPORARILY ADOPT THE THESES OF DOCTRINAL CATHOLICISM BUT THEY WILL NOT PERSEVERE IN THEM BECAUSE DEEP DOWN THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM.

3. CATHOLICS OF LIBERAL SPIRIT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE LAST TWO CENTURIES A BURDEN FOR DOCTRINAL CATHOLICS, THOSE WHO DID NOT LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT IS THE TRUE CONCEPT, FIRST THE NATURAL TRUTH AND THEN THE TRUTH OF FAITH. IN THE LAST TWO CENTURIES THE "CATHOLICS" OF LIBERAL SPIRIT WITH THEIR WORLDLY CONCEPTS OF FALSE PRUDENCE HAVE ALWAYS SABOTAGED THE EFFORTS OF DOCTRINAL CATHOLICS AND HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF A MULTITUDE OF DEFEATS OF CATHOLICISM, FOR EXAMPLE: THE BISHOPS WHO BETRAYED THE CRISTEROS; THE BISHOPS WHO WANTED TO RECONCILE THE CHURCH WITH THE MODERN WORLD IN THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND MORE RECENTLY FATHER SCHMIDBERGER AND BISHOP FELLAY WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN RECONCILE TRADITION WITH THE ENEMIES OF TRADITION, ETC. IT IS IN THIS SENSE THAT THE DECLARATIONS OF CARDINAL RATZINGER WERE MADE IN AN INTERVIEW HE GAVE TO THE ITALIAN MAGAZINE "JESUS": "THE CONCERN OF THE MEN OF THE CHURCH IN THE SIXTIES WAS TO RECONCILE THE CHURCH WITH TWO CENTURIES OF LIBERAL ‘CULTURE", IT COULD NOT BE SAID MORE CLEARLY!

4. THE PLAGUE OF THE LIBERAL SPIRIT, BY ITS NATURAL TENDENCY, ALWAYS AND GRADUALLY LEADS TO THE CORRUPTION OF WHAT IS TRUE CHRISTIAN PRUDENCE AND TRUE FAITH. IT IS ORIENTED TO THE PROPER DOCTRINAL LIBERALISM FROM WHICH IT ORIGINALLY EMANATED IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT THE SOCIAL KINGDOM OF CHRIST THE KING IS AT PRESENT NOT REALIZABLE.

Faced with the ongoing compromises we have no other choice but to maintain the Battle for the Holy Faith in the line of Pope St. Pius X, all the anti-Liberal Popes and of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. May Our Sorrowful Mother, who stood at the foot of the Cross, keep us faithful and give us the grace to rebuild and persevere in the integral Catholic Faith!

On the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus, we, the undersigned priests, propose the above text for the consideration of all those who love the true One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:

Father David Hewko
Father Hugo Ruiz V.

July 1st, 2023

AveReginaMatris · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2023, 07:15:02 PM »

What a lame statement. These two priests are so into their minds.

The Thuc line of the Planar wouldn't exist if it weren't by the very own Abp Lefebvre who told such group to go with Bp Thuc in the first place. Canon Revaz was an Ecône professor who made the contact.

Now Bp Thuc did performed other consecrations later on like in 1981 since he was aware of the invalidity of the new rite. Abp Lefebvre back then wasn't willing to consecrate. He was busy dealing with JP2.

Now, all of this sedevacantism doesn't have a solution is another misconception. There's always a solution. If not the Church wouldn't be a perfect society. Ask the council fathers of Constance when all the three successions were put into question.

About not judging canonically it's another misconception. Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to Canon 188.4 and the Bull cuм Ex Appostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV. When you say Bergoglio is not a pope you're stating a fact based on reality. When you see an animal with 4 legs, barks like a dog and wags it's tail like a dog are you going to wait for a veterinarian to tell you it's perhaps a Giraffe?

Just my two cents

NIFH · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:18:56 PM »

Quote from: AveReginaMatris on July 10, 2023, 07:15:02 PM

Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to Canon 188.4

Canonical irregularities do not invalidate a papacy.

NIFH · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:20:53 PM »

Quote from: AveReginaMatris on July 10, 2023, 07:15:02 PM

Canonically speaking all the usurpers of Vatican 2 have already been condemned according to the Bull cuм Ex Appostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV.

Father Hesse:

"... They will quote Pope Paul IV... The docuмent is called cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. That's the title of the docuмent. It's a docuмent which enjoys all the infallibility it could have. It's a docuмent that uses all the legal formulas for an infallible docuмent. That means the pope says, "I, in virtue of my apostolic authority herewith declare, define and statute that and that and that and that and that and that, and that has to be held and believed by all people forever." And in that docuмent, which also rules on the election of a future pope--on the conclave, it says that no cardinal, if he is a heretic or was a heretic can be validly elected to the papacy. Many sedevacantists use this docuмent as the definite proof that John XXIII, who in their eyes was a heretic before his election, they use this as the proof that John XXIII, having been a heretic before his election, could not be validly elected. They are quite wrong on that because, again, and this is why I said you have to be careful about the distinction between matters of discipline, matters of Faith. Pope Paul [IV], with his cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, was able to bind all of his successors forever in everything that concerns moral or dogmatic teaching in this docuмent. To rule on the election of a future pope is not a moral decision. It is not a decision on moral theology. It is not a decision of Faith. It's not a matter of morals or Faith. It is the ruling of a canonical election. That means you talk about an act of administration. You talk about an administrative ruling. And that cannot, because it's mere disciplinary, cannot bind his successors, and indeed, the many successors of Paul [IV] who came up with new regulations on the conclave, including Pius X, never mentioned that paragraph again. So it's not taken up anymore. And I think if the question of a former heretic or a material heretic not being able to become pope was something that the popes cannot change, then we're probably in sedesvacancy for several centuries already. See, the present pope is not the first heretic in Church history."

NIFH · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:22:04 PM »

Father Hesse:

"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof. Some people quote the apostolic bull of Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus against the present pope, saying that Paul IV decreed that a heretic cannot become pope. Yes, but the papal election is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure, therefore there cannot be an infallible pronouncement on it. It is an act of administration just like all elections. When in a monastery an abbot is elected, this is a canonical election. The election of the supreme pontiff among the cardinals is a canonical election. And those rules can not only be changed, but were changed a couple of dozen times over in Church history. Leo XIII changed the rules, Pius X changed the rules, Pius XI changed the rules again, Pius XII changed the rules again, Paul VI changed it, and the present pope changed it again. And none of them has ever quoted Paul IV again on this. Now the bull cuм Ex Apostolatus is an infallible bull as far as the doctrinal statements are concerned. It cannot be infallible as far as an administrative rule is concerned, saying that if a cardinal was a heretic, even if he was a heretic and converted, he cannot be validly elected pope. To be validly elected pope you need positive human law and law of administration, and that every single pope can change, much unlike the doctrinal laws, which no pope can change ever. If a pope decides on a moral issue, his successor cannot change it. Impossible. He would put himself in schism with the Church. But a rule of administration, and how it can be changed! And how! In the beginning the people of Rome elected the pope. Later on, it was the clergy of Rome, and very much later on, only 1300 years after Christ died and ressurected and founded His Church at Pentecost, cardinals were the only ones to elect the pope. So if a future pope says, "I don't want cardinals to elect the pope, but all of the bishops in the world," he's gonna make a mess but that doesn't make the election invalid. It would be horrible. I don't want to think of it. But it doesn't make the election, duly procedures required and provided, it doesn't make it invalid because it's an act of administration. And that's why I recommend the sedevacantists to be a little more careful with their judgements. The Society of Saint Pius X is not exactly composed of all idiots, and none of them nowadays consider the Apostolic See vacant. And the three priests, Fathers Sanborn, Kelly and Cekada unfortunately, because they are otherwise very good theologians, unfortunately had to be kicked out of the Society of Saint Pius X for insisting on the "fact" that we do not have a pope. To me this is a neurotic statement, too, because you put yourself in a dead end. Who's gonna elect the next pope? I leave the question to you."

NIFH · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:22:55 PM »

Father Hesse:

"... Paul IV was also the one who issued the papal bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio that determined that a former heretic could not become pope. What I really should, for practical reasons, not passing any judgement on anyone here, but for practical purposes, I should say the '1958 sedevacantists'--those who believe that John XXIII was not pope because before he was elected he was a heretic. ... The next pope who wrote about the laws of how to elect a pope didn't even mention cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio. And the papal practice was even worse. While Paul IV in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio says a former heretic cannot become pope, privately he made sure that every cardinal understood that one who was formerly suspect of heresy could not become pope. Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:26:01 PM »

Quote from: bvmariae on July 10, 2023, 05:26:04 PM

1. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE DURING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A COUNTERFEIT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS SOMETHING NEW, A NEW CHURCH. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS NOT THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS A SECT. POPE FRANCIS IS AT THE SAME TIME THE HEAD OF TWO CHURCHES: OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, IT IS IN THIS THAT THE GREAT DECEPTION, THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION OF THE HOLY PLACE CONSISTS. THE CONCILIAR CHURCH IS GRADUALLY ECLIPSING THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF REPLACING IT ABSOLUTELY.

2. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SEDEVACANTISM AS A “SOLUTION” TO THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE DENYING THAT ALL THE LAST POPES ARE POPES TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHURCH EVEN THE VERY HOPE OF FINDING A SOLUTION AND AN FND TO THIS TREMENDOUS CRISIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANONICALLY JUDGE THESE POPES, ONLY A TRULY CATHOLIC POPE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.

Why is it that they have to always toss in his crap about denouncing Sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is, as Archbishop Lefebvre stated, a real possibility. No, it's not a "solution", but it's an understanding of what's taking place here that is more Catholic than this repackaged Old Catholicism that they've gravitated towards. They continue to treat SV Catholics as if they were as much enemies of the faith as the Modernists, which is hogwash. At best, they are mistaken in their application of some theological principles to the crisis.

And what is it with the ALL CAPS? Do they have a defective keyboard? Or are they trying to make this look like some Magisterial statement?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:34:06 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on July 10, 2023, 10:22:04 PM

Father Hesse:

"... One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this pope is not pope is because first of all we need proof. We do not have this proof."

While this statement is strictly true, in that one cannot rule out the possibility of some unknown "Factor X", such as that Montini was being blackmailed over sodomy, and the others for other reasons, and therefore that their acts were not the free acts of Popes, and therefore lacked authority, but, absent such scenarios, we have PLENTY OF PROOF. We have rock solid theological proof. It is simply not possible for the Papacy, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, to destroy the Church, to gut the Magisterium, to destroy faith and morals, and to promulgate a Mass that displeases God, undermines the faith, and damages souls. That is all the proof we need, and it's the most certain kind of proof, theological proof.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 10, 2023, 10:38:07 PM »

Quote from: NIFH on July 10, 2023, 10:22:55 PM

Father Hesse:

"Now Leo XIII beautifully contradicted that when he made the former heretic, John Henry Newman, Cardinal John Henry Newman. So Leo XIII theoretically made a former heretic, John Henry Newman, Anglican minister who converted Catholic, became a Catholic priest, John Henry Cardinal Newman, therefore he was eligible to the papacy. Out goes cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by a paranoid pope anyway."

While Father Hesse is normally quite reasonable, that was really dumb. Newman converted to the Catholic Church. What Paul IV meant about someone being a Pope prior to his election means covering a time that is inclusive of the election itself. It's similar to the expression about Our Lady having been a Virgin until she gave birth to Our Lord. Father Hesse must have imbibed a little too much chardonnay before making that statement there.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2023, 05:06:28 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 10, 2023, 10:38:07 PM

While Father Hesse is normally quite reasonable, that was really dumb. Newman converted to the Catholic Church. What Paul IV meant about someone being a Pope prior to his election means covering a time that is inclusive of the election itself. It's similar to the expression about Our Lady having been a Virgin until she gave birth to Our Lord. Father Hesse must have imbibed a little too much chardonnay before making that statement there.

Fr. Hesse is right. cuм ex says "if ever at any time," not "during the election" - which makes no sense whatsoever....

"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine,
decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any
legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy...."

If in fact cuм ex is the law, then nearly all trad bishops and clergy are invalid for having been a been to whatever degree, a NOer prior to finding tradition, including even +Sanborn and the other 8 - who were all NO before Econe.

Heck, being born and raised NO before finding tradition yourself, you also would have been invalid had you gone on to get ordained - per the law of cuм ex.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2023, 06:20:06 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on July 11, 2023, 05:06:28 AM

Fr. Hesse is right. cuм ex says "if ever at any time," not "during the election" - which makes no sense whatsoever....

"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine,
decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any
legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy...."

If in fact cuм ex is the law, then nearly all trad bishops and clergy are invalid for having been a been to whatever degree, a NOer prior to finding tradition, including even +Sanborn and the other 8 - who were all NO before Econe.

Heck, being born and raised NO before finding tradition yourself, you also would have been invalid had you gone on to get ordained - per the law of cuм ex.

Uhm, no, that's clearly not what it means. While it's evident even in the English, it's even moreso in the Latin, that "in any time" modifies the "it shall appear" and not "has deviated from". That's surprising from Father Hesse ...

Quote

Adiicientes quod si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum

It does not say that if it shall appear that [person] shall at any time have deviated ... which is how Fr. Hesse is reading it for some inexplicable reason.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2023, 06:37:58 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 11, 2023, 06:20:06 AM

Uhm, no, that's clearly not what it means. While it's evident even in the English, it's even moreso in the Latin, that "in any time" modifies the "it shall appear" and not "has deviated from". That's surprising from Father Hesse ...

It does not say that if it shall appear that [person] shall at any time have deviated ... which is how Fr. Hesse is reading it for some inexplicable reason.

It doesn’t matter, because the cuм ex argument has been refuted so many times here, that seeing it pop up every 30 days inspires the same fatigue as a BOD thread.

Here was +Sanborn rejecting the CEA argument (see p. 7):

https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Explanation-of-the-Thesis.pdf

Invariably someone then comes along and says “but there’s a footnote on it at Can. 188.4!” as though an historic reference suggested CEA wasn’t really abrogated.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2023, 07:00:31 AM »

Quote from: bvmariae on July 10, 2023, 05:26:04 PM

JOINT STATEMENT OF SSPX-MC PRIESTS: FR. D. HEWKO & Fr. H. RUIZ V.

THE SILENCE OF THE SHEPHERDS... BUT NOT OF ALL OF THEM

2. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SEDEVACANTISM AS A “SOLUTION” TO THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE DENYING THAT ALL THE LAST POPES ARE POPES TAKES AWAY FROM THE CHURCH EVEN THE VERY HOPE OF FINDING A SOLUTION AND AN FND TO THIS TREMENDOUS CRISIS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANONICALLY JUDGE THESE POPES, ONLY A TRULY CATHOLIC POPE IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.COND VATICAN COUNCIL TOGETHER WITH ALL ITS REFORMS.

Father David Hewko
Father Hugo Ruiz V.

July 1st, 2023

It is true that neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Ruiz has the authority to CANONICALLY judge popes. However, each may make a private judgment based on the FACT of another's public manifest formal heresy.

Using their line of thinking, who gave any of them the magisterial authority to condemn Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Rite?

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2023, 07:23:06 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 11, 2023, 06:20:06 AM

Uhm, no, that's clearly not what it means. While it's evident even in the English, it's even moreso in the Latin, that "in any time" modifies the "it shall appear" and not "has deviated from". That's surprising from Father Hesse ...

It does not say that if it shall appear that [person] shall at any time have deviated ... which is how Fr. Hesse is reading it for some inexplicable reason.

The translation I have says: Text translated by Mr John S. Daly a well known sede.

Who is John S. Daly you ask? Well click the link and you can find out about him....

"John S. Daly was born in England in 1963, educated by the Salvatorian Fathers in Harrow Weald, at Saint Dominic’s Sixth Form College, Harrow-on-the-Hill, and at Corpus Christi College in the University of Cambridge where he read Classics (i.e. studied Latin and Greek with ancient history and philosophy) and won various awards for academic excellence including two Exhibitions and a Scholarship....

He has also written or translated about a hundred articles, of which the most appreciated have included: “Essay on Heresy” by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “The Collapse of Luciferianism” by the Marquis de la Franquerie cuм Ex Apostolus Officio by Pope Paul IV. Daly has also written various articles and studies in French and translated Myles Keon’s Dion and the Sibyls into French..."

Therefore, it is you, not Fr. Hesse, who is once again wrong.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2023, 07:32:17 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Knight on July 11, 2023, 07:00:31 AM

It is true that neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Ruiz has the authority to CANONICALLY judge popes. However, each may make a private judgment based on the FACT of another's public manifest formal heresy.

Yes, each may make a private judgement, but as you know, doing that tends to balloon out into, as Digital Logos said in his last post, sedeism "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
Next thing you know sedes leave established trad chapels and seminaries, open their own chapels, schools and seminaries, consecrate their own bishops, ordain their own priests etc., and it all started with a private judgement about the popes' heresies. Big deal.

It is this entire set of beliefs and practices of which DL speaks that is unique to sedeism and that has sedes making comments like this:

Quote from: Catholic Knight on July 11, 2023, 07:00:31 AM

Using their line of thinking, who gave any of them the magisterial authority to condemn Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Rite?

Author Topic: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V (Read 13264 times)

bvmariae

Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

AveReginaMatris

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

NIFH

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

NIFH

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

NIFH

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

NIFH

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Ladislaus

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Ladislaus

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Ladislaus

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Stubborn

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Ladislaus

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

SeanJohnson

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Catholic Knight

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Stubborn

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V

Stubborn

Re: Joint Statement of SSPX-MC Priests: Fr. David Hewko & Fr. Hugo Ruiz V