Author Topic: FRANCIS RECEIVED BP. FELLAY (Read 28255 times)

ihsv · « **Reply #105 on:** May 13, 2014, 07:53:36 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.

Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.

But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?

I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.

Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.

The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #106 on:** May 13, 2014, 08:10:14 PM »

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.

Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.

But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?

I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.

Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.

The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.

It doesn't mock the sacrifice because it doesn't even pretend to BE a sacrifice. It is an imposter and a mockery in the sense that it purports to be Catholic and isn't, but no more so than a protestant ceremony which purports to be Christian and isn't (not by the true definition, even if it is colloquially accepted as being Christian).

And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. You cannot treat a doubtful consecration as a true one, on the contrary we are obliged to NOT treat it as a true one, since we risk idolatry. You don't confess your sins to a doubtful priest on the off-change that he MIGHT be a priest, you need to have moral certainty that he is.

ihsv · « **Reply #107 on:** May 13, 2014, 08:33:11 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: ihsv
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.

Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.

But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?

I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.

Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.

The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.

It doesn't mock the sacrifice because it doesn't even pretend to BE a sacrifice. It is an imposter and a mockery in the sense that it purports to be Catholic and isn't, but no more so than a protestant ceremony which purports to be Christian and isn't (not by the true definition, even if it is colloquially accepted as being Christian).

And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. You cannot treat a doubtful consecration as a true one, on the contrary we are obliged to NOT treat it as a true one, since we risk idolatry. You don't confess your sins to a doubtful priest on the off-change that he MIGHT be a priest, you need to have moral certainty that he is.

The New Mass most certainly mocks the Holy Sacrifice. If I were to dress up in goofy robes, tell everyone that I was going to say "mass", and then proceed to sing, dance, make jokes, distribute cookies and grape juice, all the while claiming that I am a Catholic priest and this is a Catholic Mass (regardless of my understanding of what that word means), is there any doubt that what I just did constitutes anything BUT a mockery of the true Mass? The Protestant utterly rejects the Mass, and therefore doesn't even attempt to approximate or mimic it.

I never said that a doubtful sacrament was a sacrament, nor did i say that it should be treated as a true one. I am not in a position to define infallibly the status of the validity of the New Mass or the new priests. There is serious doubt, and for that reason I refuse to have anything to do with any of them. Note, too, that throughout my posts on this thread, I have sprinkled references to the Eucharist being present at the new Mass using words such as "supposedly", "purports to be", and similar language.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #108 on:** May 13, 2014, 09:34:26 PM »

ihsv,

I will consider what you have written here. If it requires it, I will return to the thread if I think that I need to change my position on this issue.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #109 on:** May 14, 2014, 05:47:28 AM »

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: ihsv
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I think I understand a little better, now. Assuming that the Novus Ordo is valid, it is a sacrilege in a very serious sense (moreso than if it were invalid, since the Real Presence of Christ is not profaned through Communion in the Hand) and the issue is not with attending a non-Catholic service, but attending one which is a true sacrilege.

Perhaps an analogy would be attending a "black mass wedding." I doubt the canon dealing with passive attendance includes justifying the attendance of such a thing. I am not certain, since it doesn't seem to have been touched on, but I doubt it does.

But at the same time, if you're going to argue non-attendance and use martyrs dying to protect the Sacred Species, shouldn't you actually be arguing that the true course of action would be to break into the ceremony and prevent the priest from committing the sacrilege? Or prevent people from receiving communion in the hand?

I think most Novus Ordos are invalid, and view it as not substantially different from any other protestant service where there is no real presence. If one is convicted that the Novus Ordo is valid, then I can see how one might come to the conclusion that it is never permissible to attend, even passively. Though at this point, where most N.O. priests are doubtful to begin with, I think we very rarely have to worry about a valid N.O., even with a pro multis.

Regarding the use of martyrs, you'll notice I specifically stated "in their presence". One may indeed crash their party, so long as it doesn't run the risk of interfering with the duties of their state in life. My state in life is as a father and a husband. I cannot fulfill my duties toward my family and, ultimately toward God, in jail. Also, it belongs properly to the superior to end these sacrileges, not to the inferior.

The Novus Ordo most likely is invalid, and the priests are most likely not priests. That being said, the possibility, however remote, of them being valid is there. I am not in a position to decide the matter. That will be for the Church to handle when this storm ends. In the mean time, I will treat the Novus Ordo exactly as it was intended to be by its creators, a sacrilegious parody of the true Mass. Even without the presence of the Eucharist, it remains a clear mockery of the Holy Sacrifice.

It doesn't mock the sacrifice because it doesn't even pretend to BE a sacrifice. It is an imposter and a mockery in the sense that it purports to be Catholic and isn't, but no more so than a protestant ceremony which purports to be Christian and isn't (not by the true definition, even if it is colloquially accepted as being Christian).

And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament. You cannot treat a doubtful consecration as a true one, on the contrary we are obliged to NOT treat it as a true one, since we risk idolatry. You don't confess your sins to a doubtful priest on the off-change that he MIGHT be a priest, you need to have moral certainty that he is.

The New Mass most certainly mocks the Holy Sacrifice. If I were to dress up in goofy robes, tell everyone that I was going to say "mass", and then proceed to sing, dance, make jokes, distribute cookies and grape juice, all the while claiming that I am a Catholic priest and this is a Catholic Mass (regardless of my understanding of what that word means), is there any doubt that what I just did constitutes anything BUT a mockery of the true Mass? The Protestant utterly rejects the Mass, and therefore doesn't even attempt to approximate or mimic it.

I never said that a doubtful sacrament was a sacrament, nor did i say that it should be treated as a true one. I am not in a position to define infallibly the status of the validity of the New Mass or the new priests. There is serious doubt, and for that reason I refuse to have anything to do with any of them. Note, too, that throughout my posts on this thread, I have sprinkled references to the Eucharist being present at the new Mass using words such as "supposedly", "purports to be", and similar language.

Clearly the novus ordo, in its entirely, is a mockery of God, a sacrilege, a scandal, a perversion, and a violation of Divine Law.

Furthermore it does these vicious things in God's own Name.

Woe be to him who perpetrates it!!!!

The true malice of the novus ordo is such that if we actually comprehended it we would die.

It calls down upon the world the Wrath and the Vengeance of Almighty God. Wherefore we should not attend it for any reason other than to make a public protest.

Isn't that simple common sense?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #110 on:** May 14, 2014, 09:15:21 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: 2Vermont
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:

It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.

You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).

These laws the Church made are not unlike the Mosaic laws, such as the law that one could put his wife away, back in the Old Testament. Why? I truly believe this concession was made as Our Lord said, "Because of the hardness of their hearts."

"Okay, you want to go put your wife away? Weakness you say? Alright then, fine."

"So you want to go to a service where they make a god (and call it God) in their own image and worship it at services like a wedding or a funeral, because you don't want to offend your family? Okay fine."

You can decide for yourself why the Church made those concessions, and who they made them for.

Why decide for ourselves when there are approved teachers and theologians who have explained it for us? That's the whole reason I gave that quote earlier.

I understand the position better, now (than I did in my last post). I do not think that canon has in mind ACTUAL sacrilege, for the reasons ihsv gave (there really is no way that a person could "passively" assist at a black mass unless without sinning, unless they were held against their will).

If a given Novus Ordo is actually valid, it may just be better to not attend-- I'm not saying that with any serious conviction yet, but it would appear that way to me initially at least, since it really and truly would be a sacrilege. However, if invalid there is no substantial difference between it and a protestant service (or even a Jєωιѕн one) which the canon has in mind.

The Church DID give us an option here. The law says you MAY attend it for a "grave" reason. It does not say you MUST though. If one understands the reasons why the Church has given permission, and also understands the sacrilege that takes place and many times, outright blasphemy, a discerning Catholic would stay as far away from things unCatholic as they possibly could, no matter what familial relation is involved in such a display.

Just because the Church gives permission for a dispensation in such a case to attend something against God, does not mean that we should partake in such a dispensation.

2Vermont · « **Reply #111 on:** May 15, 2014, 05:51:20 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: 2Vermont
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:

It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.

You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).

These laws the Church made are not unlike the Mosaic laws, such as the law that one could put his wife away, back in the Old Testament. Why? I truly believe this concession was made as Our Lord said, "Because of the hardness of their hearts."

"Okay, you want to go put your wife away? Weakness you say? Alright then, fine."

"So you want to go to a service where they make a god (and call it God) in their own image and worship it at services like a wedding or a funeral, because you don't want to offend your family? Okay fine."

You can decide for yourself why the Church made those concessions, and who they made them for.

Why decide for ourselves when there are approved teachers and theologians who have explained it for us? That's the whole reason I gave that quote earlier.

I understand the position better, now (than I did in my last post). I do not think that canon has in mind ACTUAL sacrilege, for the reasons ihsv gave (there really is no way that a person could "passively" assist at a black mass unless without sinning, unless they were held against their will).

If a given Novus Ordo is actually valid, it may just be better to not attend-- I'm not saying that with any serious conviction yet, but it would appear that way to me initially at least, since it really and truly would be a sacrilege. However, if invalid there is no substantial difference between it and a protestant service (or even a Jєωιѕн one) which the canon has in mind.

The Church DID give us an option here. The law says you MAY attend it for a "grave" reason. It does not say you MUST though. If one understands the reasons why the Church has given permission, and also understands the sacrilege that takes place and many times, outright blasphemy, a discerning Catholic would stay as far away from things unCatholic as they possibly could, no matter what familial relation is involved in such a display.

Just because the Church gives permission for a dispensation in such a case to attend something against God, does not mean that we should partake in such a dispensation.

And NO ONE is telling you or anyone else that they MUST attend. You, however, are suggesting that no one CAN despite the fact that the Church has told us that it is permissible under certain conditions, etc.

You can decide all you want to not attend but don't suggest that those who do don't have principles.

2Vermont · « **Reply #112 on:** May 15, 2014, 05:57:18 PM »

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: ihsv
Quote from: 2Vermont
PFT, in a previous post you said wrt attending the NO funerals/weddings:

It's something called having principles, and not being a witness to a blasphemous service that masquerades as a Mass.

You are at least implying that those who choose to attend the NO wedding or funeral do not have principles (despite the fact that they have based their decisions on Church law ...aka principles).

Rather than focusing in Church law regarding attending non-Catholic services, it would be better to focus on what the Church says about attending/being present at public sacrileges. Then review the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (silence, consent, defense of the ill-done, etc.). Then it would be good to review the lives of those martyrs who died rather than allow the sacred host to be profaned in their presence. Then one ought to re-read the lives of the martyrs of England who chose death rather than assist (or even be present at) at the Cramner's Mass, grave reasons notwithstanding.

So you're basically saying that the Church lies when it allows attendance at non-Catholic services for certain reasons under certain conditions.

Gotcha.

You have severe reading comprehension issues, don't you? Re-read my first sentence. Slowly. At least seven times. Then come back and we'll chat.

No, I don't. I see the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic service.

ihsv · « **Reply #113 on:** May 15, 2014, 09:26:12 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

No, I don't. I see the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic service.

It is a sacrilegious mockery of the Catholic Mass, which means the Church's tolerance of our attending non-Catholic services (for grave reasons, etc., etc.,) doesn't apply. If you think it applies, then I'd be interested in seeing something from theologians or canon law that gives some solid reasons why we may be permitted to assist/be present at sacrilegious parodies and brazen mimicries of the Catholic Mass.

If the New Mass, with all of its attacks on the Faith, its irreverence toward what is claimed to be the True Presence, its perversion and suppression of Catholic doctrine, etc., were taken out of a Novus Ordo church and placed in the context of a Broadway play, would you go? What if it were for "fellowship's sake", such as if aunt Hilda decided she wanted to get married there, or if uncle Waldo were being buried from there? Or, because we didn't want to offend our new-found friends in Rome?

How quick we are to make excuses and exploit loopholes in order to justify compromise with the new religion.

Of course, if you insist on going, there isn't much I can do about it.

2Vermont · « **Reply #114 on:** May 17, 2014, 07:45:20 AM »

Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: 2Vermont
No, I don't. I see the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic service.

It is a sacrilegious mockery of the Catholic Mass, which means the Church's tolerance of our attending non-Catholic services (for grave reasons, etc., etc.,) doesn't apply. If you think it applies, then I'd be interested in seeing something from theologians or canon law that gives some solid reasons why we may be permitted to assist/be present at sacrilegious parodies and brazen mimicries of the Catholic Mass.

If the New Mass, with all of its attacks on the Faith, its irreverence toward what is claimed to be the True Presence, its perversion and suppression of Catholic doctrine, etc., were taken out of a Novus Ordo church and placed in the context of a Broadway play, would you go? What if it were for "fellowship's sake", such as if aunt Hilda decided she wanted to get married there, or if uncle Waldo were being buried from there? Or, because we didn't want to offend our new-found friends in Rome?

How quick we are to make excuses and exploit loopholes in order to justify compromise with the new religion.

Of course, if you insist on going, there isn't much I can do about it.

The NO service is much like the Protestant Episcopalian and Lutheran services. The former alleges to consecrate the True Presence as well (and it does not). If the Catholic Church allows Catholics to attend their funerals and weddings, then we can attend the NO funerals and weddings.

I'm not answering this because I "insist" on going. I'm answering this in an objective manner. I have no NO funeral or wedding to attend.

With that I'm done arguing with you.

ihsv · « **Reply #115 on:** May 17, 2014, 11:59:36 AM »

One last point on this topic. It is certainly true that the Church tolerates our being present at the weddings and funerals of NON-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting, for grave reasons. However, if one of the parties is a Catholic, we are forbidden to attend, as we would then be giving our ascent to their participation in a heretical service, and would be an accessory to their violation of Church doctrine and law. An example would be if a Catholic were marrying a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church. Such an event is not tolerated by the Church.

So the argument that we can go to a Novus Ordo wedding because it's a "non-Catholic service" is a load of bull. If one or both parties claims to be Catholic, yet they are being married at a non-Catholic ceremony, we cannot attend.

2Vermont · « **Reply #116 on:** May 17, 2014, 02:44:53 PM »

Quote from: ihsv

One last point on this topic. It is certainly true that the Church tolerates our being present at the weddings and funerals of NON-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting, for grave reasons. However, if one of the parties is a Catholic, we are forbidden to attend, as we would then be giving our ascent to their participation in a heretical service, and would be an accessory to their violation of Church doctrine and law. An example would be if a Catholic were marrying a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church. Such an event is not tolerated by the Church.

So the argument that we can go to a Novus Ordo wedding because it's a "non-Catholic service" is a load of bull. If one or both parties claims to be Catholic, yet they are being married at a non-Catholic ceremony, we cannot attend.

But then that gets into whether a NO Catholic is a Catholic......

ihsv · « **Reply #117 on:** May 17, 2014, 02:55:15 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: ihsv
One last point on this topic. It is certainly true that the Church tolerates our being present at the weddings and funerals of NON-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting, for grave reasons. However, if one of the parties is a Catholic, we are forbidden to attend, as we would then be giving our ascent to their participation in a heretical service, and would be an accessory to their violation of Church doctrine and law. An example would be if a Catholic were marrying a Lutheran in a Lutheran Church. Such an event is not tolerated by the Church.

So the argument that we can go to a Novus Ordo wedding because it's a "non-Catholic service" is a load of bull. If one or both parties claims to be Catholic, yet they are being married at a non-Catholic ceremony, we cannot attend.

But then that gets into whether a NO Catholic is a Catholic......

Note that I said "claims" to be Catholic.

hugeman · « **Reply #118 on:** May 17, 2014, 06:40:33 PM »

I'm sorry-- I must admit, I am confused by this whole thread. We are supposed to be confirming our brethren ( and our sisters) in the faith, holding them up and supporting them, gently correcting them when they are led astray by the guiles of satan; instead, it appears as though traditionalists are attacking traditionalists-- both on the same same side of the issues! I admit-- I don't have the patience to sort out all the comments; they seem so contradictory and accusatory that they confuse me. Maybe it's better to summarize the relative positions at some point during the thread, or new readers would, I might think, get totally turned off and go somewhere else.

Just my thoughts, though.

In the meantime, perhaps more germane to the thread, Bergoglio has issued a video greeting to ecuмenical ministers gathered somewhere, I think in Texas, wherein he calls an unordained and unconsecrated "catholic" Lutheran/ecuмenical "Bishop" his "Dear Brother Bishop in the Faith!"

So, you can be sure there is room for his "dear brother bishop" Bernard Fellay, traitor to Catholicism, and there is plenty of room for him in the great new ecuмenical temple. While you guys are debating whether you should or should not attend a protestanized service for a loved one as a passive observer, Fellay is bringing protestant ministers into SSPX chapels , and passing them off as priests. Their official story line is that "they will review the (so-called) ordinations and training of these pres-by-ters, but Monsignor Burns has already let the cat out of the bag: "Father Rostand said (before any review) that I will not require conditional re-ordination." 'Msgr.' Burns was "ordained" by John "Cardinal" O'Connor of New York City, in 1986. Cardinal O'Connor made himself famous by apologizing to world Jewry for all the slander that the Catholic Church inflicted upon Jews because they killed Jesus Christ. John "Cardinal" O'Connor's sister just revealed this past month that their mother was (well how de doo!) of the Jєωιѕн faith! Perhaps this explains why "Cardinal" O'Connor, upon meeting a young boy who just converted to Catholicism from Judaism, told him:" You should go back to your Jєωιѕн faith!"

John "Cardinal" O'Connor-- a Jєωιѕн "Cardinal" of the Catholic Church;
"Cardinal" Lustinger of Paris France-- before his death he declared: "A Jew I was born, a Jew I lived, and a Jew I will die!"
"Cardinal" Jorge Bergoglio : Jews are my best friends--they are our elder brothers in the faith."
"Cardinal" Ratzinger : Jews are justified in awaiting for the Messiah!

Is there any wonder why the Catholic Church is doomed? Bella Dodd recruits one thousand ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs communist agents to infiltrate the church, the Communist conspiracy works night and day to get its agents into the church, The Alta Vendita gats thousands of illuminists to infiltrates the church, and all the leading bishops and cardinals AND "popes" are either ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs protectors, or secret Jews-- the race of people who hate Christ and His Church!

Matto · « **Reply #119 on:** May 17, 2014, 06:47:52 PM »

Nearly all of the Novus Ordo Bishops I know about deserve to be burned at the stake. :heretic:

And "elder brothers" Fellay wants to go join them and drag his followers with him. :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: