it would be too tedious to go thru every one of these quotes, but this one is succinct enough.  Does anyone realize how you are talking about he whom you all seem to consider the Vicar of Christ?  your insinuating that a Pope would try to destroy the church before he dies, as in this one?  you know the church is indefectible don't you?  it is NOT POSSIBLE that a true pope would want to destroy the church.  That would Prove him to be an Anti-Pope, which in effect is what you ALL are saying.  Now me, yes I'm a sede, and I don't have all the answers, but I got the answers to this one.  HOW can Francis POSSIBLY be the Pope?  simple  he can't be.   how do we fix it?  who knows, God knows.  

so the assurances in Vatican I, basically that we have a sure rule of faith in the man who is the pope (not the chair (office) gets to go out the windo when we have obvious heretics?  Man, that is some shaky ground.  

Interesting that TIA later attacked their good friend and contributor Fr. Sretenovic. This "cordial" letter is from Plinio-worshipping slave # 11 aka  Mr. Atila S. Guimarães. Fr. Sretenovic had written a personal letter to someone who he believed was a friend, to gently correct him on his erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching on marriage and the marriage act (which Guimarães had compared to animals and incorporated a discussion of fecal matter into his attitude toward the marriage act) only to have Atila G. cherry pick the private letter and print only the portions he wanted to manipulate.

Please note that none of what Mr. G. alleges has been substantiated. The following are unknown --
whether or not anyone objected to Mr. G's attack on the martial act,
whether or not such persons were men or women
whether or not such persons knew each other
whether or not such persons were known to Father Sretenovic -- Here is the anti-Catholic, anti-clerical heretic Mr. Guimarães:

Rev. Fr. Paul Sretenovic,
. . . Should I understand that you will continue to fuel the campaign of detractions promoted by your lady-friends? (Note: Mr. G. here is referring to readers of TIA, unknown to Father Sretenovic, who also objected to Mr. G's attack on marriage. Notice the snide innuendo?)

I am sorry to say that your letter is remarkably deficient from the intellectual point of view. But, it is a good example of the objections TIA has received to this series of articles. If you, who are a priest, are so careless intellectually, I am not surprised that those ladies follow suit.
. . .you did not state anywhere that your letter was private; rather you wrote “granted, my most recent response was not very nice, but that itself was a private reaction to the way you have handled the whole process.” This tract implies that the present letter does not fall into that same private category.

. . . the campaign you and these ladies (Mr. G. is here promoting his notion that several persons objected to his presenting his own perverted attitudes toward the marriage act as if it is Catholic teaching) are promoting against us has acquired a semi-public character and as such must be rebutted publicly. .  . .

    Cordially,
    Atila S. Guimarães

For the entire letter see this link: Warning! It is written in the dull, quasi-intellectual style of a lowbrow who thinks of himself as bright.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E056_Sreten.htm.
or context, here is a small portion of Mr. G's perverted sttack on God's chosen way of bringing babies into the world, the marital act.

FYI: Just to be clear, the "Mr. G" Cera quotes is not me.

Some good points Megster.

The French are the most uncontrolled, intellectual and volatile portion of the global neo-SSPX. 
No doubt freemasonic president Makron would like to double vax them all


On the Latin Mass monopoly, Father Sretenovich caught Bp. Fellay letting the concept slip-out in January 2012.

Interpellation to Bishop B. Fellay on Independent Priests

 Why Did You Condemn Us,
 When You Are in a Similar Situation?

Posted February 16, 201

To understand the full context, exactly that which Father Sretenovic was objecting, here are Mr. G's words:

    In the human body the organs that are the most shameful are those that are used to discharge the filth produced by the body; they are the penis, the vagina and the anus. The last is more shameful than the first two because it discharges solid detritus, while the others discharge liquid detritus, but these organs also are disgusting and shameful. Now then, the male and female sɛҳuąƖ functions are put into practice by these shameful organs. Therefore, it is undeniable that they share something of the same disgusting character of their other function.

    The reproductive organs are among the filthiest of the human body
    Even though the function of reproduction is much nobler than the function of eliminating the impurities of the body, there is a universally accepted association of those functions and, consequently, a natural psychological repulsion to view these organs.

    The repugnance for the exposition of these organs – either when they are in action or not – is universal among civilized people. Even among primitive and pagan people these organs are normally covered by clothing. To reach the point of boldly exhibiting these organs in public, a person or a group needs to have reached a great degree of moral degradation by losing any reserve of pudor or shame.

    The fact that the sɛҳuąƖ organs trigger the process of concupiscence and as such become greatly attractive – either in marriage or outside of it – does not nullify the normal repulsion they raise. So then, reactions of both shame and attraction are present regarding these organs.

. . .  Therefore, we see that the sɛҳuąƖ organs are tainted with the shame proper to the function of eliminating human waste, which is another function they have parallel to that of procreation. Consequently, the marital act shares an analogous repulsion.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/c048-Single_8.html