Category Archives: Lažni Pastiri

A Reader Asks: “Are Newchurch ‘Lay Deacons’ Kosher? Or Are They Just Another By-product of the Fake New Order?”

From: Neil

Lay Deacon at Mess

A Lay Deacon (Left) Joins a Novus Ordo Presbyter
At a Phony Novus Ordo Mess, Which Is Not a Mass
At the Novus Ordo Dinner Table, Which Is Not an Altar
The Vatican II Anti-council Concocted a New Order
Of Married “Lay Deacons” Not Dedicated the Clerical Ministry
Since the Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968
Newchurch No Longer Ordains Deacons, Priests, or Bishops
Under the Sacrament of Holy Orders
But Merely “Installs” (Like the Protestants) Invalid (Fake)
Lay Deacons, Presbyters, and Newbishops
Who Have No Sacramental Power

Dear TRADITIO Fathers:

The Newchurch diocese here is about to ordain fourteen new “deacons.” These are married, or lay, “deacons”; thus, these deacons’ “vocation” was not dedicated to the clerical ministry. Are these Newchurch deacons kosher? It seems again that Newchurch is certainly not Catholic, but Protestant — if Christian at all!

The TRADITIO Fathers Reply.

In 1967, as a result of the Vatican II Anti-council’s replacing Catholic Church with a Newchurch, a new order was created: “lay deacons.” In 1968 a Protestantized New Ordinal was adopted, which no longer ordains deacons, priests, or bishops under the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but merely “installs” (like the Protestants) invalid (fake) lay deacons, presbyters, and Newbishops.

Therefore, Newchurch has since 1968 not validly ordained anyone to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and Newchurch clergy are totally invalid, with its presbyters and Newbishops lacking any power whatever to confect the Holy Eucharist and to forgive sins. These “lay deacons” of whom you wrote are not in Holy Orders, but pretend to be some kind of assistant presbyters. The presbyters are invalid (fake) too!

Oglasi

Francis-Bergoglio Is Now Accelerating the Number of Auxiliary Newbishops In Order to Pack the College of Newbishops for the Indefinite Future

From: Petrus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Newchurch Bishops

There Are Now Twice as Many Newbishops, over 5,000
Than Sat at the Vatican II Anti-council in 1962-1965
Francis-Bergoglio Is Packing the College of Newbishops
With His Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Appointees
So His Successor Couldn’t Do Anything
To Raise Newchurch out of Heresy and Immorality —
Even if He Wanted To!

Francis-Bergoglio is now accelerating his appointment of auxiliary bishops in order to pack the College of Newbishops. In the last fifty days he has appointed or installed nineteen of them. That’s almost one every other day! He is filling Newchurch with colonels as the number of his corporals (his presbyters) continues to decline precipitously. It’s all chiefs and no Indians in the new, new top-heavy Newchurch. Such action is a classic sign of decline and fall in organizations.

Francis-Bergoglio does not just add auxiliaries where one might expect to find them under the last three Newpopes. He has appointed them to Bilbao, Spain; Elblag, Poland; El Alto, Bolivia; Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Germany; Montpelier, France; San Juan de Cuyo, Argentina; Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany; Riga, Lativa (a country having few Newchurchers to begin with); Lingayen-Dagupan, Philippines; Cartagena, Spain; Port Harcourt, Nigeria; and Cuenca, Ecuador.

Anybody can be a Newbishop in Francis-Bergoglio’s corrupt Newchurch. Why be a presbyter when you can be a Newbishop? As auxiliary bishops need to be maintained in order to support their “dignity,” there is pressure to promote auxiliaries to the office of Newdiocesan bishop. Hence Bergoglio is really appointing auxiliaries as a means of controlling the Newchurch hierarchy of the future. He is trying to rule the future of Newchurch to ensure that it continues in its pagan direction. Moreover, should even a Neocon Newchurcher be elected Newpope, he will soon discover that all of his regional managers just happen to be pagan Bergoglians, as a result of which he will not be able to make effective his conservative Protestant, but not traditional Catholic, commands.

Pope St. Pius V would allow auxiliaries only for cardinals and major archbishops where they had been well established. Most countries had none until recently, and even countries like France had them only in three or four major sees. Now every Presbyter Tom, Dick and Harry is a Newbishop Tom, Dick, and Harry!

Newchurch’s False Oecumenism Has Been Thwarted By a Major New Schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio & Bartholomew

Francis-Bergoglio Bows in Obeisance
To the Schismatic “Oecumenical” Patriarch Bartholomew
Bergoglio Has Said that He Doesn’t Like the Papacy
And Wants to Be “Oecumenical” with All the Other Patriarchs
However, the Worst Schism in the Eastern Orthodox Church
Since the Catholic-Orthodox Split of 1054
Has Caused a Shutdown of “Theological Dialogue”
Between the Orthodox and Francis-Bergoglio’s Newchurch

The so-called Oecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, Bartholomew of Constantinople, has provoked a schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church by recognizing the independent Orthodox Church of the Ukraine in January 2019. The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill of Moscow, has excommunicated Bartholomew and his followers because the Russian Orthodox Church considers the Ukraine part of its own territory. This new schism has been described as the most significant fracture since the original break between the Catholics and Orthodox in 1054.

As of May 17, 2019, delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the largest Orthodox Christian body, have withdrawn from common projects. The schism has caused a shutdown of “theological dialogue” between the Orthodox and Francis-Bergoglio’s Newchurch of the New Order. This dialogue has been working to redefine the Roman papacy so that the Orthodox can accept the pope not as supreme, but as merely a primus inter pares, as Patriarch of Rome, on a level with all the Orthodox Patriarchs. Ex-Newpope Benedict-Ratzinger and current Newpope Francis-Bergoglio have been hot to trot in this heretical direction. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Catholic World News.]

True Catholics, Bartholomew is not an “oecumenical” patriarch, recognized by all the other patriarchs. As time has gone along, more and more of the Eastern Orthodox are going into schism from him because the consider him a Leftist. The same is happening with respect to Francis-Bergoglio, whom more and more Catholics are considering a Leftist and a heretic, even calling for his deposition. As these leaders continue to depart from Scripture and Tradition, they are losing more and more of the once faithful, who do not regard them as legitimate.

Benedict XVI’s Letter on Sex Abuse Crisis: Highlights & Reaction Roundup

The “two Popes” circus continues…

Benedict XVI’s Letter on Sex Abuse Crisis:

Highlights & Reaction Roundup

On April 10, 2019, the “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI, with the prior permission of “Pope” Francis, published a 6000-word letter on the sexual abuse crisis in the German Klerusblatt (a regional periodical for clergy), which was released at the same time on the internet in various languages. The German original and the English translation of the missive are available here:

The editor of Inside the Vatican, Robert Moynihan, has opined that the letter is “absolutely the most important text Benedict has published since his resignation of the papacy in February 2013.”

In this post, we will first present what we believe to be the most significant quotes from the lengthy letter, followed by a reaction roundup from many different sources and perspectives.

Highlights of the Letter (all are direct quotations)

  • Since I myself had served in a position of responsibility as shepherd of the Church at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, and during the run-up to it, I had to ask myself – even though, as emeritus, I am no longer directly responsible – what I could contribute to a new beginning.
  • Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ’68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.
  • At the same time, independently of this development, Catholic moral theology suffered a collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society.
  • The crisis of the justification and presentation of Catholic morality reached dramatic proportions in the late ’80s and ’90s.
  • In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence (“infallibility”) only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion. But there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.
  • As regards the problem of preparation for priestly ministry in seminaries, there is in fact a far-reaching breakdown of the previous form of this preparation. In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries.
  • One bishop, who had previously been seminary rector, had arranged for the seminarians to be shown pornographic films, allegedly with the intention of thus making them resistant to behavior contrary to the faith.
  • There were — not only in the United States of America — individual bishops who rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole and sought to bring about a kind of new, modern “Catholicity” in their dioceses. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.
  • The question of pedophilia, as I recall, did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s. In the meantime, it had already become a public issue in the U.S., such that the bishops in Rome sought help, since canon law, as it is written in the new (1983) Code, did not seem sufficient for taking the necessary measures.
  • In light of the scale of pedophilic misconduct, a word of Jesus has again come to attention which says: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42). The phrase “the little ones” in the language of Jesus means the common believers who can be confounded in their faith by the intellectual arrogance of those who think they are clever. So here Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm. The modern use of the sentence is not in itself wrong, but it must not obscure the original meaning.
  • In the general awareness of the law, the Faith no longer appears to have the rank of a good requiring protection. This is an alarming situation which must be considered and taken seriously by the pastors of the Church.
  • In fact, it is important to see that such misconduct by clerics ultimately damages the Faith. Only where Faith no longer determines the actions of man are such offenses possible.
  • What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed. Only obedience and love for our Lord Jesus Christ can point the way.
  • We might then say that the first fundamental gift that Faith offers us is the certainty that God exists.
  • A society without God — a society that does not know Him and treats Him as non-existent — is a society that loses its measure. In our day, the catchphrase of God’s death was coined. When God does die in a society, it becomes free, we were assured. In reality, the death of God in a society also means the end of freedom, because what dies is the purpose that provides orientation.
  • Why did pedophilia reach such proportions? Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God. We Christians and priests also prefer not to talk about God, because this speech does not seem to be practical.
  • Indeed, in theology God is often taken for granted as a matter of course, but concretely one does not deal with Him.
  • Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern…. What predominates is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ’s death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery.
  • A young woman who was a [former] altar server told me that the chaplain, her superior as an altar server, always introduced the sexual abuse he was committing against her with the words: “This is my body which will be given up for you.”
  • Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus. One speaks of it almost exclusively in political categories, and this applies even to bishops, who formulate their conception of the church of tomorrow almost exclusively in political terms. The crisis, caused by the many cases of clerical abuse, urges us to regard the Church as something almost unacceptable, which we must now take into our own hands and redesign. But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope.
  • Today, the accusation against God is, above all, about characterizing His Church as entirely bad, and thus dissuading us from it. The idea of a better Church, created by ourselves, is in fact a proposal of the devil, with which he wants to lead us away from the living God, through a deceitful logic by which we are too easily duped.
  • It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth: Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil. But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible.
  • At the end of my reflections I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!

In sum, this text was a contribution typical for its author: Ratzinger has always been an academic know-it-all, totally incompetent in the practical order but always — or so he thinks — having all the answers in theory. He even introduces a new -ism into the controversy: guarantorism! (Garantismus). Apparently the perpetual professor still has not understood that the sex abuse epidemic in his Modernist sect does not need any more documents.

John Henry Westen, the editor-in-chief of Life Site, has produced a video clip with what he identifies as the top takeaways from the Emeritus letter:

Since the release of Benedict’s missive, a lot of reactions have poured in from all the different “wings” of the Novus Ordo Sect, as well as from some outside it. Most of the reactions can largely be sorted into three different categories, though not all to quite the same degree, of course: (1) Two thumbs up! (2) How dare he! and (3) Whatever!

We have collected many of the relevant links and presorted them by category for our readers:

(1) Two Thumbs Up! — And other mostly positive Reactions

(2) How Dare He! — And other mostly negative Reactions

(3) Whatever!

By the way: A sedevacantist critique of Ratzinger with regard to this letter has been penned by Dr. Thomas Droleskey:

On April 15, Francis paid a visit to the Emeritus to extend to him good wishes for his 92nd birthday the following day and for the upcoming feast of Easter, which they both claim to celebrate despite denying the dogma of Christ’s Resurrection (see here for Ratzinger and here for Bergoglio).

What will be the fallout of this letter? Ultimately, nothing. It is simply another flash in the pan: A big hullaballo is being made about it now, but give it two more weeks and no one will remember a thing about it. Francis will have moved on to 13 other things keeping all the journalists busy, and the Emeritus will once again be exercising his “contemplative” part of the “expanded ministry” he claims to share with Francis, until the whole circus starts over again about some other topic in a few months.

It’s getting old.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Ex-Newpope Benedict-Ratzinger Publicly Washes His Hands Like Pontius Pilate Of Personal Responsibility for Newchurch’s Great Sex & Embezzlement Holocaust

From: The TRADITIO Fathers


Karl Rahner & Josef Ratzinger

Two Heretics Booze It up at the Vatican II Anti-council (1962-1965)
Karl Rahner (Left), Declared under Suspicion of Heresy by Pope John XXIII
Presbyter Josef Ratzinger (Right), the Modernist Leader at the Anti-council
Who Preferred Dressing in a Secular Suit and Tie without Roman Collar
Ratzinger Engineered Replacing the Catholic Church
With the Heretical Newchurch of the New Order in 1964
Ratzinger Takes No Personal Responsibility
For All the Newchurch Sex Crimes against Children
Even though He Was the Prefect of Paedophilia for 24 Years
Instead Ratzinger Fobs off the Responsibility
Onto the “Cultural and Historical Changes” of the 1960s

On April 10, 2019, Ratzinger published a letter simultaneously in German at Klerusblatt, in Italian at Corriere della Sera, and in English at the Catholic News Agency and the National Catholic Register, in which, like a modern-day Pontius Pilate, the guilty Newpope publicly washed his hands of personal responsibility for Newchurch’s Great Sex & Embezzlement Holocaust, claiming instead: “The 1960s did it!”

Ratzinger had claimed in February 2013 that he had to abdicate for health reasons. In fact, it was known that the real reason for his abdication was that the international press was so tired of covering for his support of paedophile Newchurch clergy that the press threatened to expose the details of his activities if he didn’t abdicate. His personal aide-de-camp, Paolo Gabriele, himself tired of Ratzinger’s cover-up, had already given to the press reams of Ratzinger’s confidential documents. Six years later Ratzinger is in fact still alive at age 92 and is still writing.

Benedict-Ratzinger fobs off the responsibility for Newchurch’s Great Sex & Embezzlement Holocaust and the subsequent meltdown of the Newchurch of the New Order, co-founded by him in 1964 in conjunction with the Vatican II Anti-council to replace the Catholic Church with the heretical Newchurch of the New Order, upon the “cultural and historical changes” of the 1960s. He still refuses to take personal responsibility for the paedophile crimes by Newchurch clergy, over which he himself had responsibility, together with the First Paedophile Newpope JPII-Wojtyla, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981-2005, then as the Second Paedophile Newpope, from 2005-2013.

JPII-Wojtyla essentially handed off to Ratzinger the responsibility for taking care of paedophile crimes by Newchurch presbyters, Newbishops, and Newcardinals for 24 years. During that time Ratzinger quietly let thousands of Newchurch sex criminals get away with their vile sex crimes against children, only to repeat those crimes against other children time and time again.

At the Vatican II Anti-council (1962-1965), Ratzinger was one of the heretical Modernist leaders who subverted the Church from within and is now trying to exonerate himself from all blame. Even at death’s door, he is dishonest and unapologetic. Benedict-Ratzinger became the Second Padeophile Newpope in 2005, succeeding his mentor, the First Paedophile Newpope JPII-Wojtyla. Ratzinger has remained a heretic Modernist his entire life, while occasionally slopping on a veneer of conservatism to fool the clueless Neocon Newchurchers. He was never “traditionalist,” as some Neocon Newchurchers tried to persuade the world at the time and have now recanted from that contention. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by BBC News.]

True Catholics, presbyter Ratzinger was in fact the leader at the Vatican II Anti-council who personally devised the “subsists in” heresy that was written into the new constitution for the Newchurch, Lumen gentium, in 1964. This heresy denies the dogma that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, but instead claims that Christ’s Church “subsists in” heretical Protestantism, infidel Mohammedanism, pagan Hinduism, and atheistic Buddhism. Even Newchurchers have finally had it with Benedict-Ratzinger. His letter has sparked fierce criticism from theologians who claim that it is “deeply flawed” and does not address structural issues that abetted sex-assault cover-ups or Ratzinger’s own abominable 24-year rule as Prefect of Paedophiles.

Down on his Knees: Francis Kisses Feet of Four African Politicians

Bergoglio can’t kneel? My foot!

Down on his Knees:Francis kisses Feet of four South Sudanese Politicians

Francis’ knees never cease to amaze. Whenever kneeling is required or suggested for the worship of God, the 82-year-old Jesuit from Buenos Aires usually has terrible problems bending his knees (cf. Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10). But somehow it’s only then.

Genuflecting after the “consecration” of the Novus Ordo worship service? Too difficult.Kneeling in adoration before what he claims to believe is Christ in the Blessed Sacrament? Can’t do it — get him a chair. Kneeling on a comfortable kneeler before the Monstrance during the procession for the Feast of Corpus ChristiDon’t be silly!

Whenever, however, kneeling has something to do with man, Jorge Bergoglio is the first to exhaust his physical abilities: Kneeling to wash the feet of as many as 12 people who belong to be a politically correct group? Not a problem! Kneeling to demonstrate before the media how he is humbly going to confession? Sure thing! Kneeling to receive a “blessing” from Protestant “charismatics”? But of course! Kneeling before “relics” of Anglican pseudo-martyrs? Bend them knees! Kneeling before the poor in veneration? That’s something everyone should do!

And now, Bergoglio has outdone himself again. As of today, Apr. 11, 2019, the world has seen him kneeling before four different politicians from South Sudan, each one separately, and kissing their feet before rolling cameras — Francis makes it possible! The people whose feet he kissed included Salva Kiir Mayardit, the current President of South Sudan. Have a look:

It is clear that Francis is indeed struggling with getting down on his knees, and/or getting up again afterwards. But here he demonstrates that he is quite capable if only he is willing to — and it’s not like he’d be lacking assistance from his staff at other times. In short: It’s a question of priority for him. When and before whom or what does this false pope care to kneel? Now we know!

As to the background of what happened in the Vatican today that puts this ultimate subservient gesture in context: Politicians of warring factions in the nation of South Sudan had just completed a two-day “spiritual retreat” in the Vatican given by — this is not a joke — the Anglican “Archbishop” of Canterbury, Justin Welby! The primary aim was to prevent war from breaking out in South Sudan.

On Apr. 9, the Vatican Press Office had released the following statement:

The Holy Father, Pope Francis, approved the proposal presented by the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Justin Welby, to organize a spiritual retreat to take place in the Vatican, within the Domus Sanctae Marthae, from the 10-11 of this month of April, in which the highest civil and ecclesiastical authorities of South Sudan will participate.

Representing the civil authorities in the event, are the members of the Presidency of the Republic of South Sudan, who, under the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan,will assume positions of great national responsibility this coming 12 May: Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit, President of the Republic, as well as four of the five designated Vice Presidents: Mr. Riek Machar Teny Dhurgon, Mr. James Wani Igga, Mr. Taban Deng Gai and Ms. Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior. Representing the ecclesiastical authorities of the country, eight members of the South Sudan Council of Church will take part in the retreat. His Excellency, Archbishop John Baptist Odama, Archbishop of Gulu (Uganda), and the Reverend Father Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator, S.J., President of the Conference of Major Superiors of Africa and Madagascar, will provide the preaching during the retreat.

This event, both ecumenical and diplomatic at the same time, was organized by mutual agreement between the Secretariat of State and the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the goal of offering on the part of the Church a propitious occasion for reflection and prayer, as well as an occasion for encounter and reconciliation, in a spirit of respect and trust, to those who in this moment have the mission and the responsibility to work for a future of peace and prosperity for the South Sudanese people.

The conclusion of the retreat will take place on the afternoon of Thursday, the 11th, when, at 5:00pm, the Holy Father will pronounce His discourse. Following that, those participating in the retreat will be given a Bible, signed by His Holiness Pope Francis, by His Grace Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by the Reverend John Chalmers, former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, with the message “Seek that which unites. Overcome that which divides”. At the end, the leaders of South Sudan, who will take up the common task for peace, will receive the blessing.

(Declaration of the interim director of the Holy See Press Office, Alessandro GisottiVatican.va, Apr. 9, 2019; italics given.)

After the “retreat” with Mr. Welby, Francis gave a concluding address for those who had come for the event, the text of which is available here. The following video shows the concluding formalities, with Francis giving his address and then, at the very end, making his double genuflections before each of the four politicians and bending down to kiss their feet:

You can’t make this stuff up!

As for the involvement of the Anglicans: Francis has long had a love affair with Anglicanism, that false religion that began because King Henry VIII couldn’t obtain a marriage annulment from Pope Clement VII in the 16th century and hence pronounced himself the head of the “Church of England.”

The following links demonstrate just how far Francis’ embrace of Anglicanism goes:

This is pure and unabashed Indifferentism.

The truly Catholic position on Anglicanism is beautifully expressed in these two important magisterial documents from the time when true Popes sat on the Chair of St. Peter:

The evidence is clear: Francis is not a Catholic; and he worships man, not God.

Francis-Bergoglio Appoints the Corrupt Wilton Gregory To Become the Newarchbishop of Washington, D.C., to Succeed Two Paedophile Newcardinals

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Wilton Gregory

The Corrupt Wilton Gregory, Newarchbishop of Atlanta, Georgia
Has Been Appointed by Francis-Bergoglio to Move to Washington, D.C.
To Succeed the Two Paedophile Newcardinals
Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl
Wilton Himself Has a Checkered Past
The Duplicitous Gregory Talks a Good Game about Serving the Poor
But Then He Diverted over Two Million U.S. Dollars from a Bequest
To Build for Himself a New Archiepiscopal Palace
The Public Outcry Was So Great
That He Was Forced to Sell off His Palace after Just three Months

On April 4, 2019, Wilton Gregory, currently Newarchbishop of Atlanta, Georgia, was appointed by Francis-Bergoglio to succeed Newcardinals Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl, both of whom were implicated in paedophile crimes. Francis-Bergoglio didn’t want to oust either of them, but because the public outcry was so great, he was eventually forced to do so. Gregory has not yet been implicated in paedophile crimes, but he has been associated with financial malfeasance. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Catholic World News.]

Wilton Gregory has never been ordained as a Catholic priest or consecrated as a Catholic bishop under the traditional Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders. He was merely “installed” in 1973 as a Newchurch presbyter (minister) to “preside over the assembly of the people” under the invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968. He was merely “installed” in 1993 as a Newbishop under the same invalid New Ordinal.

Wilton Gregory has had a checkered past, which includes:

  1. Gregory pushed the invalid “New Mess” of 1969 as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic [Sic] Bishops “Liturgy” Committee from 2015-2018.
  2. Gregory supported Francis-Bergoglio’s 2016 document on marriage, Amoris laetitia, which even Newchurch cardinals and bishops condemned as heretical.
  3. Gregory refused to fire Newmonsignor Henry Gracz, a virulent pro-sodomite presbyter, whom Gregory had appointed as a spiritual advisor to sex-crime victims. Gregory rejected the petition of his own Newchurchers to can Gracz and instead praised him for his pro-sodomite orientation.
  4. Gregory divereted 2,200,000 dollars from a bequest to the Atlanta Newarchdiocese to build a new archbishop’s palace for himself. When his duplicity (Gregory claims to be an advocate for the poor) was exposed and his own Newchurchers condemned him, Gregory issued the standard mea culpa press release and was pressure to sell his new palace and return the money to the purposes for which the bequest was intended,

True Catholics, that Francis-Bergoglio should appoint Wilton Gregory, with his checkered background, to replace two paedophile Newarchbishops in the United States’ capital city shows clearly that Bergoglio and his Newchurch leaders have learned nothing since the Great Sex & Embezzlement Holocaust. They remain arrogant and unrepentant, in fact, while they try to cover up their crimes with empty words. In the United States, Washington, D.C., is known as “The Swamp” because of the corruption of the longtime politicians there. The corrupt Wilton Gregory will fit in perfectly with these!

Five Sorrowful Decades: Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Novus Ordo Missae at 50…

Five Sorrowful Decades:
Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

by Francis del Sarto

“Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” –Dietrich von Hildebrand

“Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.” –Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B.

“Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” –Fr. Joseph Gelineau

“The reform of the liturgy is irreversible.” –“Pope” Francis

For the past half-century the vast majority of the 1.2 billion people identifying as Roman Catholic around the world have had as their “ordinary” form of worship a rite that would have seemed utterly alien to most of the faithful who lived in the nearly two millennia leading up to it. These forebears certainly would not have seen it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they knew and so cherished, once described by Fr. Frederick Faber as “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”. Only knowledgeable Catholics who had lived in the past 500 years would recognize it at all, but even then only as something resembling the false form of the worship services concocted by Protestant “Reformers” as a direct rival to the Mass, a veritable anti-Mass.

It was on Holy Thursday, April 3, 1969, that “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini)promulgated the “Apostolic Constitution” Missale Romanum as part of a liturgical “renewal” he said had begun with Pope Pius XII’s restoration of Holy Week services as “the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”. We are permitted to be highly skeptical of Montini’s assertion that a return to antiquated forms may somehow be more relevant to contemporary worshippers after centuries of disuse than those that have developed organically. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who explicitly rejected “the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 63).

Paul VI’s “Promulgation of the Roman Missal” was in reality the announcement of a non-Catholic, pseudo-Roman Missal meant to supplant the true Roman rite as promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in the 1570 Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Of course, we know now that the unstated goal of this new worship service was the ushering in of a new religion — the replacing of the Catholic lex orandi, lex credendi for a crypto-Modernist counterfeit. It was to eliminate the true Mass once and forever, and replace it with a fake “revised” version.

The fact that April 3, 1969, was not only Holy Thursday that year but also the first day of the Jewish Passover, is surely more than simple coincidence; for the New Mass is the Modernist repudiation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, much as observing Passover after the institution of the New Covenant is intended to reject the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is its fulfillment.

From Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Memorial Meal

Despite a few red flags in the language of Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — vocabulary such as “[t]he words Mysterium fidei [mystery of Faith] have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation” — it would be three days later that the full heterodox orientation of Montini’s changes became patently obvious. On April 6, the official rubrics of the “new order of the Mass” (novus ordo Missae as it was called) were published along with an accompanying General Instruction of the Roman Missal (sometimes abbreviated GIRM). This new order of Mass has since become known as the “New Mass”, the “Pauline Mass”, the “Mass of Paul VI,” or simply the “Novus Ordo.”

The following links highlight the stark differences between the Roman Mass of the ages and the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI:

The publication of this “revised” Roman rite led to a prompt counterattack by Catholics, principally in the form of the justly celebrated Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (aka The Ottaviani Intervention because its principal author was Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani), which argued, among other things, that the revised liturgy constituted “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” and “has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant”.

This was by no means an exaggeration, as the Critical Study copiously demonstrated. Indeed, even Paul VI’s very definition of what the Holy Catholic Mass is was a blatant surrender to Protestantism. The first edition of the GIRM defined the Mass as follows:

The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

(“General Instruction of the Roman Missal”Missale Romanum: Ordo Missae Editio Typica [Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969], n. 7)

Martin Luther could not have said it better himself!

When contrasted with the true and traditional Catholic definition of the Holy Mass, such as can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism, the departure from orthodoxy appears most striking: “The Mass is the true and especial Sacrifice of the New Law; in it Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the priest, offers His Body and Blood to God the Father, under the appearances of bread and wine, by a mystical immolation in an unbloody manner” (Cardinal Peter Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism [Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932], n. 385). That’s the Catholic definition.

In his Intervention, Cardinal Ottaviani chastised Paul VI for his overtly Protestant definition, charging:

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

– The Real Presence – The reality of the Sacrifice – The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates – The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.”

In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.

(Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Antonio Bacci, et al., Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, Sept. 25, 1969)

On March 26, 1970, the Vatican released a second edition of the GIRM, in which the original definition was revised. The result was visibly little more than damage control: “At Mass that is, the Lord’s Supper, the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (n. 27).

“Pope” Montini had cited the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as providing the impetus for his revision butchering of the Roman rite of Mass. And fittingly it was during deliberations over that document that Cardinal Ottaviani was in the midst of heated exchanges that ultimately led to the highly symbolic moment at the Council when this great voice of Tradition was literally silenced. A review of The Liturgical Movement by Fr. Didier Bonneterre notes:

During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:

Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.

So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.

The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session…

(Michael Davies, “The Liturgical Movement”The Remnant, n.d.)

Paul VI knew very well what detrimental effects this “New Mass” would have upon the people. During the last General Audience before its universal use became mandatory, “Pope” Montini prophesied:

We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.

Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

(Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969. English translation taken from “40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite – II: a Requiem, by Paul VI”Rorate Caeli, Nov. 29, 2009; underlining added.)

More than anything else in the post-conciliar epoch, it was Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae that catapulted the new religion of Vatican II into the souls of unsuspecting Catholics throughout the world. Montini was a spiritual terrorist of the worst possible sort.

How Missale Romanum Aided the Devil’s War against the Mass

In the March-April 1993 issue of the sedevacantist journal Catholic Restoration, there appeared an article entitled “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion” by John Kenneth Weiskittel. The theme of the article was to examine accusations that “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, who had presided over the fateful “reform” of the liturgy, had been a Freemason whose goal was to de-Catholicize the worship of the Church. While it’s not been proven beyond doubt that he was a Lodge brother, circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. The recent biography Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy by Yves Chiron devotes a few pages to this question (pp. 171-175) but does not reach a definitive conclusion either way.

Certainly, the effects of the Novus Ordo rite on souls could not have been any more deleterious if the rite had been concocted by a Freemason. Bugnini, the architect of the post-conciliar liturgy, was in truth what many called him, namely, the “gravedigger of the Mass” and the “evil spirit of the liturgical reform”. (And, may we suggest, he would make an excellent addition to the rogue’s gallery of Novus Ordo Modernist “saints” who best exemplify the “ideals” of Vatican II.)

Bugnini was Paul VI’s Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and would be appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship in May of 1969. Mr. Weiskittel, in a section aptly titled “The War Against the Mass”, shows how the new liturgy of Montini and Bugnini worked to the advantage of occult forces bent on the Church’s destruction:

“Justly,” writes Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, “has St. Bonaventure called the Mass a compendium of all God’s love and of all his benefits to men. Hence the devil has always sought to deprive the world of the Mass by means of heretics, constituting them precursors of Antichrist, whose first efforts shall be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and according to the prophet Daniel, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts shall be successful: And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins” [Dan 8:12].

For many Catholics the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the publication of a “new order of the Mass.” There can be no question that with the introduction of the new “Mass” the Conciliar revolution shifted into a higher gear. All of the errors of the Council now more quickly became apparent and spread with greater ease; the Novus Ordo Missae constituting their very embodiment. Whereas the [traditional] Latin Mass is a sacramental action aimed at giving glory to God, the object of the new “Mass” is a social action centered around the congregation.

The Latin Mass is one thing, and one thing only, the perfect mode of divine worship. For the “reformers,” however, this was precisely the problem with it. Oh, they pushed the idea that the Mass had to be made more “relevant” and “understandable” to the man in the pew, and that a “return to ancient liturgical forms” was the way to accomplish this. But, in truth, there was only one real reason for eliminating the Tridentine Mass: Its continued survival constituted a major obstacle to the imposition of a new belief system on Catholics; hence, it had to go. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy summed this up well, when he wrote:

One final problem remained. The Reformers feared that “nothing would come out of the Council.” Even though they had managed to insert into the “official” Documents of the Council their false ideas, they knew that this alone was insufficient…. Change would occur far too slowly for the impatient innovators. The greater majority of the faithful had never asked for the Council (the Curia had opposed it also), and were perfectly content with the way the Church had always been. Even John XXIII had acknowledged and praised it as being “vibrant with vitality.” For most people things would have gone on much as before. It was absolutely necessary to introduce into the fabric of the everyday life of the Christian, all these new ideas, the “new economy of the Gospel.” How then to achieve this? The answer was obvious. One had to “reform” the Liturgy. [Rama P. Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition(London: Perennial Books, 1981), p. 137.]

This is in line with the apostate [priest and occultist Paul] Roca’s thinking, who, along with calling for “the scientific, economic, and social transfiguration of our … sacraments,” writes [in his book Glorious Centennial]:

As long as Christian ideas remained in a state of sacramental incubation, in our hands and under the veil of liturgy, they were unable to exert any efficacious and scientifically decisive social effect upon the organic and public government of human societies. [Quoted in Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 191]

The new “Mass,” likewise, would need to reflect the “ecumenical,” “humanistic,” “universalist,” “socially relevant” activism of the Conciliar Church — abominations like the civil rights “Mass,” the farm workers’ “Mass,” the Marxist “Mass,” the feminist “Mass,” the homosexual “Mass,” which removed the focus from God to “special interest groups” [that] required a fitting service for their “social gospel” messages. And they got just that with the “reformed” rite. While these are extreme manifestations, to be sure, they are accepted extremes in the Conciliar religion and serve to underscore the doctrinal gulf that separates the true Catholic faith from the new “Catholic” faith.

(John K. Weiskittel, “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion”; italics added and some formatting adjusted.)

Theory aside, the last 50 years are proof positive of the destructive nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, for, with very few exceptions, the generations raised with that liturgy have no concept whatsoever of the true Roman Catholic religion.

The apostate priest Paul Roca [1830-1893], quoted above, also had a rather remarkable prediction to make, one that must have seemed absurd in the 19th century but which, in the 21st, is basically just a recap of historical fact:

[T]he divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council, which will restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.

(Paul Roca, qtd. in Bp. Rudolf Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, trans. by Susan Johnson [Gerrards Cross: Van Duren C. P., Ltd., 1974], p. 35)

What are we to make of Roca’s prescient vision of the Church being radically transformed by a council in the not-too-distant future? It could be just idle boasting, or it could be something more sinister. Did he have insider knowledge of what the secret societies were planning against the Church? In any case, we notice the striking similarities between Roca’s prophecy and Paul VI’s fulfillment:

  • Roca: Liturgy to be transformed at an Ecumenical Council
    Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for a revision of the liturgy
  • Roca: Said change will “restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.”
    Paul VI in Missale Romanum: The revision is based on “ancient sources”, the “doctrinal and spiritual riches” of which must be brought to light in order to adapt “the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”

How appropriate for Montini to choose “Paul” — Roca’s first name — as his “papal” name!

Francis Speaks Out in Favor of Missale Romanum and against “Nostalgic Past Tendencies”

The usually loquacious Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) somehow managed not to bring up the topic of his predecessor’s paradigm-smashing document this April 3, though he had already brought it up earlier in the year. Speaking to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Vatican on February 14, 2019, in typical fashion he made some Catholic-sounding noises, only to abruptly take a hard left turn in his discourse: “We must rediscover the reality of the sacred liturgy, and not reduce it”, he declared; but by no means was he making an appeal to restore the traditional Latin Mass to its rightful place in once-Catholic churches.

On the contrary — after all, this is Francis we’re talking about. The Vatican II “liturgical renewal”, he told those gathered, was greatly furthered in 1969 by the actions of Montini:

In the first months of that year the first fruits of the reform accomplished by the Apostolic See flourished for the benefit of the People of God. On precisely this date the Motu proprio Mysterii paschalis was promulgated regarding the Roman calendar and the liturgical year (14 February 1969); then, the important Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), with which the Holy Pope [sic] promulgated the Roman Missal. In the same year the Ordo Missae and various other Ordo were issued….

(Francis, Address to Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentsZenit, Feb. 14, 2019; italics given.)

The entire address provides many insights into Bergoglio’s mindset, which shows a determined revolutionary bent, as reflected in the following passage, where he contrasts the “irreversible” revised liturgy of Paul VI with what went before:

The liturgy is not “the field of do-it-yourself”, but the epiphany of ecclesial communion. Therefore, “we”, and not “I”, resounds in prayers and gestures; the real community, not the ideal subject. When we look back to nostalgic past tendencies or wish to impose them again, there is the risk of placing the part before the whole, the “I” before the People of God, the abstract before the concrete, ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual.

In this sense, the title of your assembly is valuable: The liturgical formation of the People of God. The task that awaits us is indeed essentially that of spreading among the People of God the splendour of the living mystery of the Lord, Who makes Himself manifest in the liturgy.

(italics given)

Just beneath the surface of his words we can see the conflict between the worship services of two opposing religious belief systems: Catholic vs. Novus Ordo. Francis condemns the Catholic conception of the liturgy every step of the way:

  • Stressing the “we” over the “I” is coded language for saying that the priest has no unique role as the alter Christus (“another Christ”), the one who offers the Mass in the person of Christ Himself; now it’s all about a community offering “praise and thanksgiving” (but not the sin-atoning Sacrifice of Calvary)
  • He restates the same when he condemns those “placing the part before the whole, the ‘I’ before the ‘People of God’”, and this criticism is also directed against whom Paul VI referred to as “pious persons … having their respectable way of listening to Mass, [who] will [now] feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others” (that is, their interior prayers are now interrupted by the humanistic spectacle of the “People of God”, including an often even irreverent “presider” who acts more as entertainer or assembly leader than as sacrificing priest)
  • Bergoglio’s warning against putting “the abstract before the concrete” may be an unspoken denial of the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, which he possibly regards as abstract and unreal, not to mention unimportant, especially when the concrete — community — is to be preferred
  • His criticism of putting “ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual” is absurd: The traditional Latin Mass is worldly and ideological?Really? This is yet another astounding Bergoglian black is white, white is black inversion of truth. If anything, it is the “New Mass” that is worldly, first of all because of its invalidity, but also because of its focus moved away from God and onto the congregation, and the systemic and ubiquitous liturgical “abuses” that are always focused away from the Divine, including a pastor riding a bull down the center aisle of a church, a tango in the “sanctuary” before the watchful gaze of Bergoglio, the utter chaos of “Cardinal” Christoph Schonborn’s youth liturgies, a monstrance delivered by drone, and a Super-Soaker water pistol used for sprinkling the people with holy water, and untold other liturgical and spiritual abominations, all of which can be excused by the rubric of “mak[ing] the liturgy relevant to the modern mind”, so fundamental to Montini’s justification for the changes
  • And of course one would be hard-pressed to find a bigger ideologue than Bergoglio, who reads his political and Naturalist ideology into just about every Scripture passage he preaches on; and his one-foot-in/one-foot-out-of-the-closet Marxism is by definition materialist and mundane

So, as comes as no surprise, Francis’ presentation is quite congruent with the raison d’être of the Pauline “Mass”. Fifty years later, Missale Romanum is still a foundation stone to the whole rotten Novus Ordo superstructure.

Rejecting the Conciliar Church Means First Rejecting the New “Mass”

As shown above, the Novus Ordo Missae is the most crucial “reform” of the Modernists, because by its very nature it first compromises and then utterly destroys the Faith of those who attend it. In 2002, a Patrick Buchanan column entitled “An Index of Catholicism’s Decline” included the following statistic: “By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

There is a bit of an error there, for it should read, “70 percent of all Novus Ordos”. This is the grim legacy of the Montini-Bugnini liturgy: a dissolving of even the most rudimentary Catholic beliefs. An amusing irony, however, must not escape us: In the case of Paul VI’s invalid New Mass and its equally invalid “priests”, those 70% of people who do not believe in the Real Presence happen to be unintentionally correct, for in their “Mass”, Christ is truly not present!

But some much-needed levity aside, the unhappy anniversary of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo liturgy is one to be bemoaned, not celebrated. The “New Mass” is a destroyer of souls. We must work tirelessly to bring benighted people into the light, so that they may see that it is not Catholic, is not a Mass, does not please God, and is frightfully harmful to souls.

By the way, an anagram of Novus Ordo Missae is, “a dubious norm S.O.S.”.

How very appropriate.

Naturalism at Full Blast: Francis on the Existence of All Religions

Naturalism at Full Blast:
Francis on the Existence of all Religions

None are so blind as those who refuse to see…

At today’s General Audience, the Jesuit apostate Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) reflected on the trip he took this past weekend to Rabat, Morocco, where he proclaimed that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine” and other heretical idiocies. Surprisingly, he did not comment on April 3 being the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo Missae (“New Order of the Mass”) of “Pope” Paul VI, the liturgical travesty that passes for the “Roman Catholic Mass” at your local Novus Ordo parish.

An English transcript of the audience has been provided by Zenit (video is available here):

It will be worth our while to go through that text and highlight some of the most egregious errors:

My pilgrimage followed in the footsteps of two Saints: Francis of Assisi and John Paul II. 800 years ago, Francis took the message of peace and fraternity to Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil; in 1985, Pope Wojtyla carried out [h]is memorable visit to Morocco, after having received in the Vatican — first among the Muslim Heads of State — King Hassan II.

No doubt Francis followed the behavior and teaching of his apostate predecessor John Paul II, but he most certainly did not follow “in the footsteps” of St. Francis of Assisi, as we have pointed out before. Far from preaching some interreligious creedless “peace and fraternity”, St. Francis had a distinctly supernatural message to share, one that pertained directly to the sultan’s salvation:

The Sultan Meledin asked him who sent them, and for what purpose they came? Francis answered with courageous firmness: “We are not sent by men, but it is the Most High who sends me, in order that I may teach you and your people the way of salvation, by pointing out to you the truths of the Gospel.” He immediately preached to him, with great fervor, the dogma of One God in Three Persons, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind.

(Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, The Life of S. Francis of Assisi [New York, NY: D. & J. Sandlier & Co., 1889], pp. 197-198)

“Pope” Francis can only claim to be following St. Francis of Assisi for as long as people don’t actually bother to look up the story. But then, that’s what Novus Ordo Watch is here for!

Francis continues:

However, some might ask: why does the Pope go to the Muslims and not just to Catholics? Why are there so many religions, and why ever are there so many religions? With the Muslims we are descendants of the same Father, Abraham[.]

Why are there so many religions? That’s easy: Because people have been deceived by Satan and/or have refused to listen to the truth and preferred their own ideas to the naturally knowable truth and to divine revelation.

Just think of the Israelites in the desert. Even a great many of them, for whom the true God had worked miracles to release them from bondage in Egypt, turned to idolatry, worshipping a molten calf (see Ex 32:1-6). Why did they do so? Because they had grown impatient while their leader, Moses, was on Mount Horeb speaking to that very God who had parted the Red Sea to save them from the Egyptians and had given them miraculous food from Heaven (see Ex 15:13-30 and Ex 16:11-15).

Francis’ comment that Muslims and Catholics “are descendants of the same Father, Abraham”, can be understood in two ways, but either way is false:

  • naturally: we are descended from the same biological ancestor through natural generation — this is false, for, although some Catholics are physically linked to Abraham, most of them are not, and the Church of Jesus Christ, in any case, makes no distinction between the two: “Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all” (Col 3:11). See also Jn 6:64.
  • supernaturally: we both share the same Faith of Abraham and thus have a spiritual link — this is false, too, for Muslims reject Christ, as do the Jews. They therefore cannot have the Faith of Abraham and therefore there is no spiritual connection: “Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:7,9,29). See also Lk 3:8, Jn 8:39, and Rom 9:7.

Thus, it is easy to see that Francis’ statement about Muslims and Catholics having the same father, Abraham, is false and heretical on both counts.

The apostate Jesuit continues:

[W]hy does God permit so many religions? God willed to permit this: the theologians of Scholasticism referred to God’s permissive voluntas [will]He willed to permit this reality: there are so many religions; some are born of the culture, but always looking to Heaven, looking at God.

It’s interesting to see that Francis now suddenly brings up God’s permissive will, the very thing he denied in Abu Dhabi on Feb. 4, 2019, in which document on human fraternity he blasphemously affirmed that God willed different religions to exist in the same sense in whichHe also willed there to be different sexes, races, colors, and languages — and that is His activewill, not merely His permissive will.

Here we see Francis throwing a crumb to the likes of Athanasius Schneider, who is now happily telling the world that ‘Francis meant permissive will’, when it is clear that the text of the document does not permit such a reading at all:

Of course, Bergoglio’s claim that all religions — “so many”, as he says — are “always looking to Heaven, looking at God”, is erroneous as well, to say the least. Notice how the language Francis uses there is deliberately vague: Just what does “looking to Heaven” or “looking at God” mean? This lack of clarity is deliberate, of course. Why should he communicate clearly when he can do so obscurely and thus allow different people to understand his words in different ways?

Regardless of what exactly he intended by his words, however, it is clear that they are false. For there are many religions that most certainly do not “look at God” or Heaven. The most obvious counterexample to Francis’ claim would be Satanism. There are other religions, too, that deny the existence of a single God, such  as Hinduism, or of a personal God, as does Buddhism. Of course, none of that matters to Francis, who is on record stating that “the true religions are the development of the capacity that humanity has to transcend itself towards the absolute.” That is textbook Modernism!

So God “willed to permit this reality” of many different religions. That is true. But so what? It is irrelevant. God also willed to permit the fall of Lucifer (Satan), the fall of Adam and Eve, idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, murder, abortion, child abuse, adultery, wars, and every other evil that can be found in this world. What are we to conclude from that?

Chaos Frank continues:

However, what God wills is fraternity among us in a special way — here is the reason for this trip — with our brothers, children of Abraham like us, the Muslims. We must not be scared by the difference: God has permitted this.  We must be scared if we don’t act with fraternity, to walk together in life.

Ah! So there is the conclusion the Argentinian Jesuit wants us to draw: “We must not be scared by the difference [because] God has permitted this”. It’s too bad that this conclusion is a non sequitur — that is, it does not follow. As enumerated above, there are a great many things God permits that we must be afraid of, especially sin and other spiritual dangers, but also physical ones, of course.

Francis is introducing an extremely dangerous new idea into the minds of his sheeple here: He teaches that because God permits something, it need not be feared, that “it’s okay”. It should be obvious how spiritually ruinous such an idea is guaranteed to be. And what does Scripture say? “Pierce thou my flesh with thy fear: for I am afraid of thy judgments” (Ps 118:120); “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10:28).

Ah, but now Francis contradicts himself, for he says: “We must be scared if we don’t act with fraternity, to walk together in life.” What? Does God not also permit us to act without“fraternity”? Logic is a dangerous enemy for theological shysters.

Back to the Jesuit’s audience text:

To serve hope, at a time like ours, means first of all to build bridges between the civilizations. And it was a joy and an honor for me to be able to do so with the noble Kingdom of Morocco, meeting its people and its rulers. Remembering some important international summits that in the last years have been held in that country; with King Mohammed VI we confirmed the essential role of religions in defending human dignity and promoting peace, justice, the care of Creation, that is, our common home. In this perspective, we also signed together with the King an Appeal for Jerusalem, so that the Holy City is preserved as patrimony of humanity and place of peaceful encounter, especially for the faithful of the three monotheist religions.

The “hope” Francis has in mind here is clearly of a Naturalist kind. He means by it the prospect of a better future, a more humane world, a world in which (at best) many natural virtues are to be found, but also, and especially, one in which all the Masonic ideals are upheld, especially freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, the dignity of man, and so forth. This, however, has nothing to do with the supernatural virtue of hope by which we are saved (see Rom 8:24), and to which Christ calls all men, and which all Catholics, especially the Pope, have a duty to proclaim (see 1 Pet 3:15).

Francis’ statement that all religions play an “essential role … in defending human dignity and promoting peace, justice, the care of Creation” is likewise false. The only true religion, the Catholic religion, does indeed play a role in that, but all other religions only have one legitimate role to play: to go away. Their existence is merely permitted by God (remember?!), not willed by Him. They ought not to exist and therefore have no role to play in anything.

Such a thing is entirely clear when one considers religion from the supernatural perspective, but of course Francis doesn’t do that because he is a Naturalist. For him, the purpose of religion is essentially a natural one, that is, focused on the temporal world as its proper end. The idea is to “make this world a better place”, according to Francis — for him, religion has nothing essentially or primarily to do with the worship of God, the acceptance of divine revelation, or the salvation of souls for a blessed eternity. The supernatural end of man is, to him, secondary at best, if it is acknowledged at all.

This explains why Francis was able to say, so nonchalantly, in Morocco that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine”. For him, it’s not about Faith but about experience, feeling. Hence he also condemns proselytism. Religion, in the Bergoglian mind, is first and foremost the means to making the world a better place, not to adore God or save one’s soul so as to reach the ultimate purpose for which one was created: eternal blessedness with God in Heaven.

After talking about his favorite worldly concern, that of helping migrants invade Europe, Bergoglio says:

I don’t like to say migrants; I prefer to say migrant persons. Do you know why? Because [the word] migrant is an adjective, whereas the term person is a subject. We have fallen into the culture of the adjective: we use so many adjectives and very often we forget the subjects, namely, the substance. An adjective is always linked to a subject, to a person; therefore, a migrant person. So there is respect and one doesn’t fall into this culture of the adjective, which is too liquid, too gaseous.

No doubt there is some gas here that needs to be relieved, and we can start with Francis’ butchering of grammar. “Migrant”, of course, is a noun, not an adjective, when referring to people. Perhaps it is derived from the adjective migrant, which, however, requires a noun it modifies, such as migrant birds. The word “person” is a noun, too, and whether or not it is a subject depends on how it is used in a sentence.

So Bergoglio doesn’t like using adjectives as nouns. In other words, no more Catholics — they will now be people who practice Catholicism. That is odd, given that he is the very one who constantly refers to the poor, the marginalized, the sick, and the elderly. Perhaps we will soon hear him talking about those who have littlethose who are not at the centerthose who do not enjoy good health, and those who have lived a long time already.

Enough already of the Bergoglian drivel! There is more that could be said about Francis’ words at his General Audience today, but we will end our analysis here.

Francis’ promotion of “human fraternity” is not the Christian charity to which we are called by God but a Modernist-Masonic counterfeit. It was rejected by Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of Sillonism:

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can.” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

(Pope Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining added.)

Any questions?

One final note: Our most recent podcast, TRADCAST EXPRESS 081, provides some insightful and entertaining commentary on Francis’ spiritual crimes in Morocco:

If denial of the known truth caused weight gain, this guy couldn’t fit into St. Peter’s Square.

Image source: youtube.com (Vatican Media; screenshot)
License: fair use

Canadian newbishops restore funding to pro-abortionists they also fund atheistic marxism

Canadian Newbishops Restore Funding to Pro-abortionists
They Also Fund Atheistic Marxism

From: Petrus Romanus, TRADITIO’s Roman Correspondent

Canadian Newbishops

The Canadian Conference of [Newchurch] Bishops
In Their Novus Ordo Get-up
Controlled by Leftist Ideologues
Has Been Supporting World Socialism
And World Communism since the 1970s
They Also Support World Abortion, World Contraception
And Sexual Perversion
Newchurchers Do Not Know
That Their Newchurch Collections Go
To Immorality and Atheistic Modernism-Marxism

The Canadian Newbishops have decided to release withheld funds and continue funding Development and Peace, an organization that has twice been caught funding groups which promote such monstrous evils as the legalization and/or depenalization of abortion, the adoption of children by homosexuals, the simulation of “gay marriage,” and even Marxist ideology.

After reports in 2017 (following earlier evidence supplied in 2009) that the Catholic [Sic] Canadian Organization for Development and Peace was funding such groups, the Canadian Newbishops were forced by lay pressure to insist on a review of the destination of the funding of D&P, which is the main “charity” arm of the Canadian Newbishops. In 2018, Newarchbishop Richard Smith, of Edmonton, Alberta, revealed that at least 52 of the funding recipient groups were engaging in “problematic” activities. As a result of this ongoing review, twelve Canadian Newbishops withheld funds collected and withdrew support pending their findings. However, they did not wait for that outcome. Instead, all twelve of them quietly released the withheld funds and restored funding late in 2018 and at the beginning of 2019 so that the funding would be in place in time for the big “charity drive” of Lent. There are now only two — count them — two Newbishops (out of 61) who completely refuse to fund the immoral D&P.

The funds were released, and the funding was restored on the condition that Development and Peace would not send any of this money to the 52 groups that were still under review. Meanwhile, however, Development and Peace continues to refuse to release the names of the organizations that it funds, and it has apparently not removed any of its employees for approving the funding of immoral recipients. The Canadian Newbishops, in a pastoral letter, are now urging Canadian Newchurchers to give generously to these enemies of Jesus Christ.

The Canadian Conference of [Newchurch] Bishops, controlled, as it is, by Leftist ideologues in the Quebec Newepiscopate, has been supporting world socialism and world communism since the 1970s. Everyone knew that. Now they also support world abortion, world contraception, and sexual perversion. Nobody knows for sure where all the money goes that is put into general collections in Newchurches. It would be fundamentally immoral to give one red cent to Development & Peace. There is nothing Catholic about Newchurch: it is a pagan, even an atheistic, Marxist organization.

Neo-FSSPX is now on the ropes one bishop is bad health: two new “consecrations” are canceled

Neo-SSPX Is Now on the Ropes
One Bishop Is Bad Health; Two New “Consecrations” Are Canceled

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergogliio & Vitus Huonder

Francis-Bergoglio Deputizes Newbishop Vitus Huonder
To Act a Plant with the Neo-SSPX in Switzerland
To Ensure that the Neo-SSPX Sells Out
To the Heretical Newchurch of the New Order
Providence Has Seen to It that the Plans of Corrupt Men
Have Come to Naught
Huonder Has Canceled His Plans to Inflitrate the Neo-SSPX
And His “Consecration” of Two New Bishops for the Neo-SSPX
Have Also Been Canceled

And then there were only two (Neo-SSPX bishops). The SSPX’s senior bishop Richard Williamson left. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is in bad health. The remaining two, Bernie Fellay and Alfonso Galarreta, are on the way to selling our to the heretical Newchurch of the New Order, currently led by its Third Paedophile Newpope, Francis-Bergoglio.

But now the Neo-Society of St. Pius X has announced that the ordinations previously scheduled for April 5, 2019, have been indefinitely postponed because Tissier de Mallerais remains hospitalized from a serious infection and awaits surgery.

On the same date, Bishop Williamson revealed that Newchurch bishop Vitus Huonder had canceled his previously-announced plans to take up residence in the Neo-SSPX boys’ school in Wangs, Switzerland, near the Neo-SSPX’s principal seminary at Econe. Huonder was to be a plant from Newchurch’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the [New Order] Faith, to ensure that the Neo-SSPX sold out to the heretical Newchurch of the New Order. Now Huonder has announced that he is not going to Wangs.

Huonder was also supposed to be the principal “consecrator” (even though is powerless to consecrated, as he himself has never been consecrated as bishop, but merely “installed” as a Newbishop under the invalid New Ordinal of 1968) of two new bishops for the Neo-SSPX. However, as previously reported by TRADITIO’s Roman Correspondent in these Commentaries, the “consecrations” have been canceled.

True Catholics, it seems that once again Providence has brought to naught the stratagems of the perfidious Neo-SSPX leaders, Fellay and now Davide Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX’s new Superior General and puppet of Fellay, to sell out to the heretical Newchurch. Meanwhile, the Neo-SSPX hobbles along with just two sellout bishops, who have already turned over their Sacraments of Matrimony and Penance to the Newchurch heretics.

The Lord of the Rings – Jorge Bergoglio

Francis-Bergoglio Jerks His Hand away from Those Wishing to Kiss His Ring
Then Lies to Cover up when there Was Worldwide Condemnation of Him

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergoglio

Francis-Bergoglio Jerks His Hand Away
From Those Wishing to Kiss His Ring at Loretto, Italy
It Seems that He Doesn’t Really Consider Himself a Pope —
At Least in the Traditional Sense
When He Received Worldwide Condemnation for His Action
He Lied and Said that He Had Jerked His Hand Away
Because of “Fear of Spreading Germs”
Yet He Has No Problem with People Breathing Directly into His Face
When He Breaks Tradition and Allows People to Hug Him

When Francis-Bergoglio jerked his hand away and refused to let Newchurchers kiss his Newpapal ring during his March 26, 2019, appearance at the Holy House in Loreto. Italy, severe condemnation came in from all around the world. People have no idea how theologically corrupt the Newchurch of the New Order is, how fake its Mess and “Sacraments” are, but this ring-kissing fiasco is something that the world could easily understand. Bergoglio was showing once again that he didn’t consider himself pope, at least not in any traditional sense. Newchurchers will go without protest to his fake Novus Ordo Messes, but they won’t give up kissing his ring. It doesn’t make any sense, but Newchurch and Newchurchers have never made any sense!

Kissing the ring of a pope, a cardinal, or a bishop traditionally carries with it an indulgence of 50 to 300 days’ worth of penance. But wait! Capitulating to the Arch-heretic Martin Luther and his Protestant followers, the Newchurch of the New Order, founded on November 21, 1964, by the Vatican II Anti-council to replace the Catholic Church as the “institutional” Church, did, under its Newpope Paul VI-Montini, gut on January 1, 1967, most of the traditional indulgences of the Catholic Church. This is just another feature of the Newchurch of the New Order — which is most certainly not the Catholic Church, — unknown to Newchurchers. Montini’s decree, like all those of the anti-Catholic Newchurch of the New Order, is, of course, null and void because violating Catholic doctrine, as explicated most clearly at the dogmatic Council of Trent. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by Vatican News.]

A bishop’s ring is a sign of his spiritual marriage to the diocese over which he rules. Priests are prohibited by traditional Canon Law from wearing rings, yet now Newchurch presbyters (who are not priests) violate this canon all the time. During the traditional Catholic rite of consecration (the invalid Protestantized Novus Ordo rite has modified some of the words), the episcopal ring is blessed and placed on the ring finger of the new bishop, the same finger upon which a wedding ring is worn, while the consecrating bishop recites the following words:

Accipe annulum, fidei scilicet signaculum: quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctam videlicet Ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus, illibate custodias.
Receive the ring, the seal indeed of your fidelity: insofar as you, equipped with the uncorrupted faith, may, without compromise, guard the bride of Christ, that is, the holy Church.

In fact, Francis-Bergoglio was never validly consecrated as a Catholic bishop in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but merely “installed” in 1992 under the invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968. Nor is Bergoglio a Catholic priest, having been merely “installed” in the Protestant fashion in 1969. (Likewise, Benedict-Ratzinger was never consecrated as a valid Catholic bishop, but merely “installed” in the Protestant fashion in 1977. He was, however, validly ordained a priest in 1951.

After Bergoglio’s Catholicism was questioned worldwide, he attempted damage control by claiming that his actions arose “from fear of spreading germs.” This was a bald-faced lie. Unless he licked the ring, there would be virtually no hygienic problems. On the other hand, he doesn’t mind braking tradition and letting people hug him, where germs can easily be transferred by people breathing directly into his face. And if Bergoglio were so concerned about hygienic contamination, he could have acolytes unobtrusively given him a squirt of hand sanitizer from time to time. Or have them bring up a Lavabo dish and pour water over his hands, as is done at the Traditional Latin Mass.

Good Catholics, the truth is that again the world saw in Francis-Bergoglio’s act a rejection of the papacy. He had to put his tail between his legs and tell a lie to cover up the truth, just has he has repeatedly lied about his cover-up of rampant paedophile crimes perpetrated by Newchurch clergy from his Newcardinals on down.

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: