Category Archives: Loši Pastiri

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.

New-born dictator Pagliarani adapts the school to a new heretical church

Schism Is Brewing within the Neo-SSPX against Superiors Fellay and Pagliarani
They Expelled a School’s Nuns because They Would Not Recognize the New Order Sect

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Davide Pagliarani

The Neo-SSPX’s New Superior-Dictator Davide Pagliarani
Expels St. Michael School’s Nuns
Because They Wouldn’t Accept the Official Reception at the School
Of the Local Invalid Novus Ordo Bishop
The Nuns Objected to the Neo-SSPX’s Official Recognition
Of a Heretic, Unconsecrated Novus Ordo Bishop
Many of the Parents at the School Are Standing with the Nuns
And Preparing to Pull Their Children out of the Compromised School

The parents of children at the Neo-SSPX’s St. Michael’s School in Burghclere, U.K., have been informed on March 27, 2019, that Sister Mary Elizabeth, the head of the nuns at the school, has been fired, and she and her five nuns expelled from the school, given just 36 hours to get out. The Neo-SSPX’s new Superior Dictator, Davide Pagliarani, oversaw the nuns’ expulsion. The parents at the school are very upset. A climate of fear now prevails against the Neo-SSPX Superior-Dictators, who browbeat these dedicated nuns.

And what crime did this highly-respected nun, one of the best teachers at the school, and her fellow sisters commit? Did they sexually assault the students? No. She and the other nuns objected to the official reception at the school of the local invalid Novus Ordo bishop, Philip Egan. The TRADITIO Network previously covered that development, and how not only the nuns, but many of the parents, had objected to the Neo-SSPX’s official recognition of a heretic, unconsecrated Novus Ordo bishop..

Fellay and Pagliarani have gone even farther toward recognition of the heretical Newchurch of the New Order. In order to qualify for a bursary for the new school year, they have had it written into the contract with the parents that parents qualify only if they accept the Novus Ordo “hierarchy of the Catholic [sic] Church.” By this term the Neo-SSPX is referring to the Novus Ordo clergy, who are not priests and bishops, but are the unconsecrated and unordained clergy of the New Order, which has accepted the invalid Protestantized Ordinal of 1968. No wonder the traditional Catholic nuns refused to submit. Archbishop Lefebvre would have been proud of them!

The St. Michael’s parents are good traditional Catholics trying to do their best for their children. But under Fellay and Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX is being run by the “thought police.” Pagliarani, in fact, interrogated all the nuns together and individually to make sure that their allegiance is to the Newchurch of the New Order. The history of the Neo-SSPX is that it treats its priests, religious, and laypeople like trash. If they overstep Bernie Fellay’s dictatorial edits, they are almost literally thrown out on the street. They are not given time to wrap up their affairs and some funds in light of their previous service to find new lodgings. This is not Catholic; this is not even Christian. But this is the ilk that took over the SSPX and turned it into the Neo-SSPX after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991.

Just as the Catholic Church was replaced by the Newchurch of the New Order as the “institutional” Church (which is not the true Catholic Church), so Archbishop Lefebvre’s original traditional Catholic SSPX was replaced by the Novus Ordoized Neo-SSPX of Bernie Fellay, and now his henchman, David Pagliarani. What Fellay and Pagliarani are doing is exactly what the Archbishop spend much of his life opposing. They are rapidly turning their Neo-SSPX into a slave of the anti-Catholic New Order.

TRADITIO is practically the only independent source of information for traditional Catholics that is covering this important development, which reveals a lot about the dismal future of the Neo-SSPX under the stratagems of Bernie Fellay and his puppet, David Pagliarani, who have broken with the original traditional Catholic principles of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the original traditional Catholic Society of St. Pius X to be subsumed into the New Order. Shortly the thought police and firings of Neo-SSPX clergy and religious are going to spread to other Neo-SSPX sites around the world.

The Neo-FSSPX has lost control of its marriages

The Neo-SSPX Has Lost Control of Its Marriages
Now It Is Going to the Heretical Newchurch for “Permission” to Marry

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Bernie Fellay

In the Blink of an Eye, the Neo-SSPX’s De-facto Leader, Bernie Fellay
Has Been Selling out the Society’s Sacraments to the Novus Ordo Sect
The Neo-SSPX Is Now Actively Seeking “Permission” from Newchurch
To Perform Marriages
Now Neo-SSPXers Cannot Be Assured of a Traditional Catholic Marriage
The Neo-SSPX Is Going Full Tilt toward Becoming a Cog
In the Newchurch of the New Order
Not Being Traditional Catholic Organization

It seems that Bernie Fellay and his puppet David Pagliarani are concealing yet another dirty little secret from their members. They don’t want Neo-SSPXers to know wholesale that their Neo-SSPX is selling out its marriages to the heretical Newchurch sect. The Neo-SSPX now admits that it is not controlling its marriages, but rather defers to the Novus Ordo for “permission.” The Neo-SSPX is going full tilt toward being a cog in the Newchurch of the New Order, not being a traditional Catholic organization. Now that Neo-SSPXers cannot be assured of a traditional Catholic marriage. Similar goings-on are occurring with Confessions.

On March 21, 2019, it slipped out that in the United States the Pagliarani-Fellay dictatorship is actively seeking out Newchurch dioceses for “permission” to conduct its weddings. The Neo-SSPX has so far approached 45 Newdioceses for such “permission.” It also slipped out that in order to get the “stamp of approval” of the heretical Newchurch sect, the Pagliarani-Fellay dictatorship is actively inviting fake Newchurch bishops (Newchurch has not consecrated bishops since 1968, when Newchurch substituted the invalid, Protestantized New Ordinal for the traditional Sacrament of Holy Orders) to “pontificate” at its priories, chapels, schools, and retreats. For all intents and purposes, the Pagliarani-Fellay Neo-SSPX has already passed into the heretical New Order sect. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the U.K. Catholic Herald.]

True Catholics, undoubtedly such sellouts by the Fellay-Pagliarani Neo-SSPX to the heretical New Order are going on in other countries around the world as well, but the Neo-SSPX doesn’t want the word to get out wholesale. If the Neo-SSPXers found out about the sellout, many of them would fall away because of the corruption, just as so many of the Newchurchers are falling away from Newchurch because of the corruption in Newchurch. The Neo-SSPXers will simply fall away without a fight because they are taught a kind of false obedience to corrupt leaders rather than to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the true Catholic Faith. The way things are going, by the time the Neo-SSPX signs the papers to be formally baptized into the heretical Newchurch, there won’t be much of Newchurch left!

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: (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 Schizophrenic Church Of Recognize & Resist

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, “Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Do the “recognize and resisters” (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson’s St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic “Church” whereby there are two distinct–and even contradictory– modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don’t believe me? Let’s examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity
 According to theologian Van Noort, “[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity…unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government.” (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original).
1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith
“The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office.” (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, “Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ…Furthermore…it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles” (Ibid:128).
2. Communion
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession.” (Ibid:128)
3. Government
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority.” (Ibid:130)
Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don’t have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order.
In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, “[During the Great Western Schism]…hierarchical unity was onlymaterially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance.” (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)
According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, “… [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned…” (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ.
R&R Ecclesiology
1. There exists “Eternal Rome” and “Modernist Rome,” of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.
The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic “Church:”

“We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.”

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From “Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX” (“FAQ”)
 (available online at
“We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries.”

How can a true pope “implement a new religion”? It’s one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to “murder one of my enemies for me”). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a “new religion.”

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

“[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is “implementing a new religion” (along with the other post-Vatican II “popes” before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to “subsist” together in the same overarching “Church” (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: “Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New “mass”] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness…If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).” (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

  • one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one’s actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
  • one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
  • the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
  • despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff

(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as “pope” and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as “pope” because their “mass” is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil “mass” given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can’t have unity in communion with each other.
3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 
The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his “bishops”) make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must “correct” his teaching authority.
 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article “Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?” in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
“Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act.”
Father claims…”it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters.”
He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the “saint” might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.
R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic “church,” with two separate faiths lead by the same “pope” in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio’s Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by “giving jurisdiction” for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They’re in “partial communion,” after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction.
All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into “full communion” with Bergoglio, and end the self-created “church within a church”? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

Unutarnji tektonski potresi protiv diktature lažnog milosrđa Jorge Bergoglia

Pripreme za buduću apsurdnNovus Ordo konklavu?  



“Ima osoba koje jednostavno ne vole papu Franju i htjeli bi održavanje nove konklave”, izjavio je Walter Kasper, lažni njemački kardinal i bivši pročelnik tkz. ‘Papinskog vijeća za promociju jedinstva kršćana’, prenosi več

Kasper objašnjava kako “Papini protivnici žele iskoristiti sadašnju krizu vezanu za zlostavljanje maloljetnika od svećenika da bi izbacili Franju iz papinstva i izabrali novog papu koji bi se bolje prilagodio njihovim željama”.

Nije ništa novo u tome da postoje krugovi kojima se ne sviđa blasfemičar i heretik Jorge Bergoglio. Toga je uvijek bilo, ali se čini kako protivnika Franje ima više i glasniji su. U svakom slučaju Bergogliovi protivnici, kako kaže Kasper, “žele što skoriji završetak njegova pontifikata kako bi na novoj konklavi izabrali nekoga koji bi se prilagodio njihovim idejama”.

“Kada se želi neko skloniti, onda se ne biraju sredstva, odnosno Franjini protivnici skandal sa svećenicima pedofilima žele ‘pretvoriti u raspravu o papi Franji’, što je ‘zlostavljanje zlostavljanja’” – objašnjava Kasper.

“Na taj način se preusmjerava pažnja s pravih problema, jer kada se rasprava pretvori u onu o papi Franji, onda se smanjuje koncentracija prema važnim pitanjima, kao što je razvijanje najboljih načina prevencije zlostavljanja maloljetnika, odnosno o zaštiti maloljetnika od zlostavljanja.”

No, i nemilosrdni Bergoglio ubrzava reforme Novus Ordo ‘Rimske kurije’ s dva dokumenta u obliku ‘Motu propria’ koja je objavio u subotu. S prvim ‘Mutu proprio’ ukida se dikasterij “Ecclesia Dei” koji je 1988. osnovao otpadnik Ivan Pavao II. za prihvat svećenika koji su počeli napuštati Bratstvo sv. Pija X. nadbiskupa Marcela Lefebvrea koji nije htio potpuno prihvatiti ‘reformu’ tkz. ‘II. vatikanskog sabora’.


Frédéric Martel – U ormaru Vatikana: Moć, homoseksualnost, licemjerje

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Jer ništa nije skriveno, što se neće otkriti …” (Lk 12,2)

Eksplozivna nova knjiga: U ormaru Vatikana bit će objavljena prvog dana okupljanja o seksualnom zlostavljanju

2018. godina bila je teška za Franjin klub, ali to je možda bilo samo zagrijavanje u usporedbi s onim što bi ove godine moglo doći. Francuski sociolog, novinar i autor Frederic Martel uskoro će objaviti eksplozivnu knjigu koja bi trebala mnogo više potresati Vatikan nego Pisma Carla Vigana prošle godine. Rad je naslovljen U ormaru Vatikana: Moć, homoseksualnost, licemjerje  i trebao bi biti objavljen 21. veljače, prvi dan četverodnevnog okupljanja o seksualnom zlostavljanju u Vatikanu .

Međutim, za razliku od onoga što se u početku pretpostavlja, knjigu nije napisao neki konzervativni član II. Vatikanske crkve koji pokušava srušiti Franju i njegove pristaše. Umjesto toga – i to vjerojatno knjizi daje mnogo veću vjerodostojnost nego što bi inače imala – autor je socijalistički i prakticirajući sodomit koji se ne protivi Franjinu političkom ili pseudoteološkom planu. Stoga, njegov cilj nije suprotstaviti se neprirodnim porocima per se (po sebi), niti želi prikazati homoseksualce lošima. Umjesto toga, njegova je namjera bila razotkriti licemjerje.

Knjiga će u konačnici biti objavljena na čak osam jezika. Talijanska i engleska izdanja postavljena su za prvo objavljivanje:

Na 576 stranica, ova knjiga obećava masovnu čitanost. Slijedi službeni opis izdavača Bloomsbury, koji daje pregled eksplozivnih sadržaja s kojima će se Vatikan susresti:

Zapanjujući prikaz korupcije i licemjerja u srcu Vatikana.

U ormaru Vatikana danas izlaže trulež u srcu Vatikana i Rimokatoličke crkve. Ovaj briljantni istraživački rad temelji se na četverogodišnjem autorskom istraživanju, uključujući opsežne intervjue s onima na vlasti.

Celibat svećenika, osuda upotrebe kontracepcijskih sredstava, bezbroj slučajeva seksualnog zlostavljanja, ostavka Benedikta XVI., mizoginija među svećenstvom, dramatični pad svećeničkih zvanja u Europi, urote protiv pape Franje – sva ta pitanja su zamagljena u tajni i tajnovitosti.

U ormaru Vatikana nalazi se knjiga koja otkriva spomenute tajne i prodire u ovu enigmu. Ona proizlazi iz sustava utemeljenog na kleričkoj kulturi tajnosti koja počinje u sjemeništima i nastavlja se sve do samog Vatikana. Temelji se na dvostrukom životu svećenika i ekstremnoj homofobiji. Nastalu shizofreniju u Crkvi teško je shvatiti. Ali što je više prelat homofobičan, to je vjerojatnije da je on sam gay.

“Iza rigidnosti uvijek postoji nešto skriveno, u mnogim slučajevima dvostruki život.” To su riječi samog pape Franje njima, a Papa je otključao ormar.

Nitko ne može tvrditi da danas stvarno razumije Katoličku crkvu dok ne pročita ovu knjigu. Otkriva istinu koja je šokantna i uznemirujuća.

izvor )

Iz ovog opisa, prilično je očito da autor nije u kampu Vigano. To je značajno jer nam govori da Vatikan neće biti u mogućnosti očistiti se svih optužba za skandale homoseksualizma i pedofilije.

Prema vijestima vatikanista Giuseppea Nardija, u Vatikanskom ormariću  otkrit će se “imena, datumi i činjenice o sastavu i utjecaju sodomitske mreže u Vatikanu”.

Bože Radoš razotkriva nemoral Novus Ordo službenika


Novus Ordo svećenik Bože Radoš nakon sumnjivog otpuštanja iz Reda Manje Braće (OFM) i ‘suspensio a divinis’ od Novus Ordo biskupa Ratka Perića iz Mostara (Bosna i Hercegovina), a koji je bio neke vrste suradnik KGB-a u svezi zataškavanja slučaja “Međugorje” što su sovjetske i jugoslavenske obavještajne službe smatrale opasnošću po opstojnost komunističke države Jugoslavije, podigao je veliku medijsku prašinu objavama na svome facebook profilu na kojemu objavljuje video zapise čitajući pisma čitatelja u rubrici “Vi pišete – ja čitam”.

Novus Ordo religija se napokon urušava i u državama bivše Jugoslavije.

Heretici Novus Ordo religije ne mogu sačuvati netaknutim svoj moral, jer se on brzo izopačio kao plod otpadništva od Katoličke Crkve nakon sablažnjivih reformi krivovjernog II. Vatikanskog ‘sabora’.

Ne može se osporiti dobra volja Bože Radoša u prokazivanju homoseksualaca, pedofila, trkača za suknjama i kriminalaca koji su službenici Novus Ordo religije. To nije dovoljno jer priznavanje autoriteta heretika u konačnici izaziva osobnu katastrofu, ali će barem razotkriti sve grozote koje čine nemoralni Novus Ordo heretici u vremenu krivovjernog uzurpatora Jorge M. Bergoglia.



Vuk glumi ovcu – Modernistički biskup Tomo Vukšić i njegov osvrt na nadbiskupa Lefebvrea i SSPX



Za razliku od nadbiskupa Marcela Lefebvrea i Svećeničkog bratstva sv. Pija X., novoredni biskup Tomo Vukšić je demagog koji poput lopova drži predavanje o poštenju i unatoč svojim novusordovskim titulama i častima, kojeg kao “vrsnog crkvenog povjesničara i pravnika” dočekuju s odobravanjem i poštovanjem isti oni modernisti koje je kaotični Bergoglio angažirao kako bi sablažnjavali ljude i sprječavali dušama povratak k spasenju.

Zbog takvih okorjelih modernista sve je više ljudi koji mrze Katoličku Crkvu!

Cilj članka koji iznosi Tomo Vukšić je izazivanje averzije prema svemu što imalo podsjeća na tradicionalni katolicizam.

Strah, kriva poslušnost lažnim i krivovjernim autoritetima i rafinirane ucjene, glavna su oružja modernizma.

Katolička vjera je dijametralno suprotna božanska stvarnost lažnomu modernističkom kršćanstvu.

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine


Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


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

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


IGLESIA CATÓLICA igual en 2000 años hasta la muerte de Pío XII

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine


Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Traditional Catholicism ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans


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

%d blogeri kao ovaj: