Archbishop Lefebvre

[SFD]

stmaria:

The conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium are that that which is taught, has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus; that is, always, everywhere and by all.

stmaria,

What is your source for this? It is way too simplistic and there are dogmatic theology manuals that explain the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium…I have quoted one of those manuals for you and you never responded in any detail. Why?

Are you ignorant of the manuals? If so, why do you think you are more intelligent that the Theologians, who are sent by and are the auxiliaries of the Bishops.
A Manual Of Catholic Theology:

, The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical AEterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).

[Editor: We have additionally, since this work was published, the evidence of the Code of Canon Law (1917) concerning St. Thomas, which confirms and even strengthens the point made by Scheeben in this place. “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” CIC 1366, 2.]

 

[stmaria]

cam100;3169533]This quoted piece was written by the SSPX to justify their actions. It’s not supported by Church teaching, however. Although the pope’s discilpinary actions are in themselves infallible, **the Church is protected from deceiving the faithful **by presenting invalid sacraments as valid ones. The pope cannot promulgate an invalid mass. This does not mean that the English translation of Christ’s words of consecration is guaranteed to be exactly the same, word for word. But it does mean that the consecration is valid.

I believe that the New Mass is valid. However novelities have been added that have deceive the faithful and have led many to believe that the Consecration is only symbolic.
cathcon.blogspot.com/2007/11/sanctuary-as-place-of-confusion.html
The secretary of the Congregation Roman liturgy, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, is currently giving a spate of interviews.

He said that the Papal Motu Proprio for the liberation of the Old Mass opened the way to a “complete integration” of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre
Misused hand Communion
As a negative example of Archbishop cited hand Communion. . It was introduced so as to be an abuse. Now despite harmful effects on the faith, it is maintained. The hand Communion, “in a certain way” has helped ensure that the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist had waned"
How can something protected by the Holy Spirit from error cause belief to wane? Below is more proof that the novelities are not infallible.I will say it again. The New Mass is valid. The novelities have led many astray.

SYNOD OF BISHOPS
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY October 2005
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

"Certain actions which challenge a sense of the sacred, often mentioned in the Lineamenta responses, can be of assistance in treating the subject, for example, a neglect by the celebrant and the ministers to use proper liturgical vestments and the participants’ lack of befitting dress for Mass; the use of profane music in Church; the tacit consent to eliminate certain liturgical gestures thought to be too traditional, such as genuflexion before the Blessed Sacrament; an inadequate catechesis for Communion in the hand and its improper distribution; a lack of reverence before, during and after the celebration of Holy Mass, not only by the laity but also the celebrant; the scant architectural and artistic quality of sacred buildings and sacred vessels; and instances of syncretism in integrating elements from other religions in the inculturation of liturgical forms…. a certain way of acting indicates that transubstantiation and the Real Presence are understood in a symbolic sense only. Many responses noted that some celebrants at the liturgy seem more like showmen, who must draw people’s attention to themselves, instead of servants of Christ, called to conduct the faithful to union with him….It is worth considering whether the removal of the tabernacle from the centre of the sanctuary to an obscure, undignified corner or to a separate chapel, or whether to have placed the celebrant’s chair in the centre of the sanctuary or in front of the tabernacle—as was done in many renovations of older churches and in new constructions—has contributed in some way to a** decrease in faith in the Real Presence**.”

 

[stmaria]

stmaria,

What is your source for this? It is way too simplistic and there are dogmatic theology manuals that explain the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium…I have quoted one of those manuals for you and you never responded in any detail. Why?

Are you ignorant of the manuals? If so, why do you think you are more intelligent that the Theologians, who are sent by and are the auxiliaries of the Bishops.

Pope Paul said the Mass IS NOT a Dogmatic definition.

THE MASS IS THE SAME
Pope Paul VI 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM
“The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith.
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.
7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.
9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

1. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
2. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

. "

 

[catharina]

Pope Paul said the Mass IS NOT a Dogmatic definition.

THE MASS IS THE SAME
Pope Paul VI 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM
“The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith.
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.
7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully. 9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

1. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
2. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

. "

**

Yes, “an act of obedience,” and how wisely stated.

Remarkable that there have been those (and are still some) who’ve thought themselves to be ABOVE obedience, above the Pope, above the will of God.

“Holier than the Pope?”
Like Martin Luther? Like Henry VIII?
Heaven help us.**

 

[CB_Catholic]

Does anyone happen to know – has anyone in history ever been canonized by the Church after they passed-away in a state of excommunication?

Was Joan of Arc excommunicated when she was burned at the stake? I don’t know the answer to this.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

Regarding the Popes word is final no matter what someone needs to read Vatican I. 1 Pope can NOT undo another Popes infallible teaching. Period. Here is a direct quote from Vatican I which the Post Vatican II Popes reject on a daily basis…"13. Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematized by the Church, I too condemn, reject and anathematize.

This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. Outside the Church none can be saved , yet Ratzinger kisses the Koran out of “respect”, prays in a temple for the coming of the Messiah, says all churches and all religions have an avenue to Salvation. Nothing could be more heretical nor evil. The Christian thing to do is to correct the people on the wrong path [Hindus, Mohamedans, Jews, et al] not encourage them. Encouraging them is indeed the work of the evil 1 Beelzebub himself. Pope Paul was indeed correct, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. God Bless Abp Lefebvre…God Bless You All…

 

[JReducation]

It seems as if this thread is taking a turn down another road. The original question on the table was regarding the Archbishop LeFebvre. Suddenly, the debate took a turn as to whether or not the decrees of Vatican II carry the weight of infallibility.

I would like to return to Archbishop LeFebvre for just a moment; because there are two points that need to be made. If someone has beaten me to it, I’ll just piggyback on their post.

The first point has to do with the sacraments. I believe that many have made it clear that the Archbishop was excommunicated because he ordained priests and bishops without papal authorization. Here is an issue of faith and dogma.

While it is true that the Pope is a bishop, he is also the Prince of the Apostles. This we have received through Sacred Scripture, Christian Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium. Therefore, all other bishops are subject to his authority. Although the Archbishop did have the Episcopal power to ordain deacons, priests and bishops, he did not have the authorization to do so. Therefore, those ordinations, even though they were valid, took place without the approval of Peter. Thus, they are illicit or illegal.

Once a bishop acts on his own and in defiance of Peter, he has effectively severed his ties with the Petrine Succession, therefore severing his ties with the Church. He has acted ex-communion or outside the community of believers. The act does fall under one of the infallible truths of the Church. Peter is the Vicar of Jesus Christ. To act in defiance to a direct order from Peter is to defy Christ himself. For Peter alone has the power to bind and unbind. In essence, the Archbishop and his followers excommunicated themselves. What Pope John Paul II did was make a public statement of an fact that had already happened.

The Archbishop abused his priestly powers. In essence, he abused a sacrament of the Church. In addition, by illegally or illicitly ordaining men to the clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) he also abused the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is one of the Seven Sacraments of the Church and which form part of the infallible faith of the Church. Archbishop LeFebvre abused the sacred power conferred upon him in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as he chose to use this power contrary to the mind of Peter. The sacredness of the sacrament is an infallible truth. The primacy of Peter is also an infallible truth. To defy Peter is a sin against a dogma of the church.

One may disagree with Peter. One may argue with Peter, as did St. Paul on the issue regarding the Gentile’s admission to the early Church. However, Paul never defied Peter. In the end, Peter consented under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Paul hung in there as long as Peter was willing to listen. He did not go his way and start his own Church.

The second point has to do with Canon Law. According to Canon Law the clergy is subject to the authority of the Pope in all matters that are pastoral, moral, theological and sacramental, even those who are members of religious orders. In the absence of a Pope, such as between elections, the clergy continues to be submissive to the body of bishops and to Canon Law.

The only member of the Catholic Church who is above Canon Law or any Church law is Peter. For he who makes the law is not subject to the law. The pope is only subject to matters of faith and morals. LeFebvre was a cleric. Therefore, he was bound to Canon Law. Canon Law is very clear that bishops may not ordain bishops without papal approval. These are called “faculties.”

LeFebvre’s actions not only defied the authority of the Vicar of Christ, which is part of Church dogma, but also the laws of the Church, by which all of us are bound, as stated in Canon Law itself.

This is not to say that he is burning in hell. That is up to God. We know that the Holy Father prayed for his soul at his death. Therefore, even the Holy Father had no inside information as to the state of the Archbishop’s soul and left that up to God.

Nonetheless, he did have the authority to excommunicate him and he had good reason to do so. Defiance of the Chair of Peter, which has been handed down to us by Christ, is no small matter. We do not judge the state of his soul, only his action.

Even Joseph Ratzinger, who was more sympathetic to the Tridentine Liturgy and the Secretary on matters of the faith, submitted his views to the authority of the reigning Pope at the time, much like St. Paul did with the first pope, St. Peter.

As to the decrees of Vatican II, they are not ex-catedra statements. However, they have the approval of Peter, who has Apostolic Primacy over the Church. Even in matters that are pastoral, his apostolic authority is a matter of dogma, not to be taken lightly or defied. The issue in question was the proper celebration of the Eucharist, which is a sacrament and a dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

[catharina]

Beautiful post, JR.

 

[pnewton]

Even Joseph Ratzinger, who was more sympathetic to the Tridentine Liturgy and the Secretary on matters of the faith, submitted his views to the authority of the reigning Pope at the time, much like St. Paul did with the first pope, St. Peter.

Great post. There is not telling how much good LeFebvre could have done if he would have remained within the Church. Perhaps God would have even honored him as he did Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[SFD]

JReducation:

The first point has to do with the sacraments. I believe that many have made it clear that the Archbishop was excommunicated because he ordained priests and bishops without papal authorization. Here is an issue of faith and dogma.

The bolded above is false. This is an issue of ecclesiastical law. Your entire argument falls with this one erroneous premise.

There are plenty of conciliar errors that are clearly “issues of faith and morals”…why is it that folks like you are stuck on the human law? What about Divine Law and the Faith?

Archbishop LeFebvre was defending the Faith…he was merely seeking to maintain the Faith and traditions of the Church and thus meet the demands of the faithful for the true sacraments and sound doctrine.

SFD

 

[SFD]

stmaria:

Pope Paul said the Mass IS NOT a Dogmatic definition.

Of course it’s not a definition…it the liturgy. It’s a discipline.

The disciplines of the Church are “infallibily safe”. Therefore, there can never be a liturgurgical practice promulgated that contains errors in faith and morals nor is an incentive to impiety. This is theologically certain…it is not optional.

You need to accept this principle and let the chips fall where they may.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

**

Yes, “an act of obedience,” and how wisely stated.

Remarkable that there have been those (and are still some) who’ve thought themselves to be ABOVE obedience, above the Pope, above the will of God.

“Holier than the Pope?”
Like Martin Luther? Like Henry VIII?
Heaven help us.**

And don’t forget St. Athanasius. In his arrogance, he ignored the fact that he had been banned from his diocese 4 times and was excommunicated by Pope Liberius. He claimed that these were unjust action and ignored them. Can you believe such arrogance.

Let me give you a quote from the excommunicated schismatic Saint Athanasius, which was written to his schismatic followers:

St. Athanasius, Letter to His Flock:

"May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” olrl.org/snt_docs/athnasus.shtml

Can you believe his arrogance? If you would have lived in those days, do you think you would have stood with the excommunicated schismatic St. Athanasius, or with the Arian tainted “catholics” who had, for the most part, taken over the Church?

 

[stmaria]

I would like to return to Archbishop LeFebvre

 

[catharina]

And don’t forget St. Athanasius. In his arrogance, he ignored the fact that he had been banned from his diocese 4 times and was excommunicated by Pope Liberius. He claimed that these were unjust action and ignored them. Can you believe such arrogance.

Let me give you a quote from the excommunicated schismatic Saint Athanasius, which was written to his schismatic followers:

Can you believe his arrogance? If you would have lived in those days, do you think you would have stood with the excommunicated schismatic St. Athanasius, or with the Arian tainted “catholics” who had, for the most part, taken over the Church?

St. Athanasius. Arrogance. Who mentioned arrogance?
Pope Liberius? Never heard of him.

Pope John XXIII. Pope Paul VI. Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI.
I love all of them as wonderful shepherds of the Church.

There are Popes - and then there are Popes.

 

[SFD]

St. Athanasius. Arrogance. Who mentioned arrogance?
Pope Liberius? Never heard of him.

Pope John XXIII. Pope Paul VI. Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI.
I love all of them as wonderful shepherds of the Church.

There are Popes - and then there are Popes.

Catharina,

Just curious as to why you separate out these popes from the others?

Btw, does it concern you at all that you don’t know who Pope Liberius is…yet feel free to dismiss it all. That’s arrogance…and ignorance.

SFD

 

[catharina]

Catharina,

Just curious as to why you separate out these popes from the others?

Btw, does it concern you at all that you don’t know who Pope Liberius is…yet feel free to dismiss it all. That’s arrogance…and ignorance.

SFD

My goodness. Thanks, I guess, for the very quick judgment of my soul and my intellect. Arrogance and Ignorance. My goodness.

Who are YOU?

I’m getting ready for work, caring for a baby who has cancer of the eyes (last 13 months). At the moment, right, I DO NOT CARE about the personal history of Pope Liberius. Got it? I don’t care.

The Popes I’ve named are the Popes I’ve known - in my own lifetime.
Why does it concern YOU what MIGHT concern ME?

Digest this:
if you’re finished with your personal judgment of me, spare a prayer for the baby?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

St. Athanasius. Arrogance. Who mentioned arrogance?
Pope Liberius? Never heard of him.

Pope John XXIII. Pope Paul VI. Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI.
I love all of them as wonderful shepherds of the Church.

There are Popes - and then there are Popes.

Do you consider John Paul II to be a better Pope that Pope Honorious - who was condemned as a heretic by a later Pope? If so, please explain why. And be sure to find out why Honorious was condemned as a heretic so you can respond in an informed manner. Here’s a link: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

When reading that link, keep in mind the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, which states that we are justified by faith alone. John Paul II signed this. Later, the Vatican had to come out with a “clarification” that reversed what teh documents said. You should also consider that John Paul II approved - as valid - a mass that had no words of consecration. He also approved a document stating that it is wrong to attempt to convert the schismatic and heretics Orthodox. Keep those points in mind when reading the article about Hornorous the heretic - and why he was condemned as a heretic.

And I’m curious why you only menioned post Vatican II popes in your list of Popes who you love. Is there a reason for that?

 

[catharina]

Do you consider John Paul II to be a better Pope that Pope Honorious - who was condemned as a heretic by a later Pope? If so, please explain why. And be sure to find out why Honorious was condemned as a heretic so you can respond in an informed manner. Here’s a link: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

When reading that link, keep in mind the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, which states that we are justified by faith alone. John Paul II signed this. Later, the Vatican had to come out with a “clarification” that reversed what teh documents said. You should also consider that John Paul II approved - as valid - a mass that had no words of consecration. He also approved a document stating that it is wrong to attempt to convert the schismatic and heretics Orthodox. Keep those points in mind when reading the article about Hornorous the heretic - and why he was condemned as a heretic.

And I’m curious why you only menioned post Vatican II popes in your list of Popes who you love. Is there a reason for that?

This is for you and SFD and Who Knows Else:

I also LOVE DEARLY Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius X, Leo XII, Gregory VII and most of all, Peter the Fisherman. Pius XII reigned for my formative years (1945 until his death) so I don’t feel I TRULY observed him during my adulthood as I did the ones I first mentioned.

NO. I won’t be doing your reading for reflections. I’m getting ready for work.

Will you pray for a baby who has had cancer of both eyes for 13 months? Unless you’re too busy supporting your (?) own belief system.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This is for you and SFD and Who Knows Else:

NO. I won’t be doing your reading for reflections. I’m getting ready for work.

Will you pray for a baby who has had cancer of both eyes for 13 months? Unless you’re too busy supporting your (?) own belief system.

I have time to support my own belief system (which I happened to get from the Catholic Church) and pray for baby with cancer.

 

[catharina]

I have time to support my own belief system (which I happened to get from the Catholic Church) and pray for baby the cancer.

Excellent. Then I will continue to get ready for work where I, my belief system still quite intact after 62 years, will care for Baby Anneliese. Thank you for the prayers.

Hope you can offer approval for my beloved Popes.
Can’t imagine why you (or ANYBODY) seem/s to feel qualified to withhold it?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.