Catholics vs the SSPX

[TMC]

TMC,

What do you think of Paul VI’s mysterious statement just prior to the closing of the council to Jean Guitton? “I am about to blow the seven horns of the Apocalypse.”

I find that a very disturbing statement and a sign of possible instability on the part of Paul VI.

There is an interesting chapter in Atila Sinke Guimareas’ “Animus Delendi” volume 1 where he examines a version of “kenosis” prominent among the liberal theologians that seemed to hold sway to this day. (eg. Von Balthazar being one that I remember because his book “Razing the bastions.” is quoted extensively.)

They deliberately encouraged the dismantling (emptying out ) of the Church and the allowance of abuse and deliberately provoked the crisis we are in. Paul VI and JPII were definitely aware of these ideas.

All in all, it is what Malcolm Muggeridge called “the liberal death wish.”

I know there a couple of odd quotations attributed to Paul VI, including the one you cite and the one on the smoke of satan coming into the Basilica (or something like that). I have said I think Paul VI made some mistakes, but I don’t know anything about his stablility. I disagree strongly that he “deliberately encouraged the dismantling (emptying out ) of the Church” or “deliberately provoked the crisis we are in”. I will ask directly - are you suggesting that Paul VI was an agent of evil? What else would explain your accusations? Can a Pope deliberatly dismantle the Church and not be evil? How is it that John Paul would not know and recognize this fact? Or Benedict? Are they also evil men?

 

[GerardP]

I know there a couple of odd quotations attributed to Paul VI, including the one you cite and the one on the smoke of satan coming into the Basilica (or something like that). I have said I think Paul VI made some mistakes, but I don’t know anything about his stablility.

But his actions and statements are indicators of something at the very least unusual.

I disagree strongly that he “deliberately encouraged the dismantling (emptying out ) of the Church” or “deliberately provoked the crisis we are in”.

But the difficulty is, you would have to explain his support for theologians that propogated this idea of “the Church emptying herself” of material wealth, majestic grandeur, so-called triumphalism, doctrinal authoritarianism.

I will ask directly - are you suggesting that Paul VI was an agent of evil? What else would explain your accusations?

Except for Humanea Vitae, I’m sure that the Devil was very happy with the reign of Paul VI compared to St. Pius X.

Can a Pope deliberatly dismantle the Church and not be evil?

It would depend upon his sanity or his intention. If he thought it was somehow for the good of the Church, his culpability would be relative to that.

How is it that John Paul would not know and recognize this fact? Or Benedict? Are they also evil men?

I think Pope Benedict has realized it and is doing something about it. I think that JPII and Paul VI were humanists and had severe conflicts between the faith and their philosophies. They were moderate modernists at least. My personal opinion is that JPII was a firm believer in evolution. The evolution of man, doctrine, truth etc. I think that twisted his perceptions and hurt his understanding of the faith. That doesn’t make them evil, but it does make them confused and ill-equipped to defend the deposit of the faith. And that at least helps the cause of evil by default.

 

[bear06]

“I am about to blow the seven horns of the Apocalypse.”

Source please?

 

[East_and_West]

"…

1. CHANGED THE WORDS OF THE CONSECRATION TO WORDS JESUS NEVER SAID. Ouch.
   …

Eastern Catholics use different words.

 

[GerardP]

Source please?

My copy of Animus Delendi is where I first read it. Mario Derksen makes reference to it also, so I’m copying his source listing for the specific page number and footnote.

"It was the final session of the Council, the most essential, in which the Pope was to bestow upon all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse’ " [Jean Guitton, ‘Nel Segno dei Dodici,’ interview with Maurizio Blondet, Avvenire, October 11, 1992; qtd. in Atila Sinke Guimarães, Animus Delendi - I, Los Angeles, CA: Tradition in Action, 2000, p. 57].

 

[cam100]

It’s not about challenging the authority of the Holy See. It’s about pointing out the theological differences between then and now and questioning the wisdom of what Pius XII questioned the wisdom of.

OK, it seems we agree on that. I don’t think it was a good idea to create the NO, either.

They certainly can destroy the liturgy. Not the Eternal Sacrifice.

Repeating and reducing Our Lord’s words about the indefectibility of the Church into a slogan does nothing to prevent millions of souls from leaving the Church due to the influence of weak Churchmen.

I’m not worried about the Church. It’s the faithful that are in danger.

Our Lord’s words are not a meaningless slogan. They are crucial to understanding the Church. If the Church can’t guarantee her protection of the liturgy, how are we supposed to follow her to Christ?

To cite an extreme example, If you have a valid priest conduct a Black Mass. Our Lord will be present. But there is no way that, that Liturgy is pleasing to God.

In a black mass, the intentions of all involved are evil and it is done solely to desecrate Our Lord. The Novus Ordo is not celebrated to desecrate Our Lord. A black mass is not sanctioned by the Church, rather it is condemned. The Novus Ordo IS sactioned by the Church.

 

[bear06]

My copy of Animus Delendi is where I first read it. Mario Derksen makes reference to it also, so I’m copying his source listing for the specific page number and footnote.

"It was the final session of the Council, the most essential, in which the Pope was to bestow upon all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse’ " [Jean Guitton, ‘Nel Segno dei Dodici,’ interview with Maurizio Blondet, Avvenire, October 11, 1992; qtd. in Atila Sinke Guimarães, Animus Delendi - I, Los Angeles, CA: Tradition in Action, 2000, p. 57].

And, of course, we have absolutely no way of varifying their source. Sorry but since the internet has exactly one entry for this quote (the one you already gave), I’ll take it with a grain of salt. And, yes, I’m saying that people should be suspect of this quote.

 

[bear06]

I’m going to clarify my last post since I’m sure it’ll get some hostile replies. I would trust a quote from this book amazon.com/Pope-speaks-Dialogues-Paul-Guitton/dp/0297763288 but I do not trust such a loaded quote attributed to some very remote article. Anyone know if it’s in this book?

 

[GerardP]

Our Lord’s words are not a meaningless slogan. They are crucial to understanding the Church. If the Church can’t guarantee her protection of the liturgy, how are we supposed to follow her to Christ?

But you are missing the point. It’s not about the indefectibility of the Church. Satan can’t notch a soul that is actually in the Church in a state of grace. He’s got to lead people out of the Church whether they know it or don’t know it. You want reverent liturgy? He’ll give you the High Church Anglicans. You want a free for all? He’ll give you Pentecostalism. He just needs to massage a little indifferentism and syncretism in the Church itself and he’ll have a harvest of souls go to those false religions or stop believing authentic Catholicism. So, the Novus Ordo lends itself to that type of indifferentism, syncretism and Protestantism because the specifically Catholic elements have been subdued or removed.

Understanding the Church means understanding the difference between the Churchmen and the Church herself. As it is, the Churchmen who are charged with protecting the liturgy haven’t been able to or willing to. That’s why we have the Magisterium of the Church to hold the line. It prevents the Popes from making any old thing binding. By listening to the Pope for Peter’s voice and recognizing it, you’ll be able to hear when it’s Simon’s voice and put it on a lower level of assent and consideration.

In a black mass, the intentions of all involved are evil and it is done solely to desecrate Our Lord.

Yes. It’s an extreme example, but I was pointing out that Our Lord is present.

The Novus Ordo is not celebrated to desecrate Our Lord.

It’s also not celebrated to give our absolute best to God. That’s why I likened it to the sacrifice of Cain. He didn’t set out to desecrate his sacrifice to spite God. He simply didn’t give God his best. “Cranmer’s Godly Order” by Michael Davies shows how the exact same elements were removed from the TLM in the creation of the Novus Ordo that Cranmer removed from the Liturgy in England. People didn’t even know they were Anglicans and stopped being Catholic.

A black mass is not sanctioned by the Church, rather it is condemned. The Novus Ordo IS sactioned by the Church.

Liturgies are disciplinary matters. They aren’t infallible and they aren’t revelation. On the other hand, every other rite in the Church has a true development coming from an Apostle who learned it from Jesus. The Novus Ordo is not rooted in the Apostles. As the Holy Father said as Cardinal, It’s a banal, on-the-spot, liturgy put together by committee.

Researching and studying that committee and the theologians that influenced them can’t help but make a person understand that the Novus Ordo was an attempt to liberalize the Church towards modernism.

 

[cam100]

… Understanding the Church means understanding the difference between the Churchmen and the Church herself. As it is, the Churchmen who are charged with protecting the liturgy haven’t been able to or willing to. That’s why we have the Magisterium of the Church to hold the line. It prevents the Popes from making any old thing binding. By listening to the Pope for Peter’s voice and recognizing it, you’ll be able to hear when it’s Simon’s voice and put it on a lower level of assent and consideration.

This seems to suggest sifting the Pope’s declarations to decide which should be considered worthy of obedience and which should not. This puts the laity as judges of the Pope, which is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.

It’s also not celebrated to give our absolute best to God. That’s why I likened it to the sacrifice of Cain. He didn’t set out to desecrate his sacrifice to spite God. He simply didn’t give God his best.

The intentions of the mass should be the intentions of the Church. So the intention of the Church in celebrating the NO mass is NOT give our best to God?

“Cranmer’s Godly Order” by Michael Davies shows how the exact same elements were removed from the TLM in the creation of the Novus Ordo that Cranmer removed from the Liturgy in England. People didn’t even know they were Anglicans and stopped being Catholic.

They knew they weren’t in communion with the Pope. That’s how they should have known they were wrong.

 

[GerardP]

This seems to suggest sifting the Pope’s declarations to decide which should be considered worthy of obedience and which should not. This puts the laity as judges of the Pope, which is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.

How is discernment not in keeping with Catholic teaching? Pope Benedict said his recent book “Jesus of Nazareth” is not a magisterial document but his own thoughts as a theologian. The Pope expects people to treat how he says things with different weight.

Conversely, when he speaks with the authority of Peter, says he is doing so, is speaking on a matter of faith and or morals and is intending to bind everyone in the Church, he’s infallible.

JPII’s statement on women’s ordination is infallible and it’s clear and leaves no wiggle room. That is completely the opposite of some of his personal “reflections” as he called them in some of his letters, statements and encyclicals.

The intentions of the mass should be the intentions of the Church. So the intention of the Church in celebrating the NO mass is NOT give our best to God?

What do you mean by “the intentions of the Church” ??? How are you defining “Church?”

They knew they weren’t in communion with the Pope. That’s how they should have known they were wrong.

No, they didn’t. It took over 100 years for them to gradually adopt new beliefs and 3 centuries till Leo XIII declared them infallibly null as far as apostolic succession goes. Added to that the Church/State situation was far more politically enmeshed than today. Also, Vatican I had yet to be called where it placed definable limits on the Popes infallibility.

And finally why should they think they are wrong today when in their eyes the Catholic Church ultimately imitated their liturgical emphasis in the Novus Ordo? From their perspective,they were right all along.

Of course, if you want a look into the future of the Novus Ordo, you just have to look at the collapse of the Anglican Church.

That won’t happen to a point of complete collapse because of the ultimate triumph of tradition in the Church.

 

[GerardP]

And, of course, we have absolutely no way of varifying their source. Sorry but since the internet has exactly one entry for this quote (the one you already gave), I’ll take it with a grain of salt. And, yes, I’m saying that people should be suspect of this quote.

Why? It’s perfectly consistent with other quotes of Paul VI. Jean Guitton was very much a friend of Paul VI. The date and time and source of the interview was named. William Biersach made an observation that we Americans tend to deny the existence of anything that doesn’t appear right in front of us, at our fingertips.

Someone on Angelqueen posted a larger section of the paragraphs in Guimareas’ book. I recognize it from when I read it. Would you like that as well? It describes the media hype and Guitton’s attempt to put a positive take on the statement.

There are probably a thousand things you believe everyday that you have less of a source on. Is it pure sentimentalism that suddenly makes you demand this high level of proof?

You are basically calling Atila Sinke Guimareas a liar for no reason. Unless you can come up with a reason for doubting him.

 

[GerardP]

Here’s an interesting section from New Advent on Anglicanism

You can see the same trend at work in the development of the New Rite as pointed out by Michael Davies and prior to that the Ottaviani Intervention:

Remember, this is a 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Anglicanism.

USE OF LITURGICAL REFORM TO DENY THE SACRIFICE

The comparison of the Anglican Prayer Book and Ordinal with the Pre-Reformation formularies which they replaced leads to a second conclusion which in harmony with the above. *On making an analysis of what has been removed, and what has been retained, and what has been altered, it becomes unmistakably apparent that the main motive which determined and guided the construction of the new liturgy was the same as that which inspired the whole Reformation movement, namely: the determination to have the Lord’s Supper regarded only as a Sacrament or Communion, and not as a Sacrifice, and to remove whatever indicated the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, or the Real, Objective Presence, in the Catholic sense, in which Christ is worshipped in the Host. *

The Catholic liturgical forms, missal, breviary, pontifical, were in possession and had been in actual use for centuries. In making a liturgical reform, it was by the necessity of the case impossible that the changes made should not have reference to them, standing as they did, in the relation of terminus a quo to a terminus ad quem of reformation. If the Sarum Missal, Breviary, and Pontifical are placed side by side with the Anglican Prayer Book and Ordinal, and a comparison made of the corresponding parts, the motive, drift, and intention of the framers are clearly revealed.

In the Catholic Pontifical, in the Ordination services there are twenty-four passages which express with clearness the Catholic Sacerdotium, or sacrificial character of the office and work of the priesthood. Of these not one was allowed to remain in the Anglican Ordinal.
In the Ordinary of the Mass alone there are some twenty-five points in which the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ as a Victim are expressed or implied. All these have been suppressed and eliminated in the Anglican Communion Service, and passages of a Reformational or non-committal character substituted.
Thus, with regard to no less than forty-nine places, the new formularies** bear the mark of deliberate exclusion and of anti-sacrificial and anti-sacerdotal significance**. (See The Tablet, London, 12 June, 1897.)

 

[stmaria]

TMC;2984741]Can we just clarify something? Are you saying that Paul VI knew that Bugnini was an agent of the Masons and was deliberately working to destroy the Mass?

Any proof that Bugnini was a freemason was in the “dossier” that was given to Pope Paul but that was in 1975. Pope Paul trusted Bugnini and that is why he let him lead the way in writing the New Mass. I don not believe that he suspected Bugnini of being a freemason, if he was one.

If yes, then Paul VI either allowed the Mass to be perverted and is an evil man, or he fixed the harm and it doesn’t matter.

Pope Paul wanted to modernize the Church. Bring it up to date. That included changing the Mass. The question which is never answered is this: Why didn’t Pope Paul change the Mass according to the *Constitution on the Liturgy *that was passed by over 1900 Fathers at Vatican II? Why did he go with the Mass written by Bugnini and a handfull of theologians? Why didn’t the reform stop with the Mass of 1965 which he promulgated and which WAS the Mass of the Constitution?
coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

In no, then that cannot not be the reason that Bugnini was “sent away” and the fact that some imagine he was punished cannot prove your allegations.

Pope Paul had known and worked with Bugnini for over 30 years.It had to be something serious for him to dismiss Bugnini without ever disclosing to anyone why he did it.

So the only way your allegation have even internal logic is if you believe that Paul VI was willfully involved in perverting the Mass. Is this your allegation? If so, why do you think he did that? If not, what other reading of your allegations makes sense?

The Vatican II council was obsessed with ecumenism. I beleive that Pope Paul believed that the Latin Mass was a major obstacle to that end. Making the Mass more appealing to Protestants was a factor. That is why he allowed Communion in the hand to continue in the Netherlands even though he acknowleded it was being done without his authority and therefore it was an abuse]
He also allowed the words of Consecration to be changed so that they would be closer to those of Martin Luther. Many of the changes in the Mass were the same as those made by Luther and Cranmer.
I

would allow a possibility that Paul and Bugnini did a poor job, or even that they were misguided, (although I don’t believe either) but I it strains credulity to suggest that they were evil people actively working against the Church.

I do not believe that they were evil. Misguided yes.Pope paul had the authority to change the liturgy but I believe it was an abuse of that authority by not following the Constitution that he promulgated
As for Bugnin here are a couple of quoptes from his book Reform of the Liturgy that shows his feelings toward the Latin Mass.

Pg115 “But how difficult it is to take an ancient building in hand and make it functional and habitable without changing the structure. Peripheral alterations are not enough; there had to be a radical restoration”
Pg 44 “Signs and rites are likely to become incrusted by time, that is, to grow old and outmoded. They may therefore need to be revised and updated, so that the expression of the Church’s worship may reflect the perennial youthfulness of the Church itself…the Liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified “

There is alo this quote from Bugnini.
“The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimensions since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.”(Archbishop Bugnini after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Notitiae”, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126)

This is for another thread but there is no doubt if you honestly look at the evidence that the New Mass was made possible by trickery and plot. This is briefly what I mean
The *Constitution on the Liturgy *WAS WRITTEN by Father Bugnini and a handful of theologians.
They then, under the approval of Pope Paul, established a Commission **to interpret **the Constitution that they had written. This enabled them to write the new liturgy in their image.
Various Bishops that were members of the Commission, intentionally started communion in the hand, allowing the laity to give out communion, mass in the vernacular with new Eucharistic prayers etc as early as 1964. All of these were abuses. But they knew that by spreading these practices they would force Pope Paul to cave in to their image of the New Mass.
Pope Paul went along with it simply because he was a weak Pope who was influenced by liberal theologians.

 

[bear06]

Why? It’s perfectly consistent with other quotes of Paul VI. Jean Guitton was very much a friend of Paul VI. The date and time and source of the interview was named. William Biersach made an observation that we Americans tend to deny the existence of anything that doesn’t appear right in front of us, at our fingertips.

Someone on Angelqueen posted a larger section of the paragraphs in Guimareas’ book. I recognize it from when I read it. Would you like that as well? It describes the media hype and Guitton’s attempt to put a positive take on the statement.

There are probably a thousand things you believe everyday that you have less of a source on. Is it pure sentimentalism that suddenly makes you demand this high level of proof?

You are basically calling Atila Sinke Guimareas a liar for no reason. Unless you can come up with a reason for doubting him.

I’ve already said I’d be more inclined to believe it if it was found in Guitton’s own book.

That said, I find it quite funny that you extoll Guitton’s friendship and yet appear to be ignoring his “positive spin” on the statement. If he was so close, wouldn’t his perception be correct?

Anyways, yes, I have suspicions about this quote. It seems like such a quote would have been used a lot more.

No matter. It has little bearing on the conversation.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

The problems with the Novus Ordo are legion:

1. CHANGED THE WORDS OF THE CONSECRATION TO WORDS JESUS NEVER SAID. Ouch.
2. Turned the Sacrifice of Calvary into a Protestant meal
3. Turned Catholic Altars into Protestant tables
4. Destroys Catholic Priesthood by allowing just about anyone to become a ‘Eucharistic Minister’
5. etc, etc, etc…

Actually, a well done, non sensational video explaining this is:
Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid 2of5
check it out on youtube.com

Good grief. I’m not a fan of the New Order of Mass, but it is most certainly valid. Not that this means it’s a perfect expression of the Catholic Faith-- it’s obviously inferior to the Traditional Mass. However, again, it is most certainly valid, and no mere layperson (or cleric, for that matter, aside from the pope) has the authority to pronounce something approved by the Church as invalid.

And the new rite of ordination . . . also perfectly valid. We can regret that much of the traditional language was changed or removed, but the necessary elements for validity are present. The conclusion that the new rite of ordination (or that the new order of Mass) is invalid presents a very grave obstacle to Our Lord’s words that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

Also, it’s false to say that all the outrages you listed above are inherent or somehow intrinsically linked to the New Mass. They are abuses which take place in the context of the New Mass, but they don’t have to. In other words, one could certainly have a New Mass without the above-mentioned abuses.

 

[BobP123]

The problems with the Novus Ordo are legion:

1. CHANGED THE WORDS OF THE CONSECRATION TO WORDS JESUS NEVER SAID. Ouch.
2. Turned the Sacrifice of Calvary into a Protestant meal
3. Turned Catholic Altars into Protestant tables
4. Destroys Catholic Priesthood by allowing just about anyone to become a ‘Eucharistic Minister’
5. etc, etc, etc…

Makes one wonder why they did this. I can easily see how it confused a lot of Catholics and made them doubt their own faith, especially since the most Protestant of Bibles doesn’t dare to change the words of Christ. Were they testing God? I don’t think I want to be part of that group.:tsktsk:

 

[St_Isidore]

“…Second, the normative Pauline Mass was not “fabricated by a Free Mason and a number of Protestants.” That comment is so outwardly laughable that I truly hope you are trying to be funny. If you’re not, I feel sorry for you…”

Old man Bugnini, architect of the New Mass, was exactly that- a Freemason. And unfortunately, six Protestant ministers were also brought in to work on the overhauling. That is all documented fact. In response to the Reformation, the Council of Trent gave us the Tridentine Mass and said ‘no one can tweak this Mass, ever…’ So what did Vatican II give us?.. basically a Protestant service.

The problems with the Novus Ordo are legion:
1. CHANGED THE WORDS OF THE CONSECRATION TO WORDS JESUS NEVER SAID. Ouch.
2. Turned the Sacrifice of Calvary into a Protestant meal
3. Turned Catholic Altars into Protestant tables
4. Destroys Catholic Priesthood by allowing just about anyone to become a ‘Eucharistic Minister’
6. etc, etc, etc…

Actually, a well done, non sensational video explaining this is:
Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid 2of5
check it out on youtube.com

Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis…

**You had me at number #1!!!:bigyikes: **

 

[cam100]

cam100;2987733:

This seems to suggest sifting the Pope’s declarations to decide which should be considered worthy of obedience and which should not. This puts the laity as judges of the Pope, which is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.

How is discernment not in keeping with Catholic teaching? Pope Benedict said his recent book “Jesus of Nazareth” is not a magisterial document but his own thoughts as a theologian. The Pope expects people to treat how he says things with different weight.

Conversely, when he speaks with the authority of Peter, says he is doing so, is speaking on a matter of faith and or morals and is intending to bind everyone in the Church, he’s infallible.

JPII’s statement on women’s ordination is infallible and it’s clear and leaves no wiggle room. That is completely the opposite of some of his personal “reflections” as he called them in some of his letters, statements and encyclicals.

I thought we were discussng the promulgation of the mass. That’s not the pope speaking as just a private theologian.

cam100;2987733:

The intentions of the mass should be the intentions of the Church. So the intention of the Church in celebrating the NO mass is NOT give our best to God?

What do you mean by “the intentions of the Church” ??? How are you defining “Church?”

The Pope speaking as the Vicar of Christ and those united with him.

cam100;2987733:

They knew they weren’t in communion with the Pope. That’s how they should have known they were wrong.

No, they didn’t. It took over 100 years for them to gradually adopt new beliefs and 3 centuries till Leo XIII declared them infallibly null as far as apostolic succession goes. Added to that the Church/State situation was far more politically enmeshed than today. Also, Vatican I had yet to be called where it placed definable limits on the Popes infallibility.

And finally why should they think they are wrong today when in their eyes the Catholic Church ultimately imitated their liturgical emphasis in the Novus Ordo? From their perspective,they were right all along.

Of course, if you want a look into the future of the Novus Ordo, you just have to look at the collapse of the Anglican Church.

That won’t happen to a point of complete collapse because of the ultimate triumph of tradition in the Church.

No, the Anglicans didn’t have to wait 100 years before they realized they weren’t in full communion with the Catholic Church! When King Henry VIII proclaimed himself head of the Catholic Church in England, that should have been a big tip-off. And it was to many people – especially those who lost their lives because they refused to acknowledge the king as such. They did not have to go examining the liturgical changes of the following years to realize they weren’t in unity with the one Vicar of Christ.

That’s my point here – unity with Rome is our yardstick. That’s how we know when we’re Catholic and when we’re not.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Oh, now get it.:newidea: Don’t listen to the Church and the Magisterium. Get your catechesis from You Tube.

Please provide proof for your denigrating allegations. (From reputable sources, not SSPX)

Thanks.

Try reading “The Rhine Flows into The Tiber”. It’s an eye opener and it backs up what the man said. It’s an eye witness’s report on the Council.