Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 23:36:13 GMT
Bp. Wiliamson condemns himself in EC #548
From Eleison Comments #548:
“… 1 The Archbishop was not proud, because he was defending God’s truth and putting God before men. On the contrary, heretics like Luther and Conciliarists are proud because they are defying God to please men …
5 His successors on the contrary, by doing all they can, since 2000 at least, to bring the Archbishop’s Society under the control of the Conciliar Romans, are in no terms heroic because they are putting men before God. Nor are they martyrs, nor are they truly imitating Christ, but they are indeed proud…”
Bishop Williamson puts men before God with his ecumenism and trad-ecumenism (“Therefore, in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you…” Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments #505). It is an ecumenism that is based on “compassion.”
This is his reasoning from his Eleison Comments #348 – March 2014:
“The temporary principle is that the Shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered … It follows that those who by the grace of God – and by nothing else – see straight, must have a 360-degree compassion for souls caught in a confusion not entirely their own fault. Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the Society of St Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that belief is not obligatory.”
So, Bishop Williamson is saying that we should compromise by accepting errors and not correcting them “out of compassion” for souls living in this modern-day confusion in the Church.
This is putting men before God at the expense of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ
N.B.
The Dominicans of Avrillé said in their conference, “How to see clearly through the current situation of Tradition:”
“1. The heart of the fight is no longer Christ the King, but the Mass
…For the popes before Vatican II – and not only St. Pius X and Pius XI: all the others say the same thing – the current battle is principally the battle for Christ the King, because the [French] Revolution uncrowned Our Lord, which is the cause of all the ills of the modern world. What is at stake in the struggle between the City of Satan (the counter-Church) and the Catholic Church is the Kingship of Christ
And this fight has become even more important to carry on since the Second Vatican Council, because the official hierarchy, under pressure from Freemasonry, has renounced working for the Kingship of Christ.
That is why Archbishop Lefebvre, who has sought nothing more than to continue in the same line as the popes before Vatican II, wrote:
“That’s what makes our opposition [to current Rome], and that’s why we cannot get along. This is not primarily the issue of the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc.
The real fundamental opposition is the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oportet illum Regnare, St. Paul tells us, our Lord came to rule. They say no and we say yes with all the popes…” (Abp. Levebvre, The Church Infiltrated by Modernism, from Fideliter, 1993, p. 70)."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 2:22:27 GMT
Bishop Williamson has been condemning himself many times. In his EC #517, Refined Hypocrisy, he wrote on the thoughts of pope Francis undermining the Doctrine of the faith by “the classic Communist or Neo-modernist means of subversion, using practicalities to undermine truth, not in principle but in practice” by putting a “subjective excuse in the foreground is to put the objective in the background”. Which is exactly what BW does: When he gave several epistles advising the error to go to the new mass, the Dominicans condemned his error: When he gave several epistles advising the error of a condemned book by Maria Valtorta, the Dominicans condemned his error. But does he listen? Bishop Williamson is his own vagabond...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2018 14:41:14 GMT
Pulcheria said: Compare what Bishop Williamson says (above in the first post)about accepting the errors of others and what the Archbishop wrote (which is in line with the Church has always taught?) : - “Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978)
- “… and this, it is really the modern heresy, that we can really designate under this new term, for it really seems that there is a new heresy in addition to modernism, liberalism, and all those old errors, it seems to me that we can define this modern error: ecumenism, this false ecumenism.” (Conference at Econe, May 16, 1978)
- “Then came this abominable ecumenism which is nothing but the means to penetrate liberal ideas within the Church, because it is the principle of religious liberty, a principle which is in the constitution, in the declaration of human rights.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
- "We want to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic Faith, because there is only this unity that can unite us. But not this kind of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism, because I think this is what best defines modern tendencies and what we could almost express as the 'modern heresy.' As I had the occasion to say in Essen, I think that what best defines the whole crisis in the Church is really this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism because there is a certain ecumenism that, if properly defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as is practiced by the present Church and especially since Vatican II, necessarily carries true heresies." (Conference of April 14, 1978)
A travesty. By his statements, Bishop Williamson is deliberately leading souls repeatedly into error. And it is a double-travesty because Bishop Williamson has no excuse. He was 'raised' under the Archbishop. He was consecrated a bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre. He taught in the Archbishop's seminaries. HE KNOWS BETTER. So to read and hear that Bishop Williamson is telling people its ok to continue to attending Masses from compromising priests and societies is inexcusable. Those who know the words of the Archbishop are not fooled by these new and novel words of Bishop Williamson and his adherents. And knowing that the Archbishop never countered what the Church has always taught makes it easy for us to determine who is speaking the truth and who is leading souls astray. Our Lord Jesus Christ and many of the saints referred to false shepards. The Church has certainly had her fair share of them. Why would our times be any different? Are we exempt from this type of trial. NO. Vatican II and its subsequent roll-out has taught us well that we are not exempt from these types of trials and temptations. And we know we must suffer this and remain firm. All this is nothing short of a foretaste of a bloody persecution. We are not yet asked to shed our blood for the Faith. We are just asked now to remain faithful to It. We are asked to not compromise while its relatively easy to do so. We are not in hiding. We are not threatened with starvation or imprisonment for the faith, as were the Catholics who had to oppose the errors of Arianism, for example. If we cannot remain faithful now and follow persons instead of the Faith, as the followers of Bishop Williamson are doing, how will we be able to hope to remain firm when its more important to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 15:30:17 GMT
The goal of the neo-sspx and the false resistance is to alter if not get rid of Archbishop Lefebvre and the perennial Catholic Church he stood for. He is the only Providential figure in their way. The contradictions of their neo-positions are clear for any honest observer.
ABL is in the way for them to grow in novelty just the same as modern rome tried to get rid of him...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:56:35 GMT
Pulcheria said: Compare what Bishop Williamson says (above in the first post)about accepting the errors of others and what the Archbishop wrote (which is in line with the Church has always taught?) : - “Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978)
- “… and this, it is really the modern heresy, that we can really designate under this new term, for it really seems that there is a new heresy in addition to modernism, liberalism, and all those old errors, it seems to me that we can define this modern error: ecumenism, this false ecumenism.” (Conference at Econe, May 16, 1978)
- “Then came this abominable ecumenism which is nothing but the means to penetrate liberal ideas within the Church, because it is the principle of religious liberty, a principle which is in the constitution, in the declaration of human rights.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
- "We want to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic Faith, because there is only this unity that can unite us. But not this kind of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism, because I think this is what best defines modern tendencies and what we could almost express as the 'modern heresy.' As I had the occasion to say in Essen, I think that what best defines the whole crisis in the Church is really this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism because there is a certain ecumenism that, if properly defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as is practiced by the present Church and especially since Vatican II, necessarily carries true heresies." (Conference of April 14, 1978)
A travesty. By his statements, Bishop Williamson is deliberately leading souls repeatedly into error. And it is a double-travesty because Bishop Williamson has no excuse. He was 'raised' under the Archbishop. He was consecrated a bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre. He taught in the Archbishop's seminaries. HE KNOWS BETTER. So to read and hear that Bishop Williamson is telling people its ok to continue to attending Masses from compromising priests and societies is inexcusable. Those who know the words of the Archbishop are not fooled by these new and novel words of Bishop Williamson and his adherents. And knowing that the Archbishop never countered what the Church has always taught makes it easy for us to determine who is speaking the truth and who is leading souls astray. Our Lord Jesus Christ and many of the saints referred to false shepards. The Church has certainly had her fair share of them. Why would our times be any different? Are we exempt from this type of trial. NO. Vatican II and its subsequent roll-out has taught us well that we are not exempt from these types of trials and temptations. And we know we must suffer this and remain firm. All this is nothing short of a foretaste of a bloody persecution. We are not yet asked to shed our blood for the Faith. We are just asked now to remain faithful to It. We are asked to not compromise while its relatively easy to do so. We are not in hiding. We are not threatened with starvation or imprisonment for the faith, as were the Catholics who had to oppose the errors of Arianism, for example. If we cannot remain faithful now and follow persons instead of the Faith, as the followers of Bishop Williamson are doing, how will we be able to hope to remain firm when its more important to do so. Bishop Williamson’s ecumenism is appalling! He says in his EC #348 “Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it. If Clare is persuaded that there is no grave problem within the Society of St Pius X, I need not ram down her throat why there is. And if John can see no way to keep the Faith without believing that the See of Rome is vacant, I need urge upon him no more than that that belief is not obligatory.”
Bishop Williamson is giving ecumenical advice, as explained by Archbishop Lefebvre below. “Now after the Assisi meeting …Why worry people who are in another religion [or in error]?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, from conference below) Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…Our Lord came on earth to institute Religion. There is only one religion. Those who will not be converted to it will not be able to enter Heaven. Our Lord said to His Apostles, "Go, teach all nations." He did not say: leave the Buddhists, the Muslims, and the pagans in peace. They each have their religion. Do not disturb them.
The missionaries left for the missions, they were killed, they shed their blood, they were martyrs. Now after the Assisi meeting, how can one be a missionary? Why go to Africa? Why go to the Indies? Why go to China to convert them, since all religions are equally a means of salvation? Why worry people who are in another religion? Ecumenism is the end of the missions, of the missionary spirit. This is extremely serious. The Church is essentially missionary. "Euntes, ite, docete." - Go, teach.” It is a terrible, radical change. It is not surprising that there are no more missionary vocations, no more priestly vocations.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spain, 1986) Source: cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/archbishop-lefebvre-liberalism-is-not-only-a-sin-it-is-a-religion.6465/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 15:14:02 GMT
Bishop Williamson in EC #348:
“Therefore, it seems to me, if James is convinced that to save his soul he must stay in the Newchurch, I need not hammer him to get out of it…
Yes, you should, Bishop Williamson, because the New Mass makes you lose your faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre saw this clearly. Why can’t you?
Archbishop Lefebvre:
-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)
-“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)
-“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)
-“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ... I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 16:24:13 GMT
I think that this point of the Archbishop's is very important: "“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…"
So many, priests even, claim that since the Novus Ordo may be valid, we are allowed to attend it. This is not correct. This is not the teaching of the Church.
It doesn't matter if its a bishop or a priest or a layperson, we cannot "hold to this absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at." Anyone who teaches this is in error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 18:42:29 GMT
It couldn't be any clearer than that. Bp. Williamson is against his founder Bp. Lefebvre. He and his followers have ceremoniously declared they want the new religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 1:51:05 GMT
And again, Bishop Williamson displays in another EC, Prison Survival, on a humanistic example in virtue to live in a prison. When Catholic morals portray great excellence in the faith to teach what Saints did to profess and imitate our Lord. For Bishop Williamson, he is all about prisons, NWO, prisons of mind, prisons of body.... Who cares says our Lord, be afraid of those who can bring the soul to hell. Does BW not recognize he lives in a prison of disparaged human content? It is the Catholic faith who teaches the peace of soul and manner of detachment not to hold to anything but with a Holy Indifference each day of our lives; not just in prisons. But does BW read Catholicism any longer to know theses truths? Is he too far into trad-ecumenism to see and be at peace? Why all the tombs of the world's literary examples putting shadows on the Church? Dark outlooks are from dark minds. Rather, look up like the Apostles, where angels dwell ascending and descending giving grace doing God's will.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 13:42:21 GMT
Contrast the worldly-wise 'sermon' of the bishop in how to handle imprisonment with the glories of the Martyrs and how they handled imprisonment:
VICTORIES OF THE MARTYRS -- St. Vincent (Feast: January 22nd) by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
ST. VINCENT, one of the most celebrated martyrs of Spain, was born in Saragossa, of one of the most respectable families of that city. While very young, he was placed under the tutelage of Valerius, Bishop of that church, who with great pains instructed him in the doctrines of religion, giving him at the same time a very extensive acquaintance with human science. Vincent, having made wonderful progress in learning, was ordained deacon by this prelate, who being himself prevented from preaching by an impediment in his speech, entrusted this office to Vincent. The young Levite discharged this important duty with such success that a great number of sinners, and even of pagans, was converted at his discourses. At that time, namely, in the year 303, Spain was under the rule of Maximian; and Dacian was governor of the province of Tarragona, in which Saragossa was situated. This Dacian was a most cruel man, and an unrelenting persecutor of the Christians. Hearing of the manner in which Vincent advanced the Christian faith, he had him arrested, together with his Bishop, Valerius, and brought to Valencia, where he resided. He caused them to suffer much in prison, thinking that by maltreatment he would render them easier to be tampered with, but he soon perceived that this means did not correspond to the end he had in view. When they had been brought into his presence, he first endeavored by kindness to induce them to apostatize. To Valerius he represented that his declining age and infirmity required that repose which he might obtain by obeying the imperial edicts, but if he resisted he would feel the effects of their just anger. Then turning to Vincent he said: "You are young, and should not despise the reward of fortune which you may earn by abandoning your religion. Obey, young man, the commands of the emperors, and do not, by refusal, expose yourself to an ignominious death." Whereupon Vincent, turning to Valerius, who as yet had made no reply to the governor, said: "Father, if thou wilt, I shall answer for thee." The saintly bishop, resolved to suffer for Jesus Christ, replied: "Yes, my son, as I formerly entrusted to thee the preaching of God’s holy word, I now charge thee to manifest our faith." The holy deacon then declared to Dacian that they adored one only God, and could not worship the gods of the empire, who were devils, adding: "Do not think to shake our fortitude with threats of death or promises of reward, because there is nothing in this world which can be compared with the honor and pleasure of dying for Jesus Christ." Dacian irritated by such liberty of speech said to the holy deacon: "Either you must offer incense to the gods or you must pay with your life the contempt that you show." To this Vincent, raising his voice, replied as follows: " I have already told you that the greatest pleasure and the most distinguished honor that you can procure for us is to make us die for Jesus Christ. You may rest assured that you will tire of inflicting torments sooner than we of suffering them." (Compare this with the bishop's advice on how to survive in prison, including which groups to align oneself with...)Dacian condemned Valerius to banishment, and resolved to wreak his vengeance upon Vincent. He first caused him to be stretched upon the rack, by which horrid machine the saint s arms and feet were so distended, that the bystanders could hear the noise of the dislocation of his joints, which remained attached only by the over-stretched and relaxed sinews. Dacian perceived the placid meekness with which the young martyr endured his torments, and, as Fleury observes, heard him say, " Behold, what I have ever desired is now being accomplished! Behold the happy consummation of what I have always sighed for!" The tyrant hence concluded that the executioners were remiss in making him feel the torments, and caused them to be beaten with rods. He then commanded that the sides of the saint should be torn with iron hooks, until the ribs should be visible; and, knowing how much the pain would increase by allowing the wounds to cool, and then opening them afresh, he ordered this torture, which was inflicted with great cruelty, until the bowels appeared, and the blood flowed in torrents. Meanwhile, as Orsi relates, the martyr insulted the tyrant, saying: " Since thy cruel ministers have exhausted their strength, come, thou chief butcher, and help them; stretch forth thy wicked hands and slake thy thirst in my blood. Thou art deceived, thinking that torments can overcome my faith. Within me there is another man strengthened by God, whom thou canst not subdue." Hereupon, seeing his constancy, Dacian ordered a cessation of his tortures, begging of the saint, for his own sake, that if he persisted in refusing to sacrifice to the gods, he would at least give up the sacred books to be burned. Vincent answered that fire was not created by God to burn holy books, but to torture the wicked for ever: nor did he hesitate to admonish him, that if he did not abandon the worship of idols, he would be one day condemned to eternal flames. The governor, more in censed than ever, condemned him to the most cruel of torments, that of being broiled on a species of grid iron studded with sharp points. The saint hearing this barbarous command, walked with joy to the frightful engine, in anticipation of his executioners: such was his eagerness to suffer. Upon this gridiron the saint was stretched at length, and bound, hand and foot, while the fire burned beneath. Red-hot plates of iron were placed on his mangled flesh; and his wounds were rubbed with salt, which the activity of the fire forced deeper into his burned and lacerated body. In the midst of these tortures, the countenance of the martyr evinced the inward consolation and joy of his soul, while, with eyes raised to heaven, he blessed the Lord, and besought of Him to receive his sacrifice. All admired the prodigious fortitude with which God inspired the holy youth, and the pagans themselves exclaimed that it was miraculous. The effect that the spectacle of such patience produced obliged Dacian to remove him from the public view. Yet, not content with the tortures he had already inflicted, he caused him to be thrown into a dungeon, his feet placed very wide apart, in wooden stocks, the pain of which was so great that many martyrs died under it. His body was then stretched on potsherds, which, opening his wounds afresh, caused the most painful anguish. In order to weary his patience, strict orders were given that no one should be admitted to see or offer him the least consolation; but the saint at midnight perceived his dungeon illuminated by a celestial light, and perfumed by a heavenly odor. The Lord then sent his angels to console him, to intimate that his tortures were at an end, and to assure him of the reward of his fidelity. The jailers, being awakened by the splendor of the light, approached, and heard the martyr in concert with the angels rendering praises to the Lord. They believed and avowed the Christian faith. Dacian being informed of this, ordered that the saint should be removed from prison to a soft bed, and that his wounds should be healed, with the intention of renewing his torments when he would be sufficiently recovered to bear them. The faithful being permitted to visit and console him, kissed his wounds and absorbed the blood in their napkins, which they preserved as most precious relics. But the time for our saint’s triumph had arrived, and he expired in the embraces of his brethren, while his soul was wafted, by the angels who had assisted him, to the regions of everlasting bliss. The tyrant on hearing of his death commanded that his body should be exposed to be devoured by wild beasts; but a raven was sent by God to defend it with its claws and beak, even against a wolf that had come to devour it. Dacian having exhausted his malice, ordered that the body should be put in a sack, and, with a heavy stone tied to it, cast into the sea; but there is no power against the Lord -- the body floated like a feather on the water and was carried by the waves as far as Valencia. The mariners tried to get possession of it, but before they could reach it, it was carried by the waves on the seashore and covered with sand. The saint afterwards appeared to a pious lady named lonica, and indicated the place where his body lay. She went there, accompanied by other Christians, and finding the relics, deposited them in a little chapel; after the persecution had ceased, they were translated to a magnificent church outside the walls of Valencia, where they have always been regarded with devout veneration. St. Augustine attests that at his time the feast of St. Vincent was celebrated with a special joy in all the countries whither the Christian religion had penetrated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 15:17:10 GMT
So we are beaten over our heads to accept this humanistic stuff by the vagabond BW and his alike bishops, priests, and followers who are to chicken to say no to his personality. Or is there more to it? The BW cult WANTS the human sin of evolving religion...it suits there life styles.
Oh wait, some of their fringe followers and regulation enforcers tell us to obey him and forget about him at the same time to put attention on the other lame bishops who do not say as-much of the humanism...but support it with a stick anyway. Convenient, hypocritical, or just flatly another humanistic religion sharing space with the humanist novus ordo camp, so God views it, but has traditional incense and more flamboyant chatter.
Much of this comes down to a false desire of submitting to a human bishop than to the Catholic faith Martyrs died for.
|
|
ajnc
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by ajnc on Jan 24, 2018 2:48:31 GMT
His latest EC concerns Globalism. What does he want? British Imperialism?
Amoris Laetitia has taken the Novus Ordo faithful deeper into Protestantism. What has the SSPX done about this? What has Williamson done about this? What is the purpose of their existence?
|
|