Sg, Based on your other posts I believe that you question Blessed Pope Paul VI's papacy the most after Pope Francis' papacy but if you prefer you can list all of the papacies that you believe to be invalid. In addition to my question regarding Blessed Pope Paul VI, there are two other questions that I included in my above post.
Living water! Hallelujah! Thank goodness for the time being we have YT and the Padres who are published there. I have a great parish with priests who speak the truth but I know many do not and I think at some point homilies such as these will be formally declared hate speech and banned across all social networking sites so if you are able to please download and save them for a future time. If it comes to it we can host them ourselves for others to view. It is quite easy to save them using a tool such as ClipGrab. There are many free ones out there. You just paste the link to the video in and hit a button to save them.
That was beautiful Gracia. Thank you. Anything we can use to hold fast to the Faith is worth taking the time to devote ourselves to and preserve for the future.
Yes we must be prepared to sustain our faith when the persecution worsens. I don't download from Youtube anymore since it violates their terms of service, but most of the audio sermons are available elsewhere. Here is Audio Sancto's complete archive: https://www.reddit.com/r/VideoSancto/comments/3elabi/8_years_of_audio_sancto_the_final_archive/ Here are Fr. Ripperger's talks. https://archive.org/details/ripperger I'm sure there are other sites as well.
Actually no. I have not questioned any of the popes validity apart from PF. I still don’t know what exactly made you think that. I have said many times that I’m not a sedevacantist. Surely you know that.
Is this the Mass you want to attend? Honestly I cannot imagine what everyone in this room thinks the Sacrifice of the Mass is. Does this look like they are preparing themselves to witness Calvary? I am physically disgusted.
The brilliant Catholic satirist Eccles, strikes gold again. In his latest missive, he brings up the statement by Pope Francis in which he compares himself unfavourably with Pope St. John Paul II and describes himself as the 'devil'. Eccles queries whether this statement belongs to the Magisterium (there are some who suggest that everything does that comes from his mouth) or might even be infallible!
The following list is not exhaustive. I typed this during my lunch break at work. Knowing that: 1) the Freemasons actually planned to destroy the Church from within and indeed were successful in infiltrating the Church, 2) the changes to the Mass at V II council were opposed by faithful and orthodox Cardinals like Cardinal Ottaviani 3) Scripture mentions the abomination of desolation and prophecy says that even the elect will be deceived, I am sometimes uncertain. But because I don’t know for sure, I still go for daily mass even though the NO mass is the only one available to me. I have definitely had serious doubts about the validity of the NO mass at a few of the many masses I’ve been to while overseas.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tml?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490 Der Spiegal Cover, which says, 'Thou shall not lie'.
I think this report in Lifesite News refers to the same parish, possibly the same priest: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/j...ish-removed-after-boundary-violations-with-ma The Jesuits again. Are there are faithful Catholics left in the Jesuit order?
“Francis and Abuse: The Papal Secret” After the Der Spiegel piece, another German newspaper published a devastating article on the lies and cover ups going on: Church News Featured Homosexuality German Paper Exposes Coccopalmerio, Francis 86ing Bishop Abuse Tribunal Marco Tosatti September 28, 2018 One Comment After the important investigation of Der Spiegel on the pope, entitled “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness,” now another German daily, Herder Korrespondenz, which certainly not even the most frenzied Bergoglianist could condemn as conservative, is examining the authority of the Church, its questionable characters, and its ambiguities. Benjamin Leven, a well known German theologian and editor, explains in an essay that, according to his Vatican sources, it was Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of the closest counselors of Pope Bergoglio, who promoted an attitude of indulgence at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith toward priests who were responsible for sexual abuse. Thanks to the English translation of Maike Hickson, we are able to offer this report to our readers, which is definitely of interest, given both the source and the means of communication. According to several sources, Coccopalmerio interceded with the pope in favor of Don Mauro Inzoli, the priest of C.L. (Communion and Liberation) who had been condemned for sexual abuse but was then reinstated in his priestly ministry. Coccopalmerio was president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts until April 2018. In 2010, he was named as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). In 2015, Pope Francis named him as a member of a new arm of the CDF that was commissioned to examine the appeals of priests accused of abuse. According to the testimony of Archbishop Viganò, Coccopalmerio is a part of the pro-gay “current” in the Vatican. The author of the essay in Herder Korrespondenz, Benjamin Leven, lives in Rome and has close contacts in the Vatican. His essay entitled “Francis and Abuse: The Papal Secret” discusses the problem of abuse and the role of the pope. Leven writes about the drug-fueled homosexual party that took place in the apartment of the palace of the CDF occupied by Msgr. Luigi Capozzi, Coccopalmerio’s secretary. Leven confirms the story that Capozzi obtained this apartment, “which was destined for another person,” thanks to the personal intervention of the pope. Leven adds that “the warnings which had been given were ignored” by the pope, since “the elevation of Capozzi to the role of bishop was being planned.” Leven recalls that Coccopalmerio “generally spoke against using laicization as a punishment for a priest” because such a priest would be treated equivalently to “someone condemned to death.” This is a position the cardinal consistently maintained, and, in fact, writes Leven, “he regularly proposed light penalties” to the CDF for abusers. With this affirmation, Leven reveals that it may well have been Coccopalmerio who opposed Cardinal Müller’s hard line against sexual abuse, when the former CDF prefect revealed that there were “persons close to the pope” who thought Müller had a “lack of mercy” in dealing with those responsible for abuse. Only 20% of those found guilty were laicized, “but even this was too much for some of those holding influence with the pope [Papsteinflüsterer].” Leven relates how, through the personal intervention of the pope, several priests who were working in the disciplinary section responsible for handling cases of abuse were dismissed from the CDF. “These positions still have not been filled.” And, in passing, we recall that these arbitrary dismissals, which Müller protested, gave the pope the occasion to publicly tell a lie in front of journalists: “He (one of the dismissed officials) did a great job but he was a little tired and he went back to his homeland to do the same work for his bishops.” The ambiguous role of the pope on abuse does not stop here. Leven reveals that it was Pope Francis himself who intervened to stop the plan “to establish a permanent criminal tribunal for bishops” implicated in cases of sexual abuse. The CDF does not have jurisdiction over bishops: “here, the pope in person is the judge.” According to Leven, the pope abandoned the plan of having a tribunal for bishops. Leven concludes that “thus, there seems to be here an ambivalent image: the pope addresses the problem, has the power to intervene, and he meets with victims of abuse. But at the same time he turns a blind eye to individual cases and shows himself impermeable to the advice being given to him.” In another part of the essay, Leven writes that his Vatican sources have told him that the testimony of Viganò is true but that also “in reality things are even worse.” There are many people in the Vatican who do not like its current state of vice, and if somebody decided to speak, “not a stone upon a stone would remain standing.” The essay concluded with a dramatic question: “Will the Catholic hierarchy have the strength to purify itself?” Editor’s note: A version of this article originally appeared in Italian at Marco Tosatti’s blog. Translated for 1P5 by Giuseppe Pellegrino. https://onepeterfive.com/coccopalmerio-francis-tribunal-bishops/
We need to go back to p 477 of this thread and spend a few minutes watching the video of the priest’s homily posted by Lumena on the bad fruits of contraception. I don’t think the blame lies so much with Paul VI, at least not as much as you posit, SG. If we listen to Father, the blame lies with all of us, especially those of us who contracepted. He even includes those of us who used NFP without good reasons. There is a lot of truth in this sermon and it includes the fallout from sinful laity to sinful clergy and hierarchy in the decades which followed Humanae Vitae, right up to where we are now. Contraception has been around since Biblical times, yes, but the scope of it and the sinfulness of it are worse now, especially with the abortifacient methods.
