Thursday, 13 July 2017

Liars, filthy perverted and corrupt Churchmen

Surely, we are to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who states that something said against him or something attributed to him is untrue, is denied by him. 

Surely.

Yet; I find myself believing Steve Skojec and Maike Hickson more than Greg Burke, parroting the instruction of his boss, who acts like a tinpot South American despot and the Cardinal that had not courage to stand up to the despot and now finds himself on the outside.

I am to give the benefit of the doubt to these men. Yet, I find it near impossible.

A Bishop of Rome, not a Holy Father, who denies the miracle of the loaves and fishes, that the real miracle was "sharing." Yes, "Pope" Bergoglio said this, look it up. 

A so-called "Pope" who delights in insulting the folk traditions of simple and faithful Catholics such as spiritual bouquets, calling them "rosary counters." Gosh, we could go on but there is not enough time in this post because truly, "time is greater than space," to write it all down. 

What filthy scoundrels. 

Cocaine parties. Sodomite orgies. Financial corruption. Priests such as James Martin, endangering souls by praising the homosexualist culture with impunity and without correction.

We are to believe these filthy, perverted, corrupt churchmen?

Like hell.

34 comments:

susan said...

Per usual, just incredible well said Vox.

Anonymous said...

@ Paul Morphy.

Vox, we are witnessing the kitchen sink being thrown against the Catholic Church. The throwers feel emboldened right now. They appear to be in the ascendancy and to have the upper hand. From projecting the image of the homosexual flag on to St.Peter's Basilica to an occupant of the Papacy stating "who am I to judge", the times are with them! Their deviant pride is apparent for those who can see, to see.

It is very very easy to become dispirited and downcast, in times such as these. Who could blame the ordinary Catholic for feeling a sense of despair?
It is at times like these that each of us need to summon our collective memory and to place our faith in God. Remember the victory was won 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem. What we are seeing now, today, is the separating of the wheat from the chaff.

Logic tells me that 1 pope's word against 264 popes words, is not contest. What will be will be. Keeping the faith means practising what has been practiced for centuries. Saying prayers, keeping the commandments, trying to lead a Christian life. This is what we are commanded by Jesus to do. He told us that the very gates of Hell itself shall not prevail. If we are Catholic we must trust His words - because He is Omnipresent and Transcendent. Satan ain't. Satan can do nothing. Satan's only power is through human agency. Otherwise he is powerless.

We need to keep the faith!



Michael Dowd said...

Perhaps they will sue Steve like they did you. Steve should hope they do. It would help fundraising.

Ana Milan said...

It is quite impossible for any concerned Catholic to believe what comes out of the Vatican Press Office as those issuing the data/instructions/denials (whatever) are given by morally depraved men who have chosen the side of Satan rather than that of Christ Our Redeemer. We are no longer aghast at the news of drug-fueled sodomite parties, satanic masses, pope & hierarchy unwilling to uphold the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of the CC as they hate everything she stands for, i.e. sanctity, veracity, belief in the afterlife, redemption for those who believe & endeavour to live in accordance with the Ten Commandments. They relentlessly attempt to change the Word of God & even suggest that the Gospels cannot be taken as strictly accurate, as there were no recorders in those days. Some even express the opinion that Jesus is not the Son of God & Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity but only a ‘good man’, maybe a prophet , & fully expect the Catholic faithful to accept their Satanic ravings because everything the CC upheld for nigh two thousand years prior to VII is suddenly & irrevocably false & their demonic, depraved, God-refuting NWO version has taken its place.

The rebuttals & excuses given by prelates of high standing can no longer be entertained & hopefully the time is fast approaching that those who have inside knowledge but have chosen to remain hidden will, by God’s grace, come forward with full disclosure of what Traditionalists know has been happening for decades but which deceit & lies have prevented many from discerning until now. Maike, Steve & their sources deserve our prayers for this outcome to occur very quickly.

Anonymous said...

Like HELL indeed!

Jim Norwood said...

Ironies abound. Is the Pope Catholic? That's not a joke anymore. How about " pray for the intentions of Russia and for the conversion of the Pope".

Catholic Mission said...

pOPE VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION

JULY 13, 2017

Pope Francis violates the Principle of Non Contradiction: chooses irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which is not the work of the Holy Spirit
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/pope-francis-violates-principle-of-non.html

Prof. Robert Fastiggi, Ralph Martin agree that invisible people cannot be visible at the same time : in agreement with Fr. Stefano Visintin's statement
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/prof-robert-fastiggi-ralph-martin-agree.html

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Sodomites truly ARE internally disordered. Their spiritual sickness manifests with unrepented lies, abuse of trust and power, continuous twisting of good into evil, and evil into good, as well as drunkenness, drug abuse and sodomy.

They do not care to know, that whatever they had done to the least of us, they did it to Jesus Christ. To them this statement is part of an old narrative they have outgrown. Now they do as they will. Aleister Crowley is their god. It is aggiornameto, the worship of the flesh.

Only a incorrigible idiot will insist on believing known liars, who brag about their cleverness:

https://onepeterfive.com/pope-speaking-plainly-communion-divorced-messy/

"Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

“Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked, attributing to that suggestion a wisdom that has allowed the maturation necessary to conclude that Amoris Laetitia, as Abp. Bruno Forte explained, does not represent a new doctrine, but the “merciful application” of that [the doctrine] of all time."

And let us not forget about the behind the scenes actors of the selected ring leader's fake election, about the St. Gallen Mafia:

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2610-the-gall-of-the-st-gallen-mafia

Anonymous said...

The Church is in you-can't-make-this-stuff-up time. Why believe the 5 questions? Because it is so outrageously unthinkable that a pope would ask them, they are probably true.

DisturbedMary

Peter Lamb said...

Careful my dear and highly respected friend Vox! You are starting to sound very sedevacantist. :)

TLM said...

I agree with you 1000% Vox!! 'Like Hell' will I believe them about much of anything anymore!!

Hilary White explained it nicely on the post Steve had about Greg Burke and Cdl. Muller denying the 5 reverse Dubia questions before Muller's firing: 'Me thinks they protest too much', and if you understand the culture in Rome and in the Vatican, when people are that adamant in a denial of a story, that's when there's plenty of credibility in it to check into it further. The way I understood her, it's like a green light to the story, and sort of like an unwritten rule. She said Westerners don't quite get this Roman negativity on a credible happening, but they understand it perfectly there. It's the 'Roman way'. Kind of the lay of the land so to speak. They seem to be protesting way too much for the story to be completely false, as far as I understand it. To add even more credibility to this story, I've been reading Steve for many years now, and one thing I know; He doesn't print ANYTHING that he's not COMPLETELY comfortable with in getting the story right with CREDIBLE TRUTH. He checks and rechecks sources before he goes ahead with it. He has even taken flack for not reporting on a story that shows up and is popular elsewhere that people want to see him comment on, but says he WILL NOT go ahead with a story without proper sources and credibility.

To me it comes down to who you can really trust; Steve Skojec or the derelicts in the Vatican? I think it's really a 'no brainer.'

Anonymous said...

I totally support you.

Here in Ireland we have scum bishops. Total scum. All are Judas Iscariots.

The 'arch' 'bishop' of Dublin is known for pro-homo statements and is a close 'friend' of Maradiaga.

He invited Reinhardt Marx to Dublin discreetly to show how much we Irish 'should' accept homo 'marriage' as settled law. Look up Cardinal Marx in dublin.

I ask you Vox to keep going... please... until Holy Russia makes Her just punitive move...

Tom A. said...

As filthy as these "men" are, and as sinful as they may be, none of their perverted acts can seperate them from the mystical body of Christ. Yet even if they live the most virtuous life and refrain from anything impure, but deny even one article of faith as revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ and passed from one generation to the next, they themselves seperate themselves from the mystical body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

Kathleen1031 said...

Look here, if someone had written the five questions and insisted that either of the prior two popes had said it, none of us would entertain it's credibility for a second. We'd know it didn't have the ring of truth, there was no historical reason to believe it, it didn't match what we know to be true in our understanding of either of the men. And despite not knowing the men personally, we form an individual impression of the men, as we have of this current occupant of the Chair of Peter.
So why does this set seem perfectly reasonable, perfectly coherent with what we already know about the man? Because this sounds like him. Catholic paying attention have had four years to get to know this man, and, at this point, we have his number. The questions sound like him, and frankly, even if it turned out not to be accurate (I bet it is), it is revealing enough that it sounds like him and we believe it. That speaks volumes about the man and his complete horror of a papacy.
May God remove him soon.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Try praying to your Apostolic namesake for his successor. Then the Lord will look upon him (Luke 22: 32).

May the good Lord forbid that Vox, Fox, me and this blog ever become sedevacantist. And may He bring you back to the Church.

Margaret


Anonymous said...

Back in the early 90s my nephew was been prepared for his first Holy Communion ,the young Priest told him ,Jesus did not really fast for 40 days in the the desert,because no human being could last that long without food.I explained that countless Saints have lived for years only on the Blessed Sacrament ,Blessed Alexandrina of Portugal lived on the Eucharist for 13 years ,this was studied and proven in a hospital where she spent a month been watched 24/7 ,and resulted in the conversion of a doctor.If these are the kind of priests been turned out of seminaries in the early 90s ,i dread to think what their like today.

Mary said...

Not sure about that Tom A.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that priests have consecrated themselves to Christ, BODY and soul, and their perverted acts (abusing their bodies for pleasure) represent sacrilege.

Peter Lamb said...

Canadians to the Rescue of Holy Mother Church!
Hot off the Press!
Salza put to Bed!
Must Read!

Certain elements love to say that there have been heretical Popes before in the history of the Church. They recognize bergoglio and his conciliar predecessors as heretics, but say they are/were nonetheless still Popes, because there have been heretical Popes before - their favourite example being Pope Honorius.

Vatican I examined 40 cases of allegedly suspect Popes and concluded that there has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church. Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and our greatest scholarly authority on the Papacy reached the same conclusion, up to his own time.

A Canadian Cardinal puts the myth of Pope Honorius being an heretic to rest:
http://novusordowatch.org/2017/07/case-of-pope-honorius/

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Novus Ordo Watch as a reliable source?

Yikes!!!

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-heretic-pope.html

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Vox. It seems quite apparent that the post at 1st Peter was based on rumors and any traditional examination of conscience counts that as a sin that must be confessed

YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR
Have I defamed someone’s good name by taking part in gossip or slander?

If Pope Francis did ask him those questions, only the Pope and the Cardinal can legitimately comment on it and the Cardinal has denied it and is quoted as saying he was shocked when he read the report.

Isn't it far better to simply apologise for trafficking in gossip rather than trying to justify it by appealing to salacious but extraneous matter?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Margaret, my sister in Christ, I wish you every blessing. I am squarely in the Catholic Church, into which I was born and in which I will die. I'm sorry, but I cannot let you call me a heretic destined for hell, without responding. :)

You hate sedevacantism. You made public why you hate sedevacantism. Your fiance broke off your engagement and he became a sedevacantist, as did his friend.

My heart aches for your hurt. I know how something like that hurts, but that emotional hurt cannot be carried over to a theological position. To do so, is an emotional response, not a doctrinal one.

I have asked you, on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere, to refute sedevacantism on doctrinal grounds accompanied by citations and you have never once responded, because you cannot.

I will pray to Our Lady of Sorrows that your hurt be healed. I mean that. You are a good Catholic lady, so try to look at these matters objectively in future. Let us discuss these things as Catholic friends. :)

Johnno said...

BWHAHAHAHA! This isn't the first time the Vatican Press Office went nuclear against 1P5!

Everyone remember when they issued that 'press release' denying that Ratzinger ever spoke to anyone about the 3rd Secret of Fatima referring to a bad Council and Mass?

Except that press release was unsigned, and contained suspiciously decontextualized quotations of Maybe-maybe-not-no-longer-Pope-but-inside-the-enclave-of-St.-Peter Benedict XVI.

Now what their 'denial' amounts to is some vague illusion to an improper 'reconstruction' that is "totally false"?

Which parts were totally false? Please describe to us what was 'reconstructed'? Do they mean that Francis never actually printed out the format of the 'dubia' in Microsoft Word as 1P5 posted in that exact script and verbiage as presented to Mueller through some official channel?

Then I guess the Vatican is right! Because here I thought 1P5 was simply relating events as presented to them by a source who was not exactly intending to be legally formal in his presentation of events concerning Mueller to them. I bet the informant even puts his forefingers in the air with air quotes when he said "dubia" and the presentation of 1P5's story is just informally putting these 'dubia' together for simple presentation, even satarical purposes.

I guess what really occurred was that over the course of time Francis was badgering Mueller about all those criteria and Mueller was butting heads with him, and it was over this five criteria tha Francis axed his employees and then Mueller. Thus the informant, a witness to this spectacle, put that criteria in point form and ironically labelled them 'dubia' and passsed this along to 1P5. Hence a 'reconstruction' of events.

The Vatican is now hilariously trying to attack the formatting and presentation of the facts rather than deny that they had anything to do with Mueller's firing. Not that anyone should have any sympathy for Mueller.

Keep in mind we are dealing with faggots running the Vatican. Faggots no doubt embroiled in corruption and financial scandal. They are liars after their father.

Read between the lines of any and all their press release statements and denials.

I'm with 1P5 on this. The Vatican Press Office has no credibility.

Peter Lamb said...

Amateur Heart Surgeon, There are as usual several points in Dr. de Mattei's article which are incorrect, but let's take the short cut. De Mattei and Salza are no oracles of the Church. Saint Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I are.

Saint Bellarmine, in his tome, "CONTROVERSIARUM DE SUMMO PONTIFICE, LIBER QUARTUS, DE POTESTATE SPIRITUALI, carefully examined all the cases of every true Pope who had ever been accused of heresy up to his own time. He proved conclusively that such a thing had never in fact occurred, and goes even further in chapter 6 to say, "Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR."

No heretic can be a valid Pope. The Catholic Church is ONE. She is one in the profession of the same Faith, as Pope Leo XIII emphasized:
"Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, [God] ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but ONE faith. (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 6)

An heretic, by definition, does not profess the same Faith as the Church. Hence, were it possible for a heretic to be Pope, then the Church would be divided in her Faith and she would not be unified; but this is heresy: “I believe … in ONE, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church” (Nicene Creed).
The unity of the Church is seated in the Pope. The Catholic Church is indefectible. This means its teaching, (doctrine), cannot change, because its Head, Christ, is immutable. On these doctrinal grounds alone, the existence of an heretical Pope is proved an impossibility.

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case ..." ((The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.) ( Vatican I investigated 40 cases - including Pope Honorius.)

There you have it. Believe de Mattei and Salza if you will. I'll stick to St. Robert and an infallible Vatican Council. An heretic cannot be Pope.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Mr. Lamb. Discussions during a Council are not the same as formal acts of a Council, especially formal anathemas of a Council.

Peter Lamb said...

Amateur Brain Surgeon, Fact is Council examined 40 alleged cases and never found an heretical Pope. That is an academic fact - no necessity to formally declare it an article of Faith! :)

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Mr. Lamb. There is absolutely no doubt Honorius was condemned as a heretic as one can read in The Catholic Encyclopedia.

All you have to do is read the section "In what sense was Honorius condemned."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

Dear Vox. Thanks for your patience on this point. ABS has no more to add.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Amateur Brain Surgeon, Believe it, or not, but Pope Honorius was not a public heretic.

You quote the Catholic Encyclopedia. Not a good article. Confusing and Confused:
"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."

Let's analyse your citation:

"He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact;"
Well that is the definition of a material heretic, one who is guiltless of sin. A material heretic is one who speaks heresy in ignorance of the fact that he is speaking heresy. In other words, one who does not know that what he is saying, is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Do you think Pope Honorius was ignorant of Catholic doctrine?
Conclusion: The Catholic Encyclopaedia accuses Pope Honorius of being a material heretic.

"... he was not condemned as a Monothelite, ..."
Conclusion: The Catholic Encyclopaedia states categorically that Pope Honorius was not a formal, (public), pertinaceous, monothelite heretic.

"...it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."
Conclusion: The Catholic Encyclopaedia states that Pope Honorius had excellent intentions in his handling of the monothelite heresy. He was criticized for his handling/strategy of/in the situation, not for his orthodoxy.

Well, your citation seems to contradict your statement that " There is absolutely no doubt Honorius was condemned as a [formal,notorius, public] heretic." Not so?

Peter Lamb said...

De Mattei is no better. He concludes his misleading article:

"Specifically based on these words, after having examined the case of Pope Honorius, the great Dominican theologian, Melchior Cano, sums up the safest doctrine in these terms: “It must not be denied that the Supreme Pontiff can be a heretic, of which one or two examples may be offered. However, that (a Pope) in judgments on the faith has defined something against the faith, not even one can be demonstrated” De Locis Theologicis, l. VI, tr. spagnola, BAC, Madrid 2006, p. 409).

Let's analyse de Mattei too:
"...sums up the safest doctrine ..."
Catholic doctrine is infallible and immutable. There is no such thing as "safe" Catholic doctrine and "unsafe" Catholic doctrine. Surely a canon lawyer knows that? Ludicrous.

“It must not be denied that the Supreme Pontiff can be a heretic ..."
Sure, the Pope is human. He can loose his faith; he can sin, like the rest of us. He can become an heretic - an occult heretic - but then nobody would know, because an occult heretic's heresy is kept secret to himself. What sloppy terminology for a "great theologian" to use! A Pope cannot become a public heretic, because he would be automatically deposed and excommunicated, in terms of Divine law, for committing the sin of heresy. If a Pope could become a public heretic, it would make nonsense of the dogmas of Infallibility and Indefectibility. This the Holy Ghost will not permit - we have Christ's Promise.

“It must not be denied that the Supreme Pontiff can be a heretic, one or two examples may be offered."
Does a canon lawyer really use such sloppy citations? Which is it - one, or two? Who are they?

" However, that (a Pope) in judgments on the faith has defined something against the faith, not even one can be demonstrated”
Exactly! Bravo! Saint Robert and Vatican I agree with you Fr.Melchior Cano, you got that right!

De Mattei does not think much of St. Bellarmine - a Saint, a Cardinal, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, the greatest authority on the Papacy!
De Mattei considers St. Robert a fraudster. A misleader. A liar. A man of no integrity:
" ... St. Robert Bellarmine, who, in order to save the memory of Honorius, denied the presence of explicit errors in his letters ..."
Shame on you de Mattei! Do you think St. Robert was so venial a man? You of the controlled opposition keeping Catholic souls in the ambit of the false church, like Salza. You will answer for your words!

No, dear Amateur BS, Cardinal Begin, Cardinal Bellarmine and Vatican I have proved that there is absolutely no doubt that Pope Honorius was not a public heretic. Neither has there ever been a public heretic in the history of the Church. Toughies on bergoglio and his mates. As for your link:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-heretic-pope.html,
Yikes !!!

Irenaeus said...

Dr. Lamb, eventually the world will consider those who hold to the Catholic faith and don't give any leeway ... sedes. It's how the Church has worked for many years, now, as you know: listening to the left. Dismissing the right to the left and pushing the left into the right. (Pun, there.)

Oh, wait. It's already starting. See this: https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/why-arent-catholics-rallying-around-the-pope

Yutes, seriously.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Irenaeus, Thanks for the link. I found the combox very interesting. The sincerity of many shines through, but most of those poor people do not have the faintest clue as to Catholic doctrine. They have grown up in novus ordo land and all they know is novus ordo. How I wish I could put them in a catechism class with Sr. Colomba, or Brother O'Harran.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Third Council of Cinstantiinople

Session XVI - Extracts from the Acts

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that makes peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!

Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!


It is a wonderful irony that the condemnation of all who sides with the heretic, Honorius, anticipated you, Mr. Lamb, my many centuries.

Now, maybe the infallible and authoritative Novus Ordo Witch can act a spell and make the anathema hurled at Honorius disappear.

Peter Lamb said...

Amateur BS, Do you have a cousin, Mark Thomas?

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The third council of constantinople - 680-681 ad


This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose--namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen -- and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind, of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action..

Mr. Lamb. Direct your questions to the Novus Ordo Witch. He is your go to source for truth

Peter Lamb said...

Amateur Brain Surgeon, I do indeed find Catholic Truth at Novus Ordo Watch. I pray that one day you will too. Hurling insults around achieves nothing. :)

The question of whether Pope Honorius was an heretic, or not, was a huge controversy at the time of Vatican I, as you must know. Prelates expressed a multitude of opinions and the case was discussed and investigated in great detail by experts. The Council concluded that he was not an heretic; that there has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church. Saint Bellarmine reached the same conclusion after his in depth investigation. The theologian, cited by yourself, states the same.

Why do you, like me, a layman, try to re-ignite an old controversy long settled by the Church? If you are a Catholic, you may safely abide by a decision pronounced first by a Doctor of the Church and then confirmed by a Council of the Church.

Laymen like Salza and yourself seek to legitimize the idea that heretical bergoglio and his heretical conciliar predessors were/are true Popes and not anti-popes. You must have an historical heretical Pope to justify your heretical anti-pope.

Consider very carefully what you are doing. Saint Paul says let him spreading a new Gospel be anathema; you, Salza, the current Bishop of the SSPX say "No! let us recognize the deviant as the Vicar of Christ; let us follow him; let us seek to join him; let us be "una cum", (one with) him." Where are you trying to lead souls to? One day you will die. Then you will face Jesus. How will you answer?