Friday, August 05, 2016

The Remnant defends Pope Francis. It's not what you think.

Christopher A. Ferrara, "In Defense of Pope Francis" ( The Remnant,, August 3, 2016). For the record. Advisory: Rules ##7-9.

[Hat tip to JM]


7 comments:








Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

said...

To speak kindly about Pope Francis, I can say that by his actions, he has raised awareness of the Theological virtue of Hope which has as its immediate object, God, who has infused that virtue into our souls and Hope is especially actualised when there seems to be no natural reason for Hope.

O, and you might think about trying what I have done in reaction to the statements of Pope Francis. Don't , trust me.

After his election, and after a month or so of listening to what he said, I promised myself that I would decrease the wait time for cocktail hour by 15 minutes every time Pope Francis said something, um, quizzical.

I can't remember the first thing he said that caused me to decrease the wait time for cocktail hour but I was not unhappy to begin drinking at 4:45 p.m. but as the quizzical and captious claims accumulated I soon realised I made a mistake by committing myself to this response for it is now the case that after two or three more of his quizzical or captious statements, I will have to begin drinking before I awaken in the morning.

So, be careful of what you wish for and don't make promises you can't keep without the aid of medical intervention and IV alcohol drips.





Anonymous

said...

MJGNM,

BwaHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!!!





Catholic Mission

said...


Archbishop Lefbevre was a modernist too Christopher Ferrara must concede this

What is unprecedented is the nuancefree, shockingly blunt manner in which Francis pursues a relentless progressivism quite in line with the disastrous “new orientation” of the Church since Vatican II and the course already set by his two immediate predecessors. Where John Paul II and Benedict exhibited intellect and nuance in their embrace and defense of novelty, Francis pursues the continuing mysterious auto-demolition of the Church with all the vulgarity and recklessness of a politician in a hurry to impose his will before the next election.- Christopher Ferrara In Defense of Francis
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2677-in-defense-of-francis


Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was part of 'the new orientation' of the Church as is Chris Ferrara when they accepted the non existing case of the catechumen who was saved without the baptism of water, when no one knew or could know of any such person. They accepted this innovation in salvation theology.

Since then the novelties in doctrine and praxis have followed. The traditionalists will still not correct this modernism which they vaguely blame on Vatican Council II, which really is traditionalist without the innovation. They accept the modernism, the innovation in the Church, since they believe it was approved by Pope Pius XII.They consider him important, unike the popes who followed.-Lionel Andrades


August 5, 2016
Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre realize that the baptism of desire(BOD) issue was a mistake and there really was no BOD?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/did-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-realize.html





Catholic Mission

said...

Traditionalists like Chris Ferrara and Bishop Fellay have been in ignorance all this time. The error was there before them but they did not notice it. Now it must be quote a job, for those who discern, to say that they had made a doctrinal mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/traditionalists-like-chris-ferrara-and.html





Catholic Mission

said...


VATICAN COUNCIL II IS NON NEGOTIABLE AND IN HARMONY WITH EENS: WE DON'T BOW BEFORE THE LEFEBVRIST OR LEFTIST ERROR

We Catholics need to affirm Vatican Council II without the Archbishop Lefebvre error.
We need to tell everyone, liberals and pro-SSPX supporters, that Vatican Council II is non negotiable.
Vatican Council II interpreted in line with EENS, and without the Lefebvre error, is indispensable.
We Catholics are not obliged to accept an interpretation of the Council II based on hypothethical cases being defacto and known in 2016.
We maintain good relations with Jews and Muslims not because of Vatican Council II but because Jesus asks us to do so.However there must be good relations with rational and traditional doctrines of the Church.Not those of the SSPX or the two popes.
Lisa Palmieri-Billig,Yahya Pallavicini,Rabbi David Rosen and the two popes interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as being visible when for me they are invisible.
This is the rational option Catholics have in interpreting the Council.Presently they are confused with the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre, Chris Ferrara, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others.
Their version of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Since it was with a false premise.
Vox Cantoris, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza and others cannot think for themself or they emotionally need Christopher Ferrara to think for them.Then Ferrara will only follow the line of Lefebvre even though a false premise is the basis of his theology.
He repeats the same nonsense every year like Bishop Fellay about a doctrinal problem, which they both are a part of.
Ask yourself why cannot any one refute me technically ? They cannot since they know that I am correct and that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong.
They would like to prove me wrong only to prove Lefebvre correct -but they cannot.
For instance they say that the MHFM rejects the baptism of desire. This is a critical point against the Dimond Brothers. They cannot say the same for me. I accept BOD except that I am saying that I accept implicit for us BOD and reject explicit for us BOD. BOD can only be explicit for God.
Then they can criticise the sedevacantists for rejecting Pope Francis. They cannot use this argument against me.
There are others who criticise the SSPX and the traditionalists for rejecting Vatican Council II. They cannot say this against me. I accept Vatican Council II.
The liberals interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS. I do not.
I do not reject EENS.
And now I am saying that Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and EENS ( Feeneyite) is non negotiable.
So technically no one has been able to show me where I am wrong doctrinally.They also know that I am correct doctrinally and can only criticise me for commenting on blogs,including their own, in which they cannot refute me.
-Lionel Andrades





Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

said...

23rd January, St Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr
St Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr

A foster sister of St Agnes, the virgin Emerentiana, while still a catechumen, shed tears on the tomb of her friend who had just been martyred. Some Pagans mocked at her grief. She, full of the divine virtue of which Jesus is the source (Collect), reproached the idolaters with their cruelty towards Agnes, and they in their fury stoned her on that very tomb. Baptized in her own blood, she went to join for evermore her Spouse and her sister (304).

Me exspectaverunt peccatores, ut perderent me: testimonia tua, Domine, intellexi: omnis consummationis vidi finem: latum mandatum tuum nimis. * Beati immaculati in via: qui ambulant in lege Domini.


The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I have understood Thy testimonies, O Lord: I have seen an end of all perfection: The commandment is exceeding broad. * Blessed are the undefiled in the way: who walk in the law of the Lord.
(Psalm 118:95-96,1 from the Introit of Mass)

Indulgéntiam nobis, quaesumus, Dómine, beáta Emerentiána Virgo et Martyr implóret: quae tibi grata semper éxstitit, et merito castitatis, et tuae professione virtútis.


May blessed Emerentiana Thy virgin and martyr, we beseech Thee, O Lord, implore for us Thy forgiveness; for she was ever pleasing unto Thee, both by the merit of her chastity, and by her confession of Thy power.
(Collect)

+++++++++++ end quote +++++++++++++

Lionel. Please stop peeing on the grave of Saint Emerentiana and stop attacking Tradition for St Emerentiana was raised to the Altars with her own feast day with her own office, her own Introit, and her own Collect.

In other words, Lionel, you are surreptitiously denying the infallibility of Holy Mother Church in Canonising saints.
Man-up, lionel.

Lionel,do you know what Hell is like?

Hell is an endless repetition of one political election in which Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon each have one thousand years to give their official positions, after which Satan calls for a vote, and after the vote he announces there was a mistake in the vote counting and the whole process must be repeated and as Satan's disciples set up the stage - this takes one hundred years in which everyone must remain silent while listening to one speech of Fidel Castro endlessly replayed -and the only relief is when every decade or so Satan grabs the Microphone and screeches, Time for a break!!! Let's bring on Ruth Bader Ginsburg !!! and the curtains are opened and those in Hell must watch a nekkid Ruth Bader Ginsburg ride a Pogo Stick while the theme from Benny Hill loudly resounds throughout the caverns and cells of Hell.

And Lionel, do you know what?

If you do not stop this bull shit, you will be part of that audience in Hell.





Catholic Mission

said...


Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and Fr.Nicholas Gruner express the new theology on Vatican Council II : it has a factual error, an objective mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/christopher-ferrara-john-vennari-and.html