THE FOLLOWING COMES FROM A RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY THE LATE MICHAEL DAVIES.
I WROTE TO A FRIEND NAMED MATT HALTOM AND MATT SENT MY REPLIES TO NOVUS ORDO TRADITIONALIST CHRISTOPHER FERRARA OF “THE REMNANT,” “CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS” AND “THE LATIN MASS MAGAZINE.
I THEN REPLY TO FERRARA HIMSELF.
Matt,
Davies does not know what he is talking about.
He states: The teaching of a general council can be invested with the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium, in which case it is protected from error, or it can be invested only with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, in which case the possibility of error cannot be excluded.
His whole argument is based on this statement of his, and yes, he quotes several others who hold this same view.
What Davies is advocating is that ordinary and universal magisterial teachings could err; therefore they could be questioned, doubted, or outright rejected, such as the teachings of the Second Vatican Council or Vatican 2.
In other words, the Church can teach heresy if not using the Extraordinary magisterium.
This is totally incorrect, as I have repeatedly demonstrated why.
First, lets deal with some principles.
1. All dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogmas.
2. Dogmas come from extraordinary magisterial teaching not ordinary teachings.
3. Dogmas cannot evolve and develop, but new doctrines and dogmas can be formed from a dogma. Dogmas are set in stone so to speak.
4. Mere doctrines can develop.
5. If the doctrine came from the universal and ordinary magisterium, then that particular doctrine will hold more weight then a doctrine of opinion since ordinary magisterial teachings are not mere opinions.
6. Extraordinary magisterial teachings are made to end the discussion on how a doctrine is to be held, not to distinguish it as a doctrine without error.
7. Universal and ordinary magisterial doctrines are also without error but still can be developed.
Now that is out of the way, the following is what Davies does not quote or deal with in anyway.
The First Vatican Council (Vatican 1) stated:
[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)
Notice, that all teachings from the supreme and ordinary (not just extraordinary) Magisterial must be believed.
Pope Pius IX stated: And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ th eLord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)
You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors. (Lateran Council V, Bull ‘Cum postquam’ by Pope Leo X)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
This statement confirms Vatican 1 that all teachings must be believed because Pope Leo says “any point of doctrine” which would include all doctrines of the Magisterium and not just dogmatized doctrines of the extraordinary Magisterium.
From the Infallible/Ex Cathedra Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX number 22:
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863. CONDEMNED
and Quanta Cura of the same pope:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
Davies is against Vatican I and Popes Pius IX and X and Leo XIII.
His argument is saying that all non-dogmatic teachings could be heretical. This is complete nonsense and shows why they should stay out of the world of theology and stay in the field of history.
Steven
FERRARA RESPONDS:
Matt,
I am afraid that it is “Steven” who does not know what he is talking about.
He quotes Vatican I for the proposition that “by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”
“Divine and Catholic faith” and “To be believed as divinely revealed”
are the key phrases. Not all Catholic teaching is considered revealed
truth and thus part of what must be held with divine and Catholic
faith. Thus not everything a Council teaches is to be believed with
divine and Catholic faith. For example, it would be ridiculous to argue
that just because Dignitatis humanae declares that “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,” Catholics are required to believe this. That statement is quite obviously false. Man has never been less aware of human dignity than he was throughout the 20th century, and it is even worse today. Gaudium et spes is likewise filled with nonsensical observations that no Catholic has to believe. For example: ” Never before has man had so keen an understanding of freedom…” Rubbish. Contemporary man has no understanding at all of what true freedom is.
If a Council wants to make sociological claims like these, it has no more authority to do so than any lay sociologist.
Steven, whoever he is, has fallen into the neo-Catholic trap of the inerrant Church. Popes and Councils are not per se inerrant. There is a difference between infallible pronouncements and ordinary teaching. And the difference is the possibility of error in the latter. Otherwise, it would make no sense to speak of an infallible pronouncement of the Magisterium, for according to Steven every pronouncement by a Pope or Council would be true by the mere fact of the pronouncement.
Steven has not pondered the problem of a pronouncement that might contain some novelty that the Church has never taught before. How does one handle such novelties, seeing that Vatican I itself declared that the Church has no power to give new doctrines? There are two ways to handle it: One way—the neo-Catholic way—is to assume that Popes and Councils are incapable of uttering novelties because they are inerrant in absolutely everything they teach. The other way—recognized even by Paul VI in his disclaimer of the Council’s intent to teach infallibly—is to recognize the possibility of error in some novel pronouncement the Church has never taught before.
Chris
SPERAY RESPONDS:
Matt,
I have pondered well of the novelties of Vatican 2, and Chris has just proven sedevacantism, since he is right about the novelties of Vatican 2. Vatican 2 is not just novel but heretical on at least three major issues.
Chris is clearly not a theologian either. He has fallen into his own trap of only believing extraordinary magisterial teachings while being free to reject others if he believes they are novel and contrary to the Faith.
This is condemned precisely because the Church cannot do what Chris thinks happened at the Robber Council Vatican 2.
From the Infallible/Ex Cathedra Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX number 22:
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863. CONDEMNED
and Quanta Cura of the same pope:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
Chris did not deal with the statements that I sent. While I respect his fight against novelty of the neo-catholic church and his defense of tradition, he actually is defending a novelty of his own in his response to me.
Chris is saying that pope and council can give errant novelties, which it cannot do. He said Paul gave a disclaimer of the Council’s intent to teach infallibly.
This is wrong. Paul VI said it reframed from teaching with extraordinary magistrium, but Paul VI did actually state at Vatican 2, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations, and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us…We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whoever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance, be invalid and worthless from now on. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”
He also stated on Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience, “… the Council gave its teaching the authority of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium…”
Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964 stated: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
Let me deal with the other things Chris said.
He stated: “there is a difference between infallible pronouncements and ordinary teaching. And the difference is the possibility of error in the latter. Otherwise, it would make no sense to speak of an infallible pronouncement of the Magisterium, for according to Steven every pronouncement by a Pope or Council would be true by the mere fact of the pronouncement.”
Chris didn’t read what I said or else he would have not made this statement.
There is a difference between mere ordinary and universal and ordinary teachings. The former could be wrong, but not the latter. They are infallible pronouncements. I stated why we have universal and ordinary infallible statements and extraordinary infallible statements.
One can be developed, and one cannot.
Not all pronouncements by popes are infallible but the ones that fall under the universal and ordinary magisterium on faith and morals is infallible.
Now if Christ were correct, then one could freely reject all non-dogmatic statements and there would be no reason for the pope to teach anything unless he does it with full apostolic authority under the extraordinary magisterium.
Councils would be infallible or else we could reject what we think is wrong. This is silly. What would be the point in having a great Ecumenical Council if it could teach heresy while binding everybody to their heresies?
Anyway, I think this about covers it, Matt.
Steven
MATT REPLIES TO FERRARA:
On Nov 29, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Matthew Haltom wrote: free to reject others if he believes they are novel and contrary to the Faith.
FERRARA RESPONDS TO MATT:
Matt,
Reject what? That is the point they consistently overlook. There are no teachings of Vatican II that constitute new doctrine.
There is a serious theological issue concerning teachings of the ordinary magisterium that appear to be novel. This fellow simply insists that everything a Pope or Council says is per se infallible. That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church recognizes the difference between reformable and irreformable teachings, even if Steven does not.
No, I do not fall “into the trap of believing only extraordinary magisterial teachings.” What the ordinary magisterium has constantly taught must also be considered infallible: e.g. the teaching on birth control, or the duty of the State toward the Church. But when a Council says that modern man has a greater sense of human dignity or that we need a world government (Gaudium et spes), no one has to believe this. I am sorry your interlocutor cannot grasp this distinction, but I have no more time to waste.
Chris
SPERAY RESPONDS DIRECTLY TO FERRARA:
Chris,
You state about me: “This fellow simply insists that everything a Pope or Council says is per se infallible.”
I agree with you that not everything is infallible. I believe only universal and ordinary and or supreme ordinary magisterium, (and extraordinary, of course) is infallible if those things involve faith and morals. I absolutely believe it is because if it is not then the Church would be telling us to believe in heresies if could teach such. I don’t think it can, therefore it is infallible. Everything else the pope teaches could be wrong.
You said, “That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church recognizes the difference between reformable and irreformable teachings, even if Steven does not. No, I do not fall “into the trap of believing only extraordinary magisterial teachings.” What the ordinary magisterium has constantly taught must also be considered infallible: e.g. the teaching on birth control, or the duty of the State toward the Church. But when a Council says that modern man has a greater sense of human dignity or that we need a world government (Gaudium et spes), no one has to believe this. I am sorry your interlocutor cannot grasp this distinction, but I have no more time to waste.”
I actually agree with you on this point. But I’m not talking about things outside the faith such as government, economics, science, etc. I’m talking about faith and morals.
You agree with me (I want my brother Scott to see) that universal and ordinary magisterial teachings are infallible when on faith and morals.
I think you are thinking I’m a neo-catholic who believes in the nonsense of Vatican 2. You’re right about it. Much of it is novel and down-right garbage.
However, on Vatican 2, you said, “Reject what? That is the point they consistently overlook. There are no teachings of Vatican II that constitute new doctrine.”
Again, I’m not a neocatholic but this statement of your is totally false.
For example (and I could give several others):
Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)
Chapter 1. The Mystery of the Church
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, (74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, (75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. (76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, (13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
Vatican 2 is redefining what is the Church.
To say that it subsists in the Catholic Church is to also say that it subsists elsewhere such as in non-Catholic churches.
When the Faithful say in the Nicene/Constantinopian Creed: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we mean the whole Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, which is united, separated from the world, universal, and from the Apostles. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople expounded the Apostle’s Creed I believe “the Holy Catholic Church.” These are articles of Faith and must be believed as the Church has always taught.
The four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic describe the Catholic Church.
However, Vatican 2 is saying the four marks are describing the Church of Christ, which, according to LG, only subsists in the Catholic Church. This is precisely the same thing Protestants believe that also recite the same creed.
Vatican 2 expounds on the principle that the Church of Christ only subsists in the Catholic Church:
Lumen Gentium Chapter 2. The people of God
15. “For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”
Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)
Chapter 1. Catholic principles of ecumenism
1. “Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.”
4. “Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.”
The Catholic Church does not long for one visible Church of God for it alone is the one visible Church of God. The Catholic Church is does not long for that truly universal Church for it alone is the true universal church. It also is not and cannot be prevented from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her. What the Catholic Church longs for is for all heretical and schismatic churches to renounce their heresies and join the one true Catholic Church.
The document continues:
3. “Moreover some, and even most, of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.”
Again, UR 3. “It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
This means these other churches are good enough for salvation according to Vatican II, but the Catholic Church has taught differently.
Unitatis Redintegratio Chapter 3. Churches and ecclesial communities separated from the Roman apostolic see
13-15. “We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. The first division occurred in the east, when the dogmatic formulas of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the eastern patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved… Everyone knows with what great love the Christians of the east celebrate the sacred liturgy… Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows, and through concelebration their communion with one another is made manifest.”
Again, Vatican 2 asserting non-Catholic heretics and schismatics build up and help the true Church grow.
Come on Chris, you know this is all garbage, but it falls under the universal and ordinary magisterium on faith and morals.
Vatican 2 is teaching a new doctrine! Do you accept it or reject it?
Steven
FERRARA DOES NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO SPERAY BUT RATHER RESPONDS TO MATT ABOUT SPERAY’S REPLY:
Matt
On Nov 29, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Steven Speray wrote:
Vatican 2 is teaching a new doctrine! Do you accept it or reject it?
Vatican I teaches: “For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
It impossible for an ecumenical council to announce new doctrines since revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. If you think Vatican II taught new doctrines, then I suggest you attend a basic catechism class and learn your faith.
That’s it for me.
SPERAY REPLIES DIRECTLY BACK TO FERRARA:
Chris,
Vatican I was talking about inventing new doctrine apart from revelation. Faithfully expounding the deposit of faith are developments, which make for newly developed doctrine. A doctrinal heresy is an invention because it either didn’t come from the deposit of faith, or it is a false development.
Vatican 2 is expounding the teaching of the Catholic Church and what it is. I showed you that it teaches something not found in history at all.
It is heretical plain and simple.
3 New doctrines (heresies) of Vatican 2 are:
1. The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and subsists in heretical and schismatic religions.
2. The Church of Christ is not one in faith since the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church.
3. The Catholic Church is not the only means of salvation.
Please stop playing word games. Is this Chris Ferrara or Bill Clinton?
Do you accept these heresies (new doctrines) on faith and morals taught by what you call the supreme ordinary magisterium? Or do you say those aren’t heresies at all like Sungenis, Harrison, and Staples?
If you think Vatican II is not teaching new doctrines, then I suggest you attend a basic catechism class and learn your faith. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, it doesn’t subsist in it or any other religion. It is one faith not yearning for unity since it is already unified. It ALONE is the means of salvation and it alone has the means of salvation (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum # 9, Pope St Pius X, Editae saepe # 29)
The Catholic Church can’t teach heresy, but Vatican 2 did. It is sickening to hear people like Harrison and Sungenis to outright deny this or Staples who promotes it all as great Catholic truth.
You’re stuck in a terrible dilemma. Either the Gates of Hell prevailed, or Vatican 2 is a robber council coming from a false religion with a false pope.
You can own up to this fact or be dishonest and live in a false world with the rest of the neocatholics.
Steven
CHRISTOPHER FERRARA NEVER REPLIES.
HIS POSITION IS DESTROYED!
It’s really sad to hear such obstinate heretics defend servants of demons. Peace
I was Baptised on the 24th December 1961…the very next day, Christmas, pseudo-pope “Iohannes XXIII” issued “Humanae Salutis” marking the Indiction of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican…twenty years later – I was 20 -I was a sedevacantist before most Catholics even knew about the conciliar apostasy…I have been persuaded of this theological postion for thirty years now…I always said to my brother: for some diabolical reason, Satan has placed a veil over neo-Catholics; they cannot see the apostasy in matters of faith emanating from the Council and the universal sacrilege inherent in the in the new rite of Mass; but as soon as the conciliar church publicly denies primary precepts of Divine and natural law, more Catholics will become sedevacantists…unfortunately, I was wrong. The neo-catholic apostates are defending Ratzinger’s public denial of the objective moral order revealed by God, confirmed by Christ, and infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium: CONDOMS for MALE PROPSTITUTES – the beginning of a more humane way of living sexuality – THERAPEUTIC ABORTION [the Archbishop Fisichella – Fr Lombardi affair]…your criticism of false Traditionalists is fully justified – they make me nauseated. I started reading Davies books as early as 1980…his ecclesiology is way off…later he defended Ratzinger “ad absurdum”
Dear Steven,
There is only one fact about Mister Christopher Ferrara and “The Remnant” as with all others who consider themselves to be traditional and orthodox but are really nothing more and nothing less than sentimental conservatives. Weak entities purporting and posing to be for and of the authentic Roman Apostolic Catholic Church but in all honesty are more of a danger than the outright Novus Ordo Catholic,to be understood non-Catholic,for Mister Ferrara and company lure in the innocent with traditional spices and other psychological stimulants which entrap them in a most luciferic existence of distorted metaphysics. A true spiritual crime which end result is the spiritual disease of seeing and looking through a glass darkly. Even if Mister Ferrara has walked away from your highly intelligent correspondence with him,of which he cannot even correspond directly to you but by way of a friend,hence an example of a sick mind,you have assisted many who need to know the Truth.
God Bless,
Eric Galati
Dear All,
I’ve noticed so many people who claim to be “Catholics” quote documents from Popes or Councils of old, yet no one states the obvious?… You don’t quote what Jesus says or his saints. What lead Christ to his death? OBEDIENCE to the will of his father, how did all the saints and martyrs die? OBEDIENCE to the Catholic Church and her teachings and doctrines. Christ died for his Church, the least we could do is die for him and to his Church. Love one another as God has loved us, forgive so the father can forgive, do to others what you do to yourself. Do not forget God is of Love and outside of that is nothing! Now I’m not saying that the Popes or councils are wrong, I’m saying that you have to be obedient to God which love and to show with love the way to God. So defend if its to correct, not to scorn or to be proud of what you know. Teach with love and reverence to God because even in scripture he spoke…
Mt 5:19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Dear Steven, The REPLY by a Mister Kev
so this gates of hell thing ya’ll do know gates are a defensive term it did not say invasion force of hell but gates as in ramming the gates penetrating the walls etc.
Speray Replies: The Catholic Church defined the gates of hell as heretics and their heresies.
The Gospel is an offensive force against the kingdom of satan. The Church is supposed to be offensive not defensive, nor cowardly, The Christian Faith is the one holy apostolic catholic church, is the legitimate Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops and the 73 book divinely inspired canon, its the only truth and the only way,
Speray Replies: When there is a pope and cardinals. The Church goes without a pope each time one dies and the Church doesn’t guarantee there will always be cardinals as Cardinal Billot taught the cardinals could become extinct.
You have to be ignorant to that invincible point for reasons and/or have perfect contrition and join it…there is one Church, the mystery of salvation outside of those two things applies to no other and to argue as so many have there are other ways is a false doctrine a heresy, to say they take part in anything is also false its giving false support to everything that is false and not commanding the truth.
Speray Replies: My blog points to the Catholic Faith and it’s truth.
The point of trying to drill down to those two things is a demolition act though trying to rip the flesh off of the body to the bones and kill the church….to claim anything otherwise is false. The path of salvation is the Christian Faith there is no other.This is the worst time of cofusion, error, heresy, apostasy and infiltration ever…maybe if people weren’t blind to it or the “screen” they are using the real Israel the church would reign instead of this fake one which is totally inverted in every form and shape and way in every facet and action and inaction and every belief. You have a “Pope” telling people not to convert but by doing so he admits the truth convert to what? This false church setup as a tumor on top of the real one?
Speray Replies: No. There is a counterfeit church and a real Catholic Church. Francis is not head of the real one. He’s a counterfeit pope with a counterfeit church.
Stop pretending the devil and real evil does not exist and stop using their word lies and “semantics” their misnomers and false nomenclature.
Speray Replies: What are you talking about? I don’t do any of this.
Say baby murder, and murder, say sodomy, and fornication, speak the truth the words of Christ unashamed believe, believe in the miracles, and the Faith, believe in the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Prophets, Believe in the truth of history and the truth in all things stop listening to the enemy and declare the enemy the primary and the worldly actors look and see.
Stop hiding and in modern brought back parlance cucking….stop being afraid to ask questions of them, grill them confront them inside and outside. the allowance of the new mass stuff is not just “protestant” call it what it is, disgraceful, unfocused, call it facing the opposite direction as the conspiracy of the OT, call it inverted, call it turning your back on Christ, call it disrespectful, call it sacrilege. Stop blaming the victim and open your eyes, stop lying and pretending what is is not, call things out for what they are, and be not afraid of it. Bergoglio denies hell, he says it clearly when the Gospel itself clearly states it exists and the purpose of the Gospel is to prevent people from going there. Just as Polaris never moves and everyone ignores it for fantasy and just as so much is coming to light but no one wants to see the Church has been swallowing satanic conspiratorial lies false signs and wonders and not combatting the hoaxes the psyops the infiltration the fabrication and the pure propaganda and disinformation from all angles. Its disgusting and shows lack of faith.
Speray Replies: What do you think is the Catholic Church?