Bp Williamson Blindly Leading The Blindeditor
Martin Blackshaw, aka Blogger Athanasius, writes:
I know Bishop Williamson is yesterday’s news, but I thought it worth remarking on his latest Eleison Comments (EC – Number CDLXV (465) June 11, 2016) to demonstrate once again the blindness that comes upon those who surrender themselves to a truly schismatic spirit.
On cue as always, this spiritual director of an increasingly fragmenting “Resistance” minority is seeking to rekindle suspicions of betrayal in the minds of Society priests and faithful as the very real possibility of a reconciliation with Rome gains momentum.
Like the authors and implementers of the conciliar reform, Bishop Williamson knows well how to manipulate words and human emotions to suit his own agenda. On this occasion he directs all at the end of his comments to familiarise themselves with arguably the most hard-hitting and forthright interview with Archbishop Lefebvre from 1990, one year before His Grace’ death.
And just so that we all know what conclusions we should reach from that interview, Bishop Williamson takes up almost the entire length of his EC page preparing us to read according to his mind, i.e. without context or objectivity.
Two things need to be borne in mind here. The first is that the Archbishop gave his interview 26 years ago at a time when liberals in the Roman Curia still held the upper hand and were insisting on SSPX recognition of Vatican II reform as fundamental to “reconciliation”. That situation has drastically altered with Pope Francis, who acts unilaterally and determinedly with respect to the SSPX to the great chagrin of said Curial liberals.
We saw this when the Pope directly intervened with the Argentinean government to ensure recognition of the SSPX as a valid Catholic organisation, thereby countering the actions of Pope Benedict’s Papal Nuncio who had written to the President of that Country before Francis’ election to encourage rejection of the SSPX.
This brings me to the second point which is that Archbishop Lefebvre was more than a little angry over the two-faced betrayal of certain senior prelates who said one thing to him in private and the opposite in public. Francis’ maverick style of Papal governance greatly reduces the possibility of a similar betrayal this time around.
It is also worth recalling that in 1988 His Grace was dealing directly with then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, who was both theologically unsound and personally untrustworthy. I believe the Cardinal, when he became Pope Benedict, expressed some regret himself over the way he had handled the 1988 negotiations. Perhaps that was why he dispensed altogether with the lie that the ancient Mass of the Church required a Papal Indult for celebration, a lie that his predecessor John Paul II perpetuated to the great detriment of truth and justice.
At any rate, a close inspection of the Archbishop’s words in the aforementioned interview, hard hitting as they are, leaves us in no doubt that His Grace had left the door firmly open to further negotiations with Rome should circumstances change for the better, a turn of events that he did not foresee in the immediate future.
Before highlighting the appropriate passages from this and a similar interview from 1989, one year after the consecrations, it is important for us all to reflect on the Archbishop’s assurance that the Society is a work of God and will not therefore disappear as a result of the machinations of the Church’s enemies.
Bishop Williamson and his rebellious cohorts at first tried to turn this to their advantage, claiming that they represented a fulfilment of the Archbishop’s prophetic promise against a Judas-like “sell out” by a compromised Bishop Fellay.
Of course time has proven this to be a total falsehood; the so-called “Resistance” movement comprising today of a motley crew of bitter little groups at war with each other as well as with everyone else who does not share their particular point of view. Many indeed no longer have even a weekly or monthly Mass to attend through shortage of partisan priests.
Bishop Fellay, for his part, is well chastened after his 2011 negotiations with the Roman authorities under then-Pope Benedict XVI, who, just as they had done with Archbishop Lefebvre, gave the impression that they were willing to accede to the requests of the SSPX only to back track at the last moment and demand that the Society acknowledge the validity of the conciliar reform, including ecumenism.
His Excellency is a much wiser man for that encounter and that’s why on this occasion he has decided to include all thirty SSPX superiors in the scrutiny of a supposed offer of Personal Prelature with no strings emanating directly from Pope Francis.
Strange how divine providence works! That the most liberal Pope ever to sit upon the Chair of Peter should be pursuing a no-strings settlement with the SSPX, a setup that could pave the way for much good in the return of Tradition to the Church. It’s true that God’s ways are not ours. To reject such a proposal out of hand before even exploring the detail would be imprudent of the authorities of the SSPX to say the least. At worst, it could be taken as a formal declaration from the SSPX that it no longer acknowledges any legitimate authority or good will in the Holy See. Now that would be very worrying indeed.
But it won’t happen. Bishop Fellay is a sound prelate who is faithful to the Church and to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. His Excellency together with his superiors will scrutinise this supposed offer from the Pope and will accept it if the demands of the SSPX are met and protection for the apostolate is guaranteed. We are not, after all, at war with the Roman Pontiff, just faithful to the Traditions handed down and vehemently opposed to the Modernism that has invaded the Church.
Would it not be in line with the actions of divine providence, which confounds the proud, to begin the restoration of all things in Christ by a provision made for the further strengthening of Tradition in the Church by a liberal Pope? It is, I argue, much more likely than that elusive Damascus-like conversion of the Modernist hierarchy that Bishop Williamson and other self-appointed rebels claim was Archbishop Lefebvre’s view of things.
Let us now read sections of those interviews that show the Archbishop Lefebvre’s thoughts on the crisis in the Church was not remotely akin to these isolationists.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990. Transcribed and slightly adapted from the French.
“Someone was saying to me yesterday, “But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops’ jurisdiction?” But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to.”
Would anyone seriously argue that this is the situation we face today? Are not the Bishops of the SSPX recognised as Catholic Bishops by Rome? Of course they are. There is a dramatic change in this regard from the Archbishop’s time. And note how the Archbishop demands that they first make this offer, indicating that he was not opposed to considering it. Yes, His Grace was always open to positive approaches from Rome, even if he was careful to weigh them with some suspicion.
Extracts from Archbishop Lefebvre’s interview of 1989 with emphasis by me that demonstrate what the Archbishop wanted from Rome. The same as Bishop Fellay today.
“…I think that is what actually caused a certain change in their attitude towards us. They were afraid of the episcopal consecrations, but they did not believe that I would actually do them. Then, on the 29th of June 1987, when I spoke about them in public, Cardinal Ratzinger was nevertheless a little upset. At Rome, they were afraid that I would really get to consecrating bishops, and that is when they made the decision to be a little more open with regard to what we had always been asking for – that is to say, the Mass, the Sacraments, and the pontifical services according to the 1962 rite of John XXIII. At that moment it seemed that they would not make any demands upon us to go along with the Second Vatican Council. They made no mention of it, and they even alluded to the possibility of our having a bishop who would be my successor.
Now, that was definitely a somewhat profound, radical change on their part. And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Rickenbach to see the Superior General and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “For myself, personally,” I said, “I have no confidence in them. For years and years I have been mixing with these people and for years I have been seeing the way in which they act. I have no further confidence in them. However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.”
At that moment I accepted to see Cardinal Ratzinger and I insisted strongly to him that someone should come and make a visitation of the Society. I thought that such a visit would result in the benefits of maintaining Tradition being made clear at the same time that its effects would be recognized. I thought that that could have strengthened our position at Rome, and that the requests that I would make to obtain several bishops and a commission in Rome to defend Tradition, would have more chance of succeeding.
Nevertheless I wished to go as far as possible in order to show what good will we had. That is when they brought up the question of the Council again, which we did not want to hear of. A formula for an agreement was found which was at the very limits of what we could accept.
Then they granted us the Mass and the Sacraments and the liturgical books, but concerning the Roman Commission and the consecration of bishops, they did not want to accept our requests. All we could get was two members out of seven on the Roman Commission – without the president, without the vice-president – and I obtained only one bishop whereas I was asking for three. That was already virtually unacceptable. And, when, even before signing, we asked when we could have this bishop, the answer was evasive or null. They didn’t know. November? – They didn’t know. Christmas? – They didn’t know …Impossible to get a date.
That is when, after signing the protocol, which paved the way for an agreement, I sat down and thought. The accumulation of distrust and reticence impelled me to demand the nomination of a bishop for the 30th of June from amongst the three dossiers which I had left in Rome on the 5th of May. Either that, or I would go ahead and consecrate. Faced with such a choice, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “If that’s how it is, the protocol is over. It’s finished, and there is no more protocol. You are breaking off relations.” It’s he who said it, not I.
…Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are. We wish to continue Tradition as we are doing.
…No doubt we suffered from the departure of some priests and seminarians. But, that is a little like the pilgrimage of Chartres, which this year split in two, into a traditional and a conservative pilgrimage. We may thank the good Lord for having allowed those who are not completely in agreement with us, who do not completely understand what we are fighting for, to leave us. In this way we are stronger and surer in our actions. Without that we would all the time be mixing with people criticizing us, who do not agree with us, within our own congregations, and that would cause division and disorder.
Question: If Rome had accepted to give you just one bishop, the protocol of an agreement could have issued in an agreement, and one may be surprised that such a concession, which after all doesn’t commit them to very much (one bishop amongst three thousand in the world), should have been refused you.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, it is extraordinary. It can only be explained by their fear of Tradition. It is unbelievable, but they are afraid of a traditional bishop working against the errors of the Council and they cannot bear it.
The entire interview with Archbishop Lefebvre can be read here:
One final observation that I believe some of the more Traditional leaning in the hierarchy are today reflecting upon is this amazingly foresighted statement of the Archbishop from that interview:
“…the pope has just named Msgr. Kasper a bishop in Germany. He was Secretary of the Synod of 1985 presided over by Cardinal Danneels of Brussels. Kasper was the leader, the mastermind, of the Synod. He is very intelligent and he is one of the most dangerous of Conciliarists. He is a little like the bishop of Trier who is President of the German Assembly of Bishops, and who is very dangerous also. They are absolutely men of the left, who, deep down link up with the Rahners and Hans Kungs but who take care not to say so. They keep up appearances in order to avoid being associated by anyone with the extremists, but they have the same spirit…”
How Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and others must now be reviewing this warning from 26 years ago and realising just how holy and prophetically wise Archbishop Lefebvre was. Times have changed and the SSPX has many more friends in the hierarchy than it did way back then. We need to recognise this fact, trust in God and let Bishop Fellay and his assistants assess matters accordingly.
Thank you, Athanasius, for a splendid refutation of “Resistance” propaganda. While on retreat last summer, I was informed by our retreat-master (SSPX) that this whole Williamson affair began with his removal from the Seminary at Winona years ago – and I believe you’ve already addressed the reasons for that removal elsewhere on this blog.
In other words, it is a personal vendetta against Bishop Fellay, the scurrilous and slanderous nature of which is confirmed in spades by “Resistance” writings, their internet commbox posts, and their videos. But all this calumny is cleverly cloaked in an alleged superior – even pure – fidelity to Abp Lefebvre’s intentions. I believe you have once and for all removed that cloak.
Unfortunately, judging from internet opinion hangouts such as Louie Verrecchio’s Facebook friends and The Remnant commboxes, there are still quite a few gullible (or desperate) people who believe the hateful rubbish that spews from this detestable group. Having left the emperor with no clothes, and nothing with which to hide his own bitterness, I hope this article deeply penetrates the ranks of those who are still allowing themselves to be misled.
I echo your congratulations to Athanasius for an excellent article.
I don’t know many of these “resistance” people but the ones I do know are really just lapsed Catholics now. They won’t go to a Mass offered by a Society priest – what does that tell you? They can’t claim invincible ignorance so if they die with mortal sins (of having missed Mass without just cause) on their souls, there’s only one place they can go. We should pray for them because reasoning just doesn’t work. They’ve been brainwashed by Bishop Williamson and they follow him like groupies round a pop band.
You’re not the first person to say that they know “resistance” people who are now lapsed. Unless they’re back to their parish novus ordo Masses, I could say the same since they obviously don’t have Sunday Masses every week and are not attending either the diocesan TLM or the SSPX chapels. So, it’s reasonable to assume they’re lapsed. And it’s shocking.
At the start of this nonsense, the Scots group had a Holy Hour instead of Mass and one of them said that they were quite happy with their Holy Hour. Unbelievable. About as Catholic (never mind “traditional”) as any Wee Free you’re likely to meet. Truly tragic. And all for no good reason at all. Interestingly, however, the Glasgow SSPX chapel is full to overflowing on Sundays now and – as one friend pointed out – it seems to have taken on a new lease of life right after the “resistance” people took off.
Anyway, we should keep them in our prayers, as with grace they will come to see the truth of the matter, and with some humility, they might yet return to the fold.
Michaela, they’re not all following Bishop Williamson. Most of the resistance people in the UK will having nothing to do with him now. Neither will Fr. Phieffer, the so called Superior of the “SSPX of the Strict Observance.” He needs a bishop to ordain his priests and got in tow with an Eastern Rite Catholic Bishop, or so he thought. Turns out he’s not a Catholic Bishop but as Fr Phieffer is refusing to dissociate himself from this man some other resistance priests have broken with him. “The resistance to the resistance.”
I think in fairness to Michaela it is reasonable to declare that Bishop Williamson is the founding father of the “Resistance”. Regardless of internal conflicts between various factions now, Bishop Williamson alone was the architect of the rebellion. None would have left the SSPX had it not been for his lead. They all began with Bishop Williamson emblazoned on their banners.
Athansius, that is true, he was the founding father but there is certainly no fatherly respect for him now among some of his former followers.
Yes, it seems almost inevitable that many who left the SSPX for the “Resistance” will fall into lapsation at some point just by the fact that they have no sympathising priest to offer regular Mass for them. Some will stick it out, I’m sure, but many won’t.
The other concern of course is that some spend so much time in bitter resentment, scandalised by everyone and everything, that they will end up exhausted in spirit, tired of the misery of it all, as they see it. Not trusting in Our Lord’s providence, goodness and mercy, not having peace and joy in their own souls, being so suspicious in mind, they will lose the faith altogether. This is a very real possibility.
Well said. I think there is something of a personal vendetta against Bishop Fellay at play here, and that is very sad indeed. How clever of the Bishop, then, to include the 30 District Superiors in the next talks at the Vatican. That will completely remove all allegations of a “secret deal” with Rome or a “weak” and “treacherous” Bishop Fellay who will accept any compromise.
I could say “game, set and match” to Bishop Fellay but I don’t think it would pass as “helpful” by the dialogue experts, so I’ll say nothing…
Well, as a temporary appeasement to the do-or-dialogue nutters, how about “game, set and consensus”?
I’m thinking it would be additionally helpful if we pooled the collective knowledge of the bloggers about “Resistance” internet sites to avoid, including YouTube channels. I only know of one of their YT channels, “TradCathKnight,” but I’m sure we could come up with a collective list in a short time.
One of the reasons I’m thinking this is important is that I used to be Facebook “friends” with an SSPX chapel in Nova Scotia, and they would regularly post videos from TCK’s channel. When I notified them about the nature of the beast, they replied that they were aware of it but could find no other sources for the information (TCK does post non-Resistance videos about the crisis in the Church, NWO, etc.).
That’s an excellent idea that I think Editor will appreciate.
Here’s another site which Wikipedia describes as a sedevacantist organisation:
Yes, Most Holy Family Monastery is notorious as both sedevacantist and Feeneyite. The two brothers who run it, and I mean the blood-related brothers Dimond, call themselves Benedictines but have never been formally clothed in the Order. They are, to put not too fine a point on it, nuts!
Athanasius, they sound a bit like the man who runs the Traditio site. There is a “daily commentary from the fathers” which many call the “daily lie from the fathers.” The first lie is that there aren’t “fathers” plural, but one “father” and there are doubts that he is even a priest. He will not tell anyone where he was ordained or by who and anyone who asks is immediately black listed by him. He hates the SSPX and Bishop Felley in particular and tells one story after another about them that are just not true. Needless to say the “resistance” can do no wrong in his eyes.
Yes, it is utter madness. When a person cannot come out into the light and declare his credentials, then he is not of God. You would think they’d be wise for that, but it seems their discernment went out of the window with their objectivity. I cannot for the life of me understand how Catholics can be happy in such a bitter situation. Talk about self delusion.
If this article can convince just one follower of Bishop Williamson to abandon the rebellion and return to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society then it will have been worth the effort. I have to say, though, that my experience with people of the “Resistance” is that they are very far from acknowledging any error on their part. They are not noted for either humility or serenity, if you know what I mean. Humanly speaking, I don’t see even one of them ever returning. The strange thing is that since they left, SSPX numbers have soared. God has more than made the numbers up.
I like your idea of getting together a list of “Resistance” sites to avoid. To be honest though, there are not that many and the ones that are there have a handful of regulars. They will inevitably cancel each other out with their rivalry.
I know what you mean. A few months ago I was kicked out of a traditionalist (so I thought) Facebook group for posting that Bp Williamson should go on an extended retreat, without any means of communicating with the outside world, until he learned to keep his mouth shut. The group turned out to be sympathetic to the “Resistance,” which I didn’t know, and I was summarily “excommunicated” for such “heresy”!
I’ve also been blocked by FB “friends” of some traditionalist speakers, after describing the scarcely believable emails our parish received after someone surrendered our parish email list to the “Resistance.” I called the Resistance leaders “thugs” – which didn’t sit too well with their sympathizers.
(You might be pleased to know that I’ve since withdrawn from all FB groups, and life is a lot quieter…and saner…)
I know what you mean, having had similar experiences. As far as Bishop Williamson and communications are concerned: I understand that he used to push microphones aside, refusing to use modern communication methods. Now he runs a website. It’s all very odd.
LOL! That’s really funny – Bishop Williamson push microphones aside and now running a website! LOL!
“If this article can convince just one follower of Bishop Williamson to abandon the rebellion and return to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society then it will have been worth the effort.”
Well, if that article doesn’t do it, nothing will! It’s very sad to see such unnecessary division in the SSPX, the only group that is a real antidote to Vatican II, the novus ordo etc. The devil sure knows what he’s about.
I know that they are not actually in the SSPX, that the Bishop was expelled and his followers left the Society, but it was all so unnecessary, as is now obvious and I agree it was clever of Bishop Fellay to include all the Superiors in future talks. Nobody can accuse him of railroading anything through or being a one-man band or anything.
I’m praying for an agreement that can be accepted by the Society as we really need them in the “mainstream” Church to lead the restoring of the faith.
Here’s a little good news, though: last fall I received a PDF from a friend who was somewhat sympathetic to the “Resistance,” a document entitled “Primary Sources for Studying the Crisis in the SSPX.” I went through it very carefully with annotations, and pointed out to him that this document actually proved the complete opposite of “Resistance” claims – namely, it proved that Bishop Fellay had been utterly faithful to Abp. Lefebvre’s intentions and mission, and had never tried to compromise or sell out the SSPX. My friend was convinced (and could also see how words were twisted) and has since terminated his sympathies with that group.
I’m very pleased to hear that. This holds out the hope that at least some who are sympathetic to the “Resitance” are of good will and are prepared to admit they were wrong when it’s pointed out to them. I hope there will be others.
I’ve concluded that there are certain people who just like rebelling for the sake of it. They seem to be driven not so much by ‘allegiance to the truth’ but more like ‘allegiance to the rebellion’.
Perhaps what drove them to the SSPX in the first place was the rebellion.
The original SSPX rebellion was a necessity due the circumstances in which Archbishop Lefebvre found himself. One only has to observe the fact that he left it to the last moment to consecrate the 4 bishops to see that this is the case.
This explains why (a) The resistance formed (i.e. to cater for those in the SSPX who liked rebellion) and (b) why the resistance has subsequently splintered into sub-resistances (a cult full of rebellious people is not a recipe for harmony).
I suppose you could have a valid point there. It’s very difficult to tell, though, whether many of these “Resistance” people were always inclined to rebellion or whether they were just gullible in swallowing the rhetoric of one they trusted and admired. Perhaps some were even infiltrators from the beginning. It’s so hard to say for sure
I would, with respect, point out that what Archbishop Lefebvre did was not “rebellion”, it was legitimate resistance. I know the latter is what you mean but I thought I should clarify that His Grace’ stance was one of genuine resistance, not rebellion. In fact, it was the Modernist rebellion he was resisting.
I agree with your interpretation. Resistance is what I meant (in relation to Lefebvre).
Congratulations on your lead post – excellent.
Looking a little further to the future, what view do you have on this possible scenario:
The SSPX reaches an agreement with Rome which is acceptable to Bp. Fellay and the 30 District Superiors. The various SSPX chapels come under the authority of their local ordinary. He accepts that the SSPX priests will never be asked to offer Mass under the Novus Ordo Missae but declares that he will be sending Diocesan priests to SSPX Chapels to offer Mass using that rite.
Obviously, Bp. Fellay could circumvent this possibility by requesting guarantees against it, but who from amonst the laity could make such a proposal to him?
I do not seek to undermine a single thing you have said, but I have long seen this possibility and cannot envisage a satisfactory solution.
I don’t think that would happen. There will be a water tight agreement along the lines of a Personal Prelature. The priests and district superiors would answer to Bishop Fellay alone and the bishop would answer to the pope.
I don’t think we need to worry about every scenario that may or may not happen. Bishop Fellay is wise and has the other two bishops, along with the district superiors to assist.
Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your question, i’ve had another busy day on the road.
I agree with Petrus, which is to say that Bishop Fellay is way too clever to accept any deal from Rome that would include the remotest subordination to local ordinaries. No, if a deal is reached, and that’s still a big if, it will be pretty much water tight in securing the SSPX from outside interference. And let’s not forget that Pope Francis himself ignores the bishops, so I don’t see him making subordination to local ordinaries a priority.
Besides that, Bishop Fellay is not alone in viewing whatever deal Rome proposes. He has 30 District Superiors mulling it over with him. They’ll scrutinise everything, I’m sure.
Some good points here by Athanasius, especially in pointing out the two interviews. It seems that the heart of the matter lies in what the ‘resistors’ generally define as the “conciliar church”. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX defined it as a virus or faulty spirit that has infiltrated the structures of the Catholic Church, while the resistors seem to define it as a totally separate and schismatic structure from the Catholic Church. It would thus make sense according to their reasoning to avoid the talks with Rome, but such is not the position of the Society.
I discussed this point in greater detail in a response I wrote on the blog my good friend Damsel of the Faith graciously shares with me. I link to it here, in case anyone is interested and did not view its original posting. I think the links provided in the response can especially be of assistance to anyone trying to refute the resistance’s arguments. You can find it in the middle of the comments section, which became quite eventful.
I’d also like to take the opportunity to thank the Editor and others for their defense of the Society and Tradition. This publication is certainly one of the better Catholic papers today. As just a side note, I first learned about the Damsel and her blog through this site, so I owe many thanks to you all!
Thank you Steven, for your kind words about Catholic Truth. We think highly, very highly, of the Damsel of the Faith blog as well – I recommended it to several people in conversations during our Conference at the weekend, so I hope that will bring you more readers. I’m absolutely delighted that you found DOTF via Cathoilc Truth – that’s wonderful!
We ran a thread on the National Catholic Register and the videos, a while back – very impressive interview with Bishop Fellay, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Thank you for posting it again via DOTF blog, since some may well have missed it, first time around.
I’ve just read Abp. Lefebvre’s detailed and astounding (and prophetic) 1975 comparison of the Novus Ordo (which I usually call the “Novus Odor”) with Luther’s so-called reforms: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm
As for the shocking embrace of Luther by Francis, well, not so shocking when you read toward the end of the article:
“Recently Cardinal Willebrands, in his capacity as the Holy See’s Envoy to the World Council of Churches at Geneva, declared solemnly that we shall have to rehabilitate Martin Luther!”
“we shall have to rehabilitate Martin Luther”? You can’t be serious?
Why am I surprised. I should be unshockable by now – LOL!
We should all be utterly numb by now! Further proof that a shroud was thrown over the Catholic Church at Vatican II (and not the Shroud of Turin, either), and an imposter church put to the fore instead…bit by bit….
But now, even the usual normalist suspects (as Christopher Ferrara calls the “conservative” apologists for the revolution) are waking up: Jeffrey Mirus being the latest: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective866.asp
That’s extremely interesting about Jeffrey Mirus. WOW! Wonders will never…
Comments are closed.