Acceptance of Vatican II is Prerequisite for 'Recognition' by Conciliar Clergy
Before quoting Conciliar clergy themselves, a brief reminder:

Archbishop Lefebvre - On Vatican II
  • “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
  • “…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
  • “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
  • “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  • “We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. ... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform. ... That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)
  • “We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)
  • “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  • "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." The Angelus A Matter of Principle
  • “I never…I don’t accept the Council! Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council! It is sure! It is evident!…This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)? It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)

✠ ✠ ✠

Archbishop Di Noia Admits: The Goal is to Convert SSPX to Conciliar Thinking

This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”
– Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, newly-appointed Vice-Prefect of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei

By John Vennari CFN| August 2012

In 1946, Father Garrigou-Lagrange warned in his landmark article against the modernist New Theology, “Those who have attempted to attend the classes of the masters of modernist thought in order to convert them have allowed themselves to be converted by them.”

It is clear the same ruse is being applied to the Society of St. Pius X.

Vatican Insider posted a July 2 interview with Joseph Augustine Di Noia, newly-appointed Vice-Prefect of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei.

Though the interview deserves a much fuller treatment, we will spotlight for now Archbishop Di Noia’s remarkable comments about the Society of St. Pius X and modern Judaism. He says, “After three years of dialogue [the doctrinal discussions] we still need to understand what the SSPX position is on the Jewish Community and Judaism. ”

After three years the Vatican still does not understand what is the SSPX’s position on these points? This should be no great mystery.

The SSPX position is nothing more than the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church throughout the ages, that all non-Catholics, Jews included, must convert to the Catholic Church for salvation. There is no salvation outside the Church.

The SSPX position is what the Church has always taught: the Old Covenant is superseded and made obsolete by the New. Those who are still members of non-Catholic societies, such as Judaism or Protestantism, can only be saved by leaving their false positions and joining the one true Church that Christ established.

This should not be a difficult concept for a Catholic.

The position of the Society of St. Pius X can also be summarized in Pius XI’s loving prayer for the conversion of the Jews contained in the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which Pius wished to be recited in every Catholic Church on the Feast of Christ the King: “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may It now descend upon them, a laver of redemption and of life.”

Archbishop Di Noia then grants us a great favor He openly admits something we have long surmised: that the purpose of the Vatican’s discussions with the SSPX, and its work for so-called “regularization,” is to convert the SSPX to Conciliar thinking.

Here is the key section of the interview. Archbishop Di Noia says:
Quote:The Church’s deep commitment to reconciliation with the Jewish People is personified today by Benedict XVI. The Ecumenical Council wrought a fundamental change. Then John Paul II, above all others, brought home Paul’s message that Judaism and Jews have a unique place in salvation history. Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s Pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”

First of all, it is not accurate to invoke Saint Paul in this new enterprise, for it is Saint Paul who declares explicitly that Our Lord’s New Covenant “has made obsolete the former one,” that is, made obsolete the old Judaic Covenant. (Heb. 8:13) No Pope has the authority to reject this Scriptural truth, as the Word of God is infallible, and the Church has always interpreted this verse accordingly. The new approach mentioned by Archbishop Di Noia is a case of twisting the words of Saint Paul to fit the new ecumenical orientation. This is a old tactic of ecumenists, but too much to detail at the moment.

Most important, however, are the terms “fundamental change” and “major shift”. Di Noia admits that Vatican II’s approach, and the subsequent orientation of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are a change, a shift. We are not receiving the Catholic Faith from them “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as is commanded by Vatican I and the Oath Against Modernism, but a major shift, a change.

Once again, we see proof that Vatican II is a rupture with the past, which cannot realistically be accepted by means of a “hermeneutic of continuity.” Here, there is no continuity.

Archbishop di Noia then delivers the payload:
Quote:“Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jewish People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”

There you have it. Traditional Catholics are expected to effectively abandon the perennial truths of the Catholic Faith regarding the absolute necessity for non-Catholics – Jews included – to leave their religious affiliations and convert to Christ’s one true Church. Again, we see no “hermeneutic of continuity” here, but a “new concept” This is neo-Modernisn in action, something no Catholic is bound to accept. In fact, our first duty is to resist.

And yes, they will embark on a program of “convincing us” of these modernist tenets, and are content to take the long period of time such convincing will require.

How much more explicit need he be?

Today’s Vatican would prefer we effectively discard the infallible decree of the Council of Florence which teaches:
Quote:“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Today’s Church leaders, in the name of Vatican II novelties, would prefer we no longer quote Our Lord Himself who said to the Jews of his day, “If you do not believe that I am He [the Messiah], you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24); or that we quote His words to the Jews, “You search the Scripture because in them you think you have life everlasting. And it is they that bear witness to Me, yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40).

Today’s post-Concliar Vatican is no doubt embarrassed by Saint John who, faithful to Our Lord’s teaching, says likewise, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2: 22)

For what is Pope John Paul’s major contribution to Jewish Catholic relations, but the promotion of the new belief that Jews have their own unique Covenant with God and need not convert to the Catholic Church for salvation.

Sergio Itzhak Minerbi, Israel’s former Ambassador to the Ivory Coast, Belgium, praised John Paul’s new approach to Judaism: “For centuries, the Church has claimed to be the ‘true Israel’, thus substituting the Jewish religion. It is therefore important that, in a meeting with the Jewish community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, the Pope announced his respect for ‘the people of God, of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked by God’.”

Likewise Abraham Foxman from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, no friend of the Catholic Church, celebrated Pope John Paul II as the man who “rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism,” that is, rejected the Catholic truth that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ superseded and made obsolete the Old Judaic Covenant.

And what is Pope Benedict’s novel approach to the Jewish people, but the claim that Jews and Catholics worship the same God, and that Jews and Catholics have a “common mission” to be a witness to God in the world, with no mention of the need for the Jews to convert.

At the Rome synagogue in 2010, Pope Benedict said, “Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful.”

Yet we know that Jews and Christians do not worship the same God. Jews, alas, reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. It is Saint John, the Apostle of Love, who writes: “He who honereth not the Son, honereth not the Father, who hath sent Him” (John 5:23).

Finally, the new approach to be a “common witness” to God along with Jews implicitly demands we no longer speak of the need for their conversion to Christ’s one true Church for salvation. It effectively tells Jews they have the moral freedom to live their lives as if Jesus Christ were a fraud and imposter.

Yet it is this new approach that Archbishop Di Noia openly admits that traditional Catholics are expected to accept. Clearly, traditional Catholics will be ‘worked on’ to be persuaded of this new orientation.

We thank Archbishop Di Noia for saying openly what many of us have long surmised: The Vatican’s goal in Rome/SSPX dialogue is to convert traditional Catholics to Conciliar thinking.

We repeat again Archbishop Di Noia’s key phrase: “This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

[Emphasis mine.]
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre
New Vatican doctrine chief stresses need for SSPX to accept Vatican II

[Image: bormedia1475601.jpg][Image: bormedia1475001.jpg][Image: bormedia1476601.jpg]

EWTN News as republished on CFN | April 6, 2012

The new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has re-stated that the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council is a prerequisite for the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X to rejoin the Church. [note from JV: the SSPX never left the Church, but that is another discussion...]

One can only be Catholic if one fully recognizes the faith of the Church. This includes the Second Vatican Council, which is a particularly important teaching,” Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller said to Vatican Radio July 4 in his first and only interview since taking up his new post.

“It is therefore important to overcome internal blockages – groups on the fringes – and that one simply has to trust our Holy Father Benedict XVI and all those that who surround him,” he remarked.

In September 2011 Bishop Muller’s predecessor, American Cardinal William J. Levada, presented the Society with a “doctrinal preamble” setting out what they would have to agree with in order to heal its 24-year rift with Rome.

Although the document was never made public, it is widely thought to include the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council as a key condition. Discussions between both sides are still ongoing.

Bishop Muller, 64, was appointed to his new post July 2, having previously been Bishop of Regensburg in Germany for 10 years.

“I feel like a first-grader in school. A lot of things are new for me,” he admitted, even though he was already familiar with the congregation’s work, having been a member for five years. “Despite that,” he added, “it is a big change from being a local bishop to a bishop at the Roman Curia.”

The office he now holds within the Curia puts him in charge of one of the oldest and most significant Vatican departments. The congregation has its roots in the 16th century counter-Reformation when it went by the grand title of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. In 1908 it was restyled the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It was renamed again with its present title in 1965 by Pope Paul VI.

Bishop Muller said the primary job of his new department is “promoting the Catholic faith” in “a positive way,” since “faith is something that heals.”

“A lot of Catholics do not know, unfortunately, what is really the content of our faith and so let themselves maybe also go against the Church, while they believe in something which is false,” he said.

A personal friend of Pope Benedict XVI, the two men have a background in academia, with Bishop Muller specializing in dogmatic theology. He also has a long track record in promoting ecumenical relations particularly with the Russian Orthodox Church and Lutherans.

“Ecumenical doesn't mean that one must give up one's own belief, rather, that we give our Catholic understanding in a way that it is understood from other sides,” he said.

“That's why we hope that the ecumenical process continues and that God gives us the grace that all Christians come united in one Church.”
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre
Sadly, we know that since 2012 Bp. Fellay on behalf of the entire SSPX, accepted Vatican II, just as it was requested of him repeatedly by modernist Rome. 

An excerpt from The Recusant's Study on the Doctrinal Declaration:

Quote:Paragraph III, 7.

Doctrinal Declaration: “We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”

The Recusant: With this paragraph Bishop Fellay declares that the SSPX accepts the legitimacy of the New Mass and other New Sacraments. Some, notably Fr. Daniel Themann, have tried to claim that it means only that the Pope has authority to promulgate, that the authority promulgating the New Mass is what is legitimate, and not the new Mass itself. But the text clearly says that the New Mass was “legitimately promulgated.” If I say that I am “legitimately married” it means that my marriage is legitimate and not merely that I have the authority or power to get married should I so choose.

The 1988 protocol given to Archbishop Lefebvre to sign shortly before the consecrations, contains a paragraph which says exactly the same, word for word, no more or less, with one difference: the word “legitimately” is missing. Why bother to add that one word, and given that it was deliberately added, how can anyone claim afterwards that that one word does not really signify? It is an exercise in obfuscation. At Lille in 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the New Mass as a “rite bâtard” (“bastard rite” or “illegitimate rite”). If on the other hand the new Mass was legitimately promulgated then its promulgation was legitimate, making it a legitimate rite of the Church. This would mean that we cannot refuse to attend it on principle.

Paragraph III, 8.

The Doctrinal Declaration: “In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.

The Recusant: Not only do we accept the New Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect it, which in context must mean to abide by it. This would include, presumably, respecting the law which allows the giving of the sacraments to non-Catholics, and the law which reverses the ends of marriage. And even if we make sure that we in the SSPX are “special”, at the very least this would still mean that we are happy to watch the rest of the Church live by this new conciliar Code of Canon law, since we have our little side altar in the cathedral of pluralism. This will, of course, all be done “following the guidelines laid out” in paragraph III,5 - in other words, it will be done according to the idea that there can by definition be no contradiction between old and new, Catholic and modernist, and that wherever a contradiction presents itself, we side with the new, with the modernist, and tell ourselves that it is not modernist but Catholic after all.


Bishop Fellay, in the name of the SSPX, formally and officially, first in secret and then in public, accepts the documents of Vatican II, Collegiality, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, the legitimacy of the New Mass and the New Code of Canon Law. He accepts that those things can be reconciled to Tradition, and that where they do not appear to be reconcilable, the solution is “discussions and study” to show that they are after all reconcilable.


The title of this document tells us a lot. “Doctrinal Declaration”. Its purpose is to declare doctrine. This is the doctrine which it declares. Bishop Fellay himself, through his actions (which speak louder than words!) has shown that he knew from the start that this would be unacceptable to a great many priests and faithful in 2012. That is why he kept it a secret for as long as possible (does it make any sense to have a “secret doctrine”? Has anyone but the Secret Societies ever taught a doctrine in secret?)

God blessed the SSPX only due to its fidelity to Tradition and its refusal to compromise with Vatican II. If we see now a loss of unity, of purpose, of holiness and of fruitfulness in the apostolates of the SSPX, this must surely be because that fidelity to Tradition is gone, and therefore God’s blessing is gone too. If God is Truth, then a denial of Catholic truth means separating ourselves from Almighty God. This is why the Holy Ghost is no longer making use of the Society which denied Him by denying His truth. Bishop Freppel’s words have come home to roost in the SSPX – it survived incompetence, immorality, bad priests, bad examples and bad decisions. It cannot and will not recover from its abandonment and diminution of the truth.

Practical Consequences

Catholics wishing to support Tradition need to realise that Tradition and the Council are simply incompatible. Vatican II is toxic: everything it touches, within a short time, withers and dies on the vine. It reduced the church of the 1950s and 1960s to her present state in little more than a generation. If we support Vatican II or give our approval to it in any way, then we cannot claim to be supporting Tradition, since the two are incompatible. If we are to totally and not just partially or symbolically support Tradition, then we must totally and not just partially or symbolically reject Vatican II.

This, far above any considerations of “validity”, “novus ordo hosts in the tabernacle” or “dubious sermons” is the real reason why Traditional Catholics knew that they ought to avoid the “approved” Masses of such groups as the Society of St. Peter, which accept Vatican II and which offer a “pre-conciliar taste” within a conciliar framework. For that very same reason, we ought to avoid the Society of St. Pius X. We want nothing to do with the council, therefore we will have nothing to do with the Society of St. Pius X which has accepted it. The sacrament of confession is something more personal, but the Mass is a public act of worship on behalf of the Church, and we cannot assist at the public act of worship offered by priests who officially accept the Council.

A public departure from, diminution of or undermining of the Faith requires a public response. Every priest of the Society of St. Pius X has a duty to make public where he stands in relation to this grave insult to Our Lord. It was written and handed over in his name: it is up to him to tell the world that this is not the case, to confess Our Lord “before men”. We are well aware that there are many priests remaining in the SSPX who privately disagree with the Doctrinal Declaration, but our confession of the Faith has to be public, not private, especially (as Cardinal Pie says) when the truth is attacked.

Archbishop Lefebvre gave the faithful Catholic Tradition, and the faithful were justified in more or less assuming that the priests united with him taught the same. Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration is another doctrine than that which we received from him. To those who say that we err, that we go too far, we reply that we prefer to err on the side of being too zealous on behalf of Tradition, of opposing Vatican II and its novel doctrine too strongly, than the alternative. Our Lord warns us against being lukewarm, and experience teaches us to beware above all a slow, subtle danger to our faith.

In the meantime, whilst we await the ministrations of the far smaller number of priests who have declared themselves against this new doctrine, Almighty God will surely reward our sacrifices which are made out of love for Him and fidelity to Catholic Tradition.

St. Pius X, pray for us!
[Emphasis mine.]
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre
Pope Francis Exhorts FSSP to the "Living Tradition" of Vatican II
Holy Father's message on the 25th anniversary of FSSP conveyed by Letter of the Apostolic Nuncio in France

CFN | 14/11/13 

Apostolic Nunciature in France
Paris, October 29, 2013

Reverend Father,

I am pleased to convey to you, by this letter, the benediction that Pope Francis addresses to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter on the occasion of the celebration of the 25th anniversary of her foundation.

[Final formal greetings]

Apostolic Nuncio
Reverend Father Vincent RIBETON
Superior of the District of France
Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter

Apostolic Nunciature in France

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter

Pope Francis joins the thanksgiving of her members for the work accomplished in this quarter-century spent at the service of ecclesial communion cum Petro et sub Petro.

It was in a moment of great trial for the Church that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was created. In a great spirit of obedience and hope, her founders turned with confidence to the Successor of Peter in order to offer the faithful attached to the Missal of 1962 the possibility of living their faith in the full communion of the Church. The Holy Father encourages them to pursue their mission of reconciliation between all the faithful, whichever may be their sensibility, and this to work so that all welcome one another in the profession of the same faith and the bond of an intense fraternal charity.

By way of the celebration of the sacred Mysteries according to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite and the orientations of the Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, as well as by passing on the apostolic faith as it is presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, may they contribute, in fidelity to the living Tradition of the Church, to a better comprehension and implementation of the Second Vatican Council. [Emphasis added]

The Holy Father exhorts them, according to their own charism, to take an active part in the mission of the Church in the world of today, through the testimony of a holy life, a firm faith and an inventive and generous charity.

Entrusting to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Peter, apostle, all the pilgrims assembled in Lourdes or at the church of Saint-Sulpice in Paris to give thanks to the Lord on this occasion, the Holy Father grants them with open heart the Apostolic Benediction.

Paris, October 28, 2013
On the feast of Saints Simon and Jude, Apostles.

Apostolic Nuncio
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)