The Chief Lay Broken Record of the Gallican-wing of the Novus Ordo Church Successfully Recruits Dr. Taylor Marshall to High Church Modernism and Continues to Peddle the "Diabolical Disorientation" Lie of the Fake Sister Lucy.



For the Gallican escape hatch for not facing the Heresies of Vatican II as REAL heresies that either bind or must be militantly rejected --- along with rejecting those who uphold the Vatican II heresies --- see min. 46 into this video. The text quoted seems to give them an out, but read the actual speech by Paul VI below, speaking about the "authority" of the Vatican II documents, and understand the deception propagated by Chris Ferrara and now Dr. Marshall. Spoiler alert: Paul VI certainly does insist that the documents are binding on Catholics as part of the supreme ordinary universal magisterium. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrqTpKI5GiE&t=1126s


Dr. Chojnowski: I must recall the contents of this video from memory, because I am not going to watch it again, 3 hours and 16 minutes of this sophistry is really not a good expenditure of time; for anyone. If you think it is, I know that you misunderstand the radical nature of what happened to the Catholic faithful and hierarchy during the last 60 years. Chris Ferrara, in this video, is presented as a "traditionalist" and, in a rather condescending way, welcomes Dr. Taylor Marshall into the Club. The Latin Mass Trad Club, I guess. Chumming around and saying the same thing over and over again for decades, all the while giving each other knowing glances and chuckles when the topic is about the "novelties" and the "liberals." 

Friends of RadTrad Thomist, let us vomit this out of our mouth. We are living in a time in which the curtain is being opened by little Toto and the fraud behind the curtain spinning the wheels and pulling the levers which created the "Catholic Renewal" projection has been exposed. This projection has mesmerized 3 generations of the faithful or former faithful and is now being shown to be nothing but a false image, an illusion most grave. Sorry, but they tried to make the Mass disappear and it practically did for decades; they tried to make the traditional Catholic life of families, religious, and priests disappear and they did, except in tiny little enclaves scattered here and there in the "mountains" throughout the globe; they tried to make the sacrificial priesthood disappear and just a handful of bishops stopped it from happening; they put forward doctrines clothed with all the traditional formalities of ecumenical councils which directly contradicted the infallible and incontrovertible teachings of the Catholic Church and most everyone signed on and now accepts them as a given; they "heart attacked" the Catholic States of the world with one little VII document and an "offer they could not refuse" from Cardinal Casaroli; after Pope Pius XII had just defined exactly the form for each of the sacraments, they changed them --- and the operation of grace seems to have withdraw from large, massive segments of our world and even "our Church"; what the saints were tortured for not doing, was enthusiastically and officially done; Buddha was worshiped on a tabernacle, not when the church was taken over by the Mongols, but when the church was handed over enthusiastically by those claiming authority in the Catholic Church. A pagan idol was worshipped in Saint Peter's Basilica. The lone surviving seer of Fatima, the woman who predicted to the minute the greatest public miracle since the Resurrection, the woman who was entrusted with the 3 Secrets of Fatima by the Mother of God, the woman to whom was given the message to the popes that Russia was to be consecrated, the one who was told by the Blessed Virgin Mary that her job was to "make my message known," was verifiably disappeared and replaced by a fraud, an imposter. This imposture as been professionally, mathematically, and scientifically verified by objective researchers and investigators. 

And, yet, "we" keep spreading the same lies, the same intentional misunderstandings, the same deception and diversionary tactics so that our incorporated NGOs will maintain their market share. 
In order to maintain our market share of the momentarily awakened faithful, we accept --- as displayed in this video exchange between Ferrara and Marshall:
a) a Defective Church, whose magisterial organs can speak error and have constantly spoken error or included "novelties" detrimental to the life of every Christian over the last 50 years.
b) New sacraments and a new Mass which cannot be certainly identified as channels of sanctifying grace, which the "modern hierarchy"--- formed by the New Theology --- does not believe in anyways. 
c) Complete social and political surrender on cultural and moral issues by a "Church hierarchy" who, fundamentally, supports the other side anyways.
d) Satisfaction with a "Latin Mass" pacifier; a "Latin Mass" probably said by likely invalidly ordained "priests" who have not power to offer sacrifice or convey sanctifying grace, based upon bad form, matter, and intention and invalidly consecrated ministers ordained by phenomenologically oriented episcopal minds who have no intention of bringing about anything in the real order but only something in the order of "meaning" in the phenomenal order of the "faithful." 

Rather than grabbing the pitch fork and saying, "They stole our Mass, our Sacraments, our Grace, our true Catholic hierarchy, our altars, our Church, our dignity, our reputations, our universities and schools, our innumerable orders of real Catholic religious, our weekly donations, the innocence of our children --- who trusted them and who we placed in their care --- violating them in the most wicked ways.....not to mention, THEY "DISAPPEARED" THE VERY SEER OF FATIMA AND REPLACED HER WITH A TOADY OF THE VERY MEN WHO BROUGHT THIS GRAND LARCENY ABOUT. 

Let us wake up! We are on to them. We have a criminal case against them. They are criminals of the highest human order. Let us assume our positions and kick really hard. How dare they do this? How dare we not respond in the most forceful way that we can? How dare we go through our life, after baptism, in this grave situation and only "petition the bishops"? 

As you can see below, in the full text of Paul VI's audience in January 1966, when we add the text that the Neo-Gallicans conveniently leave out, Paul VI intends to bind the faithful with the teaching of the Vatican II documents. Ferrara continues to peddle the lie of Vatican II as being full of "novelties" [not heresies] and these "novelties" being only pastoral suggestions and nonbinding psychobabble. He also tacitly peddles the "Sister Lucy lasted until 2005" lie. No more lies.

Paul VI Audience 1966

[IT]

PAUL VI


GENERAL AUDIENCE


Wednesday, 12 January 1966


The teachings of the Council are included in the patrimony of the Church

Beloved Sons and Daughters!

The life of the Church is dominated by the Ecumenical Council, which was concluded last December. And it is not only the memory of an event so rare and so great that it must keep our souls busy; the memory refers to a past fact; memory collects it, history records it, tradition preserves it; but this whole process concerns a finite moment, a past event. Instead the Council leaves something after itself, which lasts and continues to act. The Council is like a spring from which a river flows; the source may be far away, the current of the river follows us. It can be said that the Council leaves the Church, which celebrated it, itself. The Council does not oblige us so much to look back at the time of its celebration; but it obliges us to look at the legacy that it has left us, and which is present and will last for the future. What is this heritage?


The legacy of the Council consists of the documents that were promulgated in the various concluding moments of its discussions and its deliberations; these documents are of different nature; that is, they are Constitutions (four), they are Decrees (nine) and they are Declarations (three); but all together they form a body of doctrines and laws, which must give the Church that renewal for which the Council was promoted. Knowing, studying and applying these documents is the duty and the luck of the post-conciliar period.


Care must be taken: the teachings of the Council do not constitute an organic and complete system of Catholic doctrine; this is much broader, as everyone knows, and is not called into question by the Council or substantially modified; indeed, the Council confirms it, illustrates it, defends it and develops it with an authoritative apology, full of wisdom, vigor and trust. And it is this doctrinal aspect of the Council, which we must first notice for the honor of the Word of God, which remains univocal and perennial, as a light that is not extinguished, and for the comfort of our souls, that by the frank and solemn voice of the Council they experience what providential office has been entrusted by Christ to the living magisterium of the Church to guard, to defend, to interpret the "deposit of faith" (see Humani generis, AAS, 1960, p. 567). We must not detach the teachings of the Council from the doctrinal patrimony of the Church, so good to see how it fits, how coherent they are, and how they bear witness, increase, explanation, application. Then even the doctrinal "novelties" or norms of the Council appear in their right proportions, they do not create objections to the fidelity of the Church to its didactic function, and they acquire that true meaning, which makes it shine with a superior light.


Therefore the Council helps the faithful, teachers or disciples who are, to overcome those states of mind - of denial, indifference, doubt, subjectivism, etc. - who are opposed to purity and the strength of faith. It is a great act of the ecclesiastical magisterium; and whoever adheres to the Council recognizes and honors with this the magisterium of the Church; and this was the first idea that moved Pope John XXIII, of venerable memory, to convoke the Council, as he well said when he inaugurated it: "ut iterum magisterium ecclesiasticum. . . affirmaretur "; "It was our intention, thus expressing itself, in calling this very great assembly, to reaffirm the ecclesiastical magisterium" (A.A.S. 1962, p. 786). "What matters most to the ecumenical council, he continued, is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be more effectively guarded and exposed" (ibid. P. 790).


It would therefore not be true in the person who thought that the Council represented a detachment, a rupture, or, as some think, a liberation from the traditional teaching of the Church, or authorized and promoted an easy conformism to the mentality of our time, in what it is it has an ephemeral and negative rather than a sure and scientific nature, or it allows anyone to give the value and the expression that believes in the truths of faith. The Council opens many new horizons to biblical, theological and humanistic studies, invites us to seek out and deepen the religious sciences but does not deprive Christian thought of its speculative rigor, and does not allow the entry into the Church of philosophy, theology and scripture arbitrariness, uncertainty, servility, desolation, which characterize many forms of modern religious thought, when it lacks the assistance of the ecclesiastical magisterium.


There are those who wonder what the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wanted to attribute to its teachings, knowing that and it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided uttering dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; BUT it nonetheless provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and thus manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents.


We must enter into the spirit of these basic criteria of the ecclesiastical magisterium, and increase in our minds confidence in the guidance of the Church on the safe paths of faith and Christian life. If this is done by good Catholics, good children of the Church and especially scholars, theologians, masters, speakers of the Word of God, not that the students and the researchers themselves of the authentic doctrine born from the Gospel and professed by the Church, is from hope that the faith and with it the Christian life and also the civil life will have great refreshment, the one that derives from the truth that saves. Because the "Spirit of the Council" really wants to be the Spirit of truth (Io. 16, 13).


May Our Blessing help you understand this Spirit and make it your own.


                                                         


Comments

  1. The Vatican Two false flag operation continues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. More damage control for them. They are only their to get the 'remnant' of people left back into their one world church and under antipope Francis (or soon antiChrist). "Just believe what we tell you doctrine promulgated by the pope on dogma to the whole world in union with all the bishops aren't infallible, because we say so." Tell us another one.

      Delete
  2. A very worthy blast at the alleged upholders of Truth and tradition. These are the cottage industry
    money makers who have found their particular niches in defending the "truth". Get hold of a copy of Michael Hoffman's The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome where one will find that the seeds
    of Vatican 2 were sown a long time ago by the infiltration of humanism, especially the case of Pico della Mirandola who Hoffman calls the real father of Vatican 2. Humanism and the overturning of the ancient mortal sin of usury have led to extreme duplicity at the top of the Church.. The unnatural sin of usury always leads to lying and sodomy. Pope Innocent lV (12001254) "Usury is generally prohibited because if it were allowed all manner of evils would ensue....It is clear that practically every evil follows from usury." The fourth Lateran council of 1179 decreed that those who gain profits from loans are to be excommunicated and denied Christian burial.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr Chojnowski, spot on...I would be most glad to join the True Trad Knights to jointly kick hard in Holy Anger and Charity. Sign me up!

    DEUS VULT..."Ipsa conteret Capt tuum." Our Lady of Fatima, make us Thy sons of Thy heel to crush the enemies of Thy Son!

    ReplyDelete
  4. We've always heard the R+R claim that nobody had to pay attention to Vatican II because: "given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided uttering dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility".

    Thank you, Dr. Chojnowski, for posting the rest of the quote, which these Gallican fraudsters (a.k.a heretics) conveniently left out:

    "BUT it (Vatican II) nonetheless provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and thus manifestly authentic magisterium **MUST** be accepted docilely and sincerely by **ALL** the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents".

    More evidence that proves Ferrara and his R+R buddies are all a bunch of disgusting Gallican heretics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "BUT it nonetheless provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and thus manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents."

    This is about as vague as you can get. One who is too angry cannot appreciate the distinctions that ought to be made regarding this statement.

    So WHERE IS THE CHURCH?

    Which bishops do you recognize as possessing ordinary jurisdiction? Or has the entire hierarchy disappeared?

    Name one actual Gallican error that has been espoused by a traditional Catholic of note (not just your inferences).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The biggest Gallican error you have is rejecting Ultramontanism after the Church said it was the true Catholic position. Your hatred of Vatican I knows no bounds. For you it is no different to Vatican II or to any other teaching of any pope. You hate, despise and would spit on them all. Gallicans will not be saved. They are outside the Church, hate the authority of the Church and the Pope and will be separated from his Mystical Body, not only on earth but forever in Hell if they do not repent. It is very clear that you are not the same as us Catholics. We love the Church and all the popes. We do not love wolves in sheeps' clothing.

      Delete
    2. I found an article today and in the title, the phrase "Where Is The Church", so given that this was your question Unknown, I thought I would send it to you here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Resist-Indefect-P.pdf and here is another one http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=12&catname=10 The answers are certainly out there if people want them.

      Delete
    3. Coincidentally, the VISIBILITY of the Church is the SAME THEOLOGICAL GRADE OF CERTAINTY AS CANONIZATIONS. Both are considered "a teaching pertaining to the Faith", or "theologically certain". (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott)

      So why do the R&R reject canonizations, but embrace a (false) visibility, i.e., without a Pope that professes the same Faith?

      Delete
  6. Dr. Chojnowski, I completely agree with you concerning Ferrara and that Vatican II was binding. I grew up with the "novelty" that Vatican II was a pastoral council and we only had to follow what was good out of it. Catholic teaching says otherwise!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I want you to read this one again and TAKE CAREFUL NOTE THAT YOU DO WHAT PIUS IX SAYS HERE: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith,
      do not follow him." Letter to Bishop Brizen

      Delete
    2. Dr Chojnowski, based on Librorum's wise words you could remove my comment with the capitals above where I quoted Unknown's comment. The point of my comment was not to agree with the quote, but only to point out to Unknown that after the resistors are busy saying the pope can teach error, they then say we will accept his "sacraments" or his "mass" as valid or we will agree to do the novus ordo one hour fast or put his name in the very canon of the holy Mass. They say they will not follow him, but it simply is not true. They do not avoid him, but promote him. We all know we have to follow a pope and even resistors know that deep down. The quote, of course, is what we have been saying all along is incorrect because a pope can never teach anything contrary to the Catholic faith.

      Delete
  7. Taylor Marshall is another wolf sent to bite heels of sheep to round them up into the great paddock of (una cum) antipope Francis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent job refuting "Unknown" (above) and blowing his sham to pieces. Thank you!

      Delete
  8. It was not just Lucia of Fatima who was replaced by a fraud, but also Pope Paul VI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most reports of Paul VI being replaced by an imposter say it was around 1972.

      But by 1972 the “real” Paul VI had already promulgated Vatican II with its heresies of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, that the Catholic Church is only one part of a larger church of Christ… he promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae and suppressed the traditional Mass, he promulgated the new invalid rites of ordination and episcopal consecration, he made a speech to the United Nations to tell them that they were “the greatest hope of the world”… and as Dr C has proved, presented to the world the fake Sr Lucy.

      The point being, why the need for an imposter Paul VI? If there really were an imposter he couldn’t have been as bad as the original one.

      Delete
    2. The idea of the false Paul VI is said to have come from the false apparition of Veronica Lueken. More tricks of the devil. The real Paul VI was an antipope and did enough damage, we don't need a false one as well.

      Delete
  9. Anyone that uses diabolical trickery to deceive others into accepting an ANTI CHRIST as "POPE" is worse than disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Only the vilest of people would labor so long and hard to defend the so-called pontificate of a "pope" who worships false idols and who regularly blasphemes and called Our Lord "the devil".

    "Pope" Francis: "JESUS MADE HIMSELF SIN...AND HE TOOK THE APPEARANCE OF THE FATHER OF SIN, THE CUNNING SERPENT...The cross for some people is a badge of belonging: ...and it's fine but not just as a badge...but rather as the memory of THE MAN WHO MADE HIMSELF SIN, WHO MADE HIMSELF THE ******DEVIL******, THE SERPENT, FOR US; HE DEBASED HIMSELF UP TO THE POINT OF TOTALLY ANNIHILATING HIMSELF". (April 4, 2017, L Osservatore Romano)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chris Ferrara and the R&R clones continue to erode their dwindling credibility by adopting their "crickets position" despite Prima Facia evidence of criminal evil(s) staring them in the face. They have fallen from "Trad Catholics" to "R&R Catholics" to "CINO's" to "Cafeteria Catholics" aka Protestants in Practice. Their is one common thread for Ferrara, Matt, & Marshall....They each have large families...from 6 to 8 kids.
    In charity....could it be the Truth proven by Dr C and SLT/SLI blows a sizable hole into their credibility which would/could have negative economic consequences? Very human and understandable.....but.....it could also reflect a lack of true faith in Our Lord and most especially His Mother's protection and promises. IMHO, if the "Clans would Unite i/n/o Our Lady of Fatima under Sister Lucy Truth, one could expect a radical positive change for her Son's Church and It's faithful. "Nothing is Impossible for God".....Especially if His Mother is asking. The Power of Humility is endless. It's the missing grace and power from this virtue that fuels the man made ongoing debacle called Vatican 2 and it's horrible fruits.
    Again a great "Thank You" to Dr C and associates for bringing forth SLT/SLI. It's truth will prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Paul VI certainly does insist that the documents are binding on Catholics as part of the supreme ordinary universal magisterium." Yes he does, and adds, as you documented, "and thus manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents."

    The council, as PPVI repeated over and over again, did not have the mind to solemnly define or to infallibly teach through the UOM (which is NOT the "supreme ordinary magisterium" - an "authentic" but not necessarily infallible magisterium) doctrines which are binding as matters of Faith, unless a specific council document spells out a definite teaching belonging to Divine Revelation, the very definition of the UOM, which they certainly did not.

    Great stuff on Sr. Lucy, the rest is Modernist sede propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the R+R preferred to cherry pick what "Pope" Paul VI said. Now we know that, for decades, they completely ignored or downplayed the part where he commanded the faithful to accept Vatican II. Thereby, the R+R has lost credibility (again). No one that's caught on to their tricks would expect them to be forthright anyway. Why should we listen to their explanations now?

      If Paul VI commanded "ALL" the faithful (i.e. those that considered him a true pope), telling them they "MUST" accept the teachings of Vatican II "DOCILELY" and "SINCERELY", then (if they believe he was Pope) that is what they must do. The Catholic faithful must willfully conform to papal authority and not dispute it.

      "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err..." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chp 3). Note: Although the meaning of "heresy" and other moral "errors" are often conflated, there's a difference between the meaning of the two words. The Church would NOT follow a heretic.



      Delete
  13. What about visibility? If the R+R's definition of "visibility" is a conglomeration of believers and non-believers all united to their visible head, a heretic (or in Francis' case, a Pachamama-worshiper) then they've got visibility. But it's obviously not Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What about jurisdiction? What about Gallicanism?

    It's the R+R that have jurisdiction, not their "pope". They profess and promote the Gallican heresy (condemned by Vatican I) that "the Pope's judgment is not irreformable (i.e. not final) unless the consent of the Church be added."

    That's why it's right and good to call the R+R Gallican heretics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. GALLICANISM

    The R+R darling, Hillary White, dear friend of Michael Matt and writer for 1 Peter 5, publicly questioned Vatican I (on Twitter, July 16, 2017). It's just more proof of the R+R's cunning and deceit when they try to deny that they're Gallican heretics. They know exactly who they are:

    HILARY WHITE: "Hey guys... here's something to think about: what if Vatican I was, well, wrong?... V-I doesn't have 1700 years of saints behind it. What was happening exactly then? The bulldozer of Modernism; Free-masonic salting of the earth."

    White was merely echoing the heretical sentiments of her R+R friends.

    Let them be anathema!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dr. Chojnowski, what is the point of your blog when Salza/Siscoe (i.e., via the commenter, "Unknown") are allowed to have a tome of their garbage copied and pasted to your blog in the comments? There's nothing wrong with an opposing argument if the commenter is honestly seeking the truth.

    But everything that "Unknown" copied and pasted above has been soundly refuted and blown to pieces, over and over, ad nauseum. The R+R don't care about the truth, ignore what has been refuted before, and repeat the same endless cycle of questions, accusations and lies. They've been doing it for decades. It's all a game to them, aimed at wearing us down and laughing at our expense.

    Dr. Chojnowski, you're giving the R+R/Gallicans an extra platform to spread their heresy and malicious deceptions. It's counterproductive to the great work you're trying to achieve.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If R+R is "Gallican", then sedevacantism AD 1958 is "super-Gallican" i.e. they do not need any Pope in the Church at all. If they did they (since 1958) would have taken some time to choose the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's completely insane for the R+R to accuse sedevacantists of being "Gallican", especially when the charge against them has always been "Ultramontanism" (a.k.a Catholicism). There's a huge chasm between the meaning of the two words. They are absolute, total opposites.

      GALLICANISM IS THE HERETICAL R+R POSITION--ANATHEMATIZED BY VATICAN COUNCIL I:

      A Gallican is anyone that says or believes: "the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the FULL AND SUPREME POWER of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the ABSOLUTE FULLNESS, of this SUPREME POWER; or that this power of his is not ORDINARY AND IMMEDIATE both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful". (Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chp. 3) Again, this position was condemned by Vatican I.

      On the other hand, "Ultramontanism" is a term invented by the Gallicans (i.e., who lived around the time Vatican I had convened) to describe, contemptuously, the doctrines and policies which upheld the FULL AUTHORITY of the Holy See.

      The similarities between the Gallicans circa Vatican I and the R+R is truly amazing.

      Delete
  18. Thank you, Dr. Chojnowski, for deleting "Unknown's" fraudulent propaganda. Sorry that the excellent rebuttal from Catholic and Librorum were also deleted. So be it.

    The R+R have a wide enough platform to spread their falsehoods. They shouldn't be allowed to encroach on the very few (true) Catholic blogs as well. I'm referring to the R+R's fallacious tactics of citing large walls of text, whose points have already been refuted a multitudinous number of times. Try submitting a comment to their blogs in defense of the true popes, and see what happens.

    Enough of their false debates, and the relentless, misleading, mind-numbing, wearisome arguments, regurgitated over and over again--aimed at preventing the truth from sinking in. The truth is that the throne of Peter has been usurped by anti Christs, and anti Christs cannot be (true) popes. Period.

    Dr. Chojnowski, keep up the good work--on the offensive, exposing the heretics and their lies, and promoting the truth!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind words. I don't mind my comments being deleted if Unknown's rubbish is gone too.

      You are spot on about the R&R tactics – it’s like playing tennis with one of those tennis ball machines that have gone haywire and can’t stop shooting out the balls.

      And yes, thank you Dr C!

      Delete
    2. The tennis ball analogy is funny, but so true!

      Delete
  19. Clearly SLT/SLI represents a clear and present danger to the truth and validity of the entire R&R Industry. People don't like to be lied to or deceived. Especially, those of goodwill seeking a safe harbor in the Man Made Disaster of Vatican 2. The longer R&R propagators remain silent in the face of empirically proven EVIL & DECEPTION, the worse their pending self created disaster will be. Instead of giving thanks to Our Lord, His Mother and Dr C, they have adopted the tactics of Protestants by Practice:
    (1) "Deny, Deny, Deny"
    (2) what they can't refute by facts and/or truth is shouted down;
    (3) respond with deliberate obfuscation by vomiting voluminous nonsense;
    (4) just plain bald face lies and deception.
    I have long since adopted the sage advice of Dilbert...to wit...
    Instead of rising blood pressure, it helps to remember the practical advice of Dilbert
    "Never Argue With An Idiot Because They Shout You Down First And Then Beat You With Experience"
    Life on the web is much simpler and less stressful when one adopts Dilberts Advice on one hand and keeps a rosary in the other. Again Blessings & Thanks to Dr C et al. Great Work!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Much Money Was Leveraged to Continue to Cover-Up the Greatest Case of Identity Theft in Church History? The Million Dollar Question.

Fatima Fraud: Our Case For An Imposter Sister Lucy, October 2019