Monday, 31 October 2016

Piero Marini - Coming soon to the Bergoglian Church

The appointment of Piero Marini to the Congregation of Divine Worship shows the farce that is this papacy.

Let us look back at a brief pictorial exercise of some of this malefactors finer liturgical presentations.

Because with Piero Marini, the Sacrifice of Christ is not enough.

Only a Freemason could think this is worthy.

The Novus Ordo is irreformable. It is a dying liturgy. It will not transform, it will not convert. It is an insult to God.

Get out of it if you can. Get to the traditional Mass, the Ordinariate Mass and if the SSPX is  your only option, take it!  If not, find the best priest and the most properly celebrated new Rite Mass you can.

Image result for john paul ii liturgical dances
Hindu Liturgical Dance before John Paul II in Delhi

A nude woman brings the Offertory gifts to John Paul II
Naked Offertory Procession in Papua
Image result for john paul ii liturgical dances
And in Africa, too!
Image result for piero marini liturgy
Embarrassing Benedict XVI at Marianfeld


Peter Lamb said...

Such is the nature of the Gospel: it splits the world into two camps, the believers and the unbelievers. “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16). The Gospel will forever be a sign of contradiction; it will forever separate the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats (cf. Mt 13:30; 25:32-33). If Francis and his gang don’t like that, they should at least have the decency to cease calling themselves Catholic. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8).

Peter Lamb said...

Now let's be reasonable about this. On the one side we have Vatican I, Pope Paul IV, Pope Innocent III, St. Francis de Sales, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Antonius, Cardinal Billot, Wernz-Vidal, Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, A. Vermeersch, Edward Regatillo, Marato, All of these pillars of the Church teach that a heretic cannot be Pope.

On the other side we have Salza, Siscoe and Bishop Fellay who say an heretic can be the Vicar of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Who do you believe?

Vatican I declared: “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself."

So, the Council blew it, but Salza got it right. Wow! Please read "True or False Pope!!!

Ana Milan said...

If TLM (celebrated by priest with faculties) or any of the Easter Catholic rites in communion with Rome or The Ordinariate is available then of course that is the way to go. Most places on earth do not have such options & while I sympathise with the SSPX's position, attending their Mass (if they were present to me) wouldn't comply with my Sunday obligation due to this basic problem. Restoration of the Old Rite will only come about by educating the younger generation that have never been catechised & by not conforming to false ecumenism. Staying put, leading prayerful lives, attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is valid - SSPX agrees it is - & availing ourselves of the Sacraments of the Church (those that are still offered) is the only way to go, as it shows obedience to Christ & His Word even when his highest ordained & consecrated men try to overturn it.

Most people agree that the NO set-up has not produced fruit but don't let us go down the path of Luther et al & lead souls further away from the straight & narrow path to Heaven. These times will pass as they have done before in our history. We must trust in God who is allowing this turmoil to occur - He will never abandon His Church (headquartered in Rome). Those who say the Seat of Peter has been vacant for over sixty years are in error & have lost this trust. Those who are not in communion with Rome are putting themselves outside of its jurisdiction & therefore the salvific power given it by Christ & is truly playing into the hands of Satan.

We have endured dreadful times since VII which now appear to be culminating in a show-down (Satan's Last Stand). Arguing with each other is NOT going to produce any answers as we do not have any power to redirect events - that is Christ's alone. Our Lady's predictions are coming about in great haste & our only response is to do as She requests us to do - pray the Holy Rosary, do penance & Her Son will look after the rest, in His own time. She has promised that Russia will be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart but late & that will be the moment of Her Triumph. Judging by recent events that time is approaching fast.

Brian said...


MAD...Modernist Assured Destruction. And the beat goes on.

Vox Cantoris said...


Yes, I agree with you though let me clarify.

Those who cannot attend the traditional Rite need to take the responsibility to ensure that their priest has the "intent" to offer the Holy Mass in the modernist rite in union with the Church and in conformity with the books. On Saturday, I diocesan priest called me. He opined with some of his priestly brothers that many Masses in this Archdiocese are invalid because the priests do not believe and "ecclesia supplet" only goes so far. If the priest does not believe in what he is doing, there is no Confection of the Holy Sacrament.

The Mass at the SSPX does fulfill one's Sunday obligation.

Peter Lamb said...

"Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod..."

CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Pope Leo X, issued June 15, 1520.

Anonymous said...

"their priest has the "intent" to offer the Holy Mass in the modernist rite in union with the Church and in conformity with the books."

What happens next when "conformity with the books" goes against all of the above. which is guaranteed to happen with this new group of libs?

Vox Cantoris said...


I have never, can never dispute the validity of the Novus Ordo under the usual conditions. It is a deficient liturgy, a deficient prayer even it is offered in the most grand solemnity possible for it. Whilst I do not attend the SSPX, this, I believe, is also their position.

A priest who believes, intends to do what the Church intends and always intended, - to offer the propitiatory sacrifice.

Your thoughts are also my thoughts, that this group under this pope will not only stop what Cardinal Sarah was doing - an appendix with the PATFOTA, the ancient Offertory and clarity on "ad orientem," but may come up with something entirely new, even by novus ordo standards.

The new mass changed much, but after Paul VI's revision of the heretical Foreward, it did not change the reality.

If they change that reality then it that is another question.

And then, my friend, we are in the catacombs!

Anonymous said...

where is my recent comment about my attending SSPX etc. sent about 1 hour ago? I think it is worthy of publication!

Vox Cantoris said...

You well know why, my canonist friend.

Ana Milan said...

It appears that there are more problems with the English translation of the NO Mass than the Spanish, which is very similar to the Latin. When I attended two English version Masses approx. two years ago I was appalled by the liturgy & the nonchalant approach of the celebrants.

I get the feeling that the clergy would embrace the return of Latin as the principle language of the CC as everyone before VII knew it as well as the vernacular translation alongside it in the Missal. This was a political stunt in a ploy to please non-Catholics which didn't work. It should be quickly addressed!

Priests here in Spain will hear confessions in Latin if the penitent cannot speak Spanish & this is often a boon to visitors from other parts. I imagine if the Traditional Orders were allowed to minister here there would be no problems at all for them, but as things stand with our NO Bishops their faculties will have to come directly from the Vatican. The Synodal power that Bishops have acquired is too great & runs counter to the authority of the Pope. It has led in the recent past to them not informing Rome of serious developments in their Dioceses that should rightly have been discussed & acted upon at the highest level.

Anonymous said...

Interesting info Ana. Any word about the ICRSS expanding at all in Spain? I've heard of requests from people unable to get a TLM from their diocese. It'd be nice to have at least one traditional order establish a solid presence across Spain like in France or the UK.

Johnno said...


There is now official word that Francis and the Lutherans have signed a statement to work on a 'shared Eucharist.'

Lutherans can soon receive the Eucharist!

And can Catholics then also receive that abomination Lutherans claim to confect?

Is there going to be a new con-celebrated Catholic/Lutheran rite?

A new Novus Ordo? A new Rite of Consecration that in reality will not Transubstantiate, but only cause Catholics to adore and worship a false piece of bread in their own Churches? An idol? The Abomination of Desolation?

I'm guessing that's why Francis cleared out the Congregation for Divine Worship and Liturgy!

Vox Cantoris said...

Johnno, I said the very same thing this weekend. Report coming at 16:30 EDT.

Kathleen1031 said...

If that turns out to be true, that Lutherans are now invited to receive the Holy Eucharist, that is a game changer.
These horrible destroyers and heretics, blasphemers! God, help us, Our Lady, intercede for us!

JayBee said...

God bestows the divine presence, not the priest. Ignorance, doubt or lack of belief by priest hinders not consecration.

Anonymous said...

A Council of Bishops has to declare that the Pope had severed himself from the Church. To the best of my knowledge, neither of us fits that category.

Have you actually READ True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and Other Errors by John Salza and Robert Siscoe ( If you haven't, then you owe Bishop Fellay as well as Messrs. Salza and Siscoe a public apology.

Save Your people, O Lord, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victory to Your Church over Her enemies, and protect Your people by Your Cross.

Troparion of the Holy Cross, Tone 1


Peter Lamb said...

Dear Margaret, you are mistaken. A Council of Bishops DO NOT have to declare that the Pope had severed himself from the Church. Please don't take my word for that - these are they who have stated it unambiguously:

St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, hefalls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church... This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church."

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943 – “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that veryfact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a
member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 – “The Pope himself, if notoriously guiltyof heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Pope Innocent III: "... Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.”

Peter Lamb said...

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950 – “If
indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without
even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself
outside the Church ... if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”

A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949 –
“... the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956 –
“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is
the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the
Church, and hence far less could he be its head”

Vatican I: "... What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church... he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself."
Such, dear Margaret is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Ignore it at your peril. An heretic cannot become Pope, because he is not a Catholic. A true Pope has never become a public heretic. So says St. Robert and Vatican I. Such a notion makes nonsense of the dogmas of the Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, obviously, the question of a true Pope becoming an heretic is only a theoretical, academic exercise. IF such a thing were possible, (which it is not), the pope would be deposed by divine law automatically in consequence of his sin of heresy. Such is the teaching of the Church. The proper authorities can then formally declare him deposed for the crime of heresy against canon, (man-made), law, only in the interests of good Church governance. God deposes him, not man!

No, I have not myself read Salza's book, just as I have not read Luther, but I have read many extracts and refutations of it by various people - quite enough for me to know that plodding through 700 pages of it would be a waste of time and money. Have you read all 700 pages? You might find interesting comment here: