Thursday, 23 January 2020

MICHAEL MATT to GERMAN BISHOPS: 'Don't embarrass the Fatherland again!'


jim norwood said...

You can't make this sh#%% up.
I wonder how bad it is in the Canadian church?

Peter Lamb said...

"Where is the Church of Christ? It is in the souls, minds & hearts of its adherents. Those who cling with tenacity to its Dogmas, Liturgy, Sacraments, Scripture & the enactment of the Most Holy Passion, Death & Resurrection of Our Divine Lord, handed down for countless generations through blood, persecution, incarceration, death. It is in their belief that Christ has not left His Church but awaits the exact moment to bring salvation to all who trust in Him & persevere to the end. Those who live in Christ will never die. Their spirit will not be tarnished by evil mongers. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph."

We cling to the Catholic Faith just as our fathers did. Exactly the same. NOTHING different. No novelty, no heresies, no invalid sacraments, no false VII, no anti-popes. We listen to St. Paul and we let them be anathema. We have nothing to do with modernist heretics. We pay them no heed. We pray the Rosary daily, we wear our brown scapulas, we hear the pure Tridentine Mass daily - DVD, or live broadcast. We patiently await Our Lord's Will and the Triumph of the Immaculate heart. We ARE the true Catholics. Time for you all to find peace and join us in the fields with St. Athanasius and pure, unadulterated Catholicism.

Paul Dale said...

At Peter Lamb

Where is your church? Unless it is with Peter, then it is no church, but another Protestant gnostic sect. Benedict XVI is Peter, he is no antipope. Bergoglio is the antipope. There can be no Triumph of the Immaculate Heart except through Peter. No the true Catholics are suffering with Peter as the winds of hell buffet him. Love Peter, pray for Peter, stay with the Church.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Paul, Recall the canonist Michel’s teaching: the sin of heresy requires no canonical warnings for pertinacity. All one need do is (a) know the rule of faith, and (b) refuse to submit to it. Formal heresy is then complete — because the willed opposition to the magisterium constitutes pertinacity. 
Cardinal Billot put it still more simply: “Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known.” 
The post-Conciliar popes were former academic theologians, seminary professors, cardinal-archbishops and curialists. Do you really think such men did not “know the rule of faith in the Church”? Did not know that unam ecclesiam in the Creed meant the Church was “undivided in herself and separate from any other”? Or do you really think that Professor-Doktor-theologianperitus-cardinal-CDF Prefect-superbrain Joseph Ratzinger did not know that the universal ordinary magisterium — Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII ? ... Fathers and the whole edifice of Catholic theology — taught that all who rejected even one point of the Church’s doctrine were outside her communion and alien to her? That Ratzinger did not know that Frankenchurch overthrew the previous teaching? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you — over the Tiber. 
Who Decides This? The answer is simple: The same people who “decided” that the New Mass was evil and that the Vatican II teachings were non-Catholic — you and me, folks. We didn’t need a General Council to figure out those issues and we don’t need a General Council for this one either. After all, do we traditional Catholics await a jury verdict before we decide that the local abortionist is a murderer? He openly violates a Commandment. He commits the sin of murder, and we don’t hesitate to say so — even though no court has convicted him. So too, the public heretic. He aborts an article of the Creed to create a monster. He openly denies the rule of faith. He commits the sin of heresy. We traditionalists need not hesitate to call a heretic a heretic — even though no Council has convicted him — any more than we hesitate to call an abortionist a murderer. Nor should traditionalists hesitate to point out the consequences: A public heretic cannot be a true pope. He deposes himself.(

Peter Lamb said...

Some views from SSPX:
SSPX insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger is "anathema"
January 1998 A.D.


1993 A.D. SSPX insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger is key player in the "New Theology" and is determined to destroy the True Faith.


SSPX: 1999 A.D. Cardinal Ratzinger is a modernist/heretic who has a "Destructive Mind."
SSPX: 1993 A.D. Cardinal Ratzinger played a key role in inserting false teachings into the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 

Peter Lamb said...

Ratzinger :
Held his own Assisi abominations in 2006 and 2011.Prayed in a mosque with Mohammedan infidels facing Mecca November 30, 2006.Worshiped with a female Lutheran "bishop" on September 23, 2011.We are sure of a few facts:
1. There has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Catholic Church. This we have on the authority of Vatican I and St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church and prime authority on the Papacy and many others.

2. IF a true Pope became an heretic, he would immediately loose office and his authority and, just like any heretic, be excommunicated from the Church. This is Catholic doctrine.

3. The Catholic Church is Infallible and Indefectible. Why? Because it is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost. This is Catholic dogma.

4. The Holy Ghost never has, nor will he ever allow an heretical "pope" to lead the Catholic Church astray. He would drop him dead before He allowed the teaching of anything harmful to the salvation of souls by the Catholic Church. If this were not so, the Church could not be Infallible and Indefectible.

5. We know unusual things happened at the Conclave of 1958 - white smoke for five minutes, by the clock and then black smoke etc. etc. One day it will be known what really happened. All things done in the dark, will be broadcast from the rooftops.

6. From the above, it is obvious and definite that the judeo-masons HAD TO HAVE A FALSE POPES TO DO THEIR BIDINGS. THE HOLY GHOST WOULD NOT ALLOW A TRUE POPE TO DO SO.
Whether a Pope was elected and then impeded, or whether no Pope was validly elected and the conclave was a sham, we don't know. 

7. But, we do know that all the conciliar "popes" are equally sham, evil and minions of satan, including ratzinger and wotjyla.  

Paul Dale said...

The problem with you Peter is that you come up with reams and reams of correct sounding teachings. It is something that you and the combox at akacatholic have in common, except there you have it in multiple postings like a 10,000 metre relay race as they raid their files to copy and paste, play tag, and anathematise us all as miserable miscreants (which is about the one thing I can claim ownership). We know about the Assisi meetings, the kissing the Koran, and yet you, and your ilk take it upon yourselves to pronounce from your imperial throne that you know what is right, correct, because you can copy and paste another 2000 words to back up your position. But you haven't told me where your church is, and who is your Pope. Proving heresy is fiendishly difficult, maybe there is a reason why the Church has seldom tried. "But we do know" from your own gnostic writings, putting yourself outside the Church.

No you are waiting in your ivory towers expecting God to prove you right, give us your Pope, do the Consecration and then you can rapture up to claim your special prize (A two week sojourn teaching St Michael about, well everything and anything). But what if God doesn't come to your aid and the post 58 Popes were Supreme Pontiffs anyway? Was Padre Pio wrong in calling Paul VI Pope?
Run away you little coward, run away from the tribulation where true Catholics will stay and defend the Papacy with their lives, miserable miscreants that we are, because where Peter is, there is the Church.
One of the greatest English saints St Thomas More died defending the Supreme Pontiff, when, like today what was going on in Rome wasn't too far from what is going on today.

Where we might have something in common is that the crisis that is Bergoglio is from the bowels of hell. When you read Brother Bugnolo at and Ann Barnhardt, then it all makes sense: Bergoglio is the antipope, Benedict XVI is Pope. Benedict is suffering at the hands of those sodomite cohorts. Oh where is the emperor to rescue him from the filth! He is most probably the Pope in the Third Secret. Your problem is that you don't give God any credit, or slack, in how he is confronting this great battle. He permits it all. And he permits what these post 58 Popes have done, only He can judge them, preserving them from heresy irrespective of their modernist leanings, teachings, their supposed homosexual inclinations etc. But maybe the greatest test is for us poor sinners, to stay faithful to the Pope. Pray for our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI

Peter Lamb said...

The problem Paul is that the correct sounding teachings sound correct because they are from the magisterium, Doctors of the Church, theologians etc. They sound correct because they are correct.They are the teachers; we are the taught. We do not make up doctrine we learn and paste doctrine that the Church teaches. You are a wind bag. You have no authorities to back up your wild statements and you hide behind ad hominem attacks and rudeness. I suspect you are a novus bogus troll. Just learn one thing today: An heretic cannot be Pope. That is Catholic doctrine.

Please give me the citation where Padre Pio said montini was a true Pope. montini was a proven mason and therefore automatically excommunicated before he became "pope". Read and learn:

"Almost sixty years ago, “Padre Pio first met Father Luigi Villa, whom he entreated to devote his entire life to fight Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Padre Pio told Father Villa that Our Lord had designs upon him and had chosen him to be educated and trained to fight Freemasonry within the Church. The Saint spelled out this task in three meetings with Father Villa, which took place in the last fifteen years of life of Padre Pio. At the close of the second meeting [second half of 1963], Padre Pio embraced Father Villa three times, saying to him: ‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ AT THE TIME, THE REIGNING POPE WAS PAUL VI" At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI.

Read about mason montini:

Please don't come back to me unless you've got something to say which you can back up. :)

Peter Lamb said...

" give us your Pope,"

Paul you don't seem to get it - sede vacante! The chair is currently empty. There is no Pope at the moment. We are in an interregnum. Heretics can't be Popes. :)

Tom A. said...

Paul, you say you know all about Ratzinger’s anti-Catholic teachings and behaviors, but tou still call him Pope. How?

Alexis Bugnolo said...

Those attacking Ratzinger because they do not like his theology are in good company with me, because I am one of his most ardent critics. When I read his introduction to theology, I got up to about page 90 and dumped the book in the trash can.

However, there is a big difference between being error, being confused and pertinaciously rejecting defined dogma. You see in the Church, the Church has never excommunicated everyone who is in error, confused or rejects a revealed truth, because, on account of ignorance or passion, probably 99% of us would be excommunicated. The Church instead has limited excommunication to the pertinacious rejection of defined truths. That does not mean that only sins of such kind are sins, but it does mean that no sin other than that kind is matter for losing your office in the Church.

Sedes, addicted to their own opinions, lacking nearly always any formal training in theology, or ability to make distinctions, and hating the fact that they are not bishops or popes -- which is why Sedevacantism is an error always of laymen who want to be priests, or priests who want to be bishops, or illicitly ordained priests, or consecrated bishops who are trying to defend their own actions.

Some people just cannot discern between the canonical crime of heresy and the moral fault of heresy. They are so much like Martin Luther, who when he was refused a bishopric began to denounce everyone who had an office in the Church, so he could justify himself in his own new religion. Sedevacantism is the same, like Lutherands, they have no pope, and do nothing to have one. They are content with a lay run Church.

Peter Lamb said...

Wow Alexis, you sure got no idea what sedevacantism is about! You been smoking your socks? :) It is simply unadulterated Catholicism, plain and simple. If you disagree, please make reasoned statements backed up by citations of Catholic doctrine. Insulting generalisations sucked from the thumb achieve nothing and impress nobody. So you believe ratzinger committed his heresies from being confused. You must be very naieve. He pertinaceously rejects defined dogma fellow! You seem to take heresy very lightly. Hear what Father Faber says about it:

“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness!… “We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege… “Our charity is untruthful because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is not truthful… Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness. (Fr. Faber.)

Peter Lamb said...

And by the way theologian Bugnolo, public, or notorious, pertinaceous heresy is a crime against canon law and a mortal SIN against Divine law. It is not a "moral fault"! As a matter of interest, where did you receive your formal theological training?

"The Church instead has limited excommunication to the pertinacious rejection of defined truths. That does not mean that only sins of such kind are sins, but it does mean that no sin other than that kind is matter for losing your office in the Church."

What you are trying to say is that a material heretic is guiltless of sin. To commit sin there must be full knowledge, consent and serious matter. A material heretic speaks or does heresy in ignorance of the fact that what he says, or does, is in fact heretical. ratzinger ain't no material heretic pal. :)

Paul Dale said...

Peter & Tom A. You see I don't think I need to stipulate that only God judges the Pope. I am not going to seek reams of sound Catholic teaching to back up my case. Are you telling me that that God didn't know about Ratzinger's crazy writings, his bifurcating the papacy, his Assisi Meeting, his absurd comments re the Third Secret: Paul VI's homosexuality, his schismatic Mass, JPII etc, John XXII etc, and are you telling me that there is no way that He could allow these men with dubious backgrounds to be his representative on earth. Is that your logic Peter & Tom? That these men, some freemasons, some heretics, enemies of the Church cannot repent, allow for conversion by Grace, a grace that so protects the office of the Papacy? As I said you don't allow Christ any slack, you don't credit Him as to knowing how to deal with this situation of evil attacking Peter. You have it all sown up don't you gents? You have judged according to sound theologians and bishops of the past. But you don't allow Grace, the Holy Ghost, repentance and the fact that Christ prayed that all of these men who were validly elected to the See of Peter would not lose the faith. You don't allow for the judgment of Christ, no you have beaten Him to it

Tell me Peter, did Father Luigi, or Padre Pio, espouse the sederast position? Did they die outside of the sacraments of the Church? Did they deny that Paul VI was not the Pope? They died good Catholics within the bosom of the Church. Now I don't stick my head in the ground and ignore the terrible state of the Church and the World. No I am not a novus ordite come to troll you. I have been assisting at the traditional Mass whenever I can get access to one. But I am not a sede Peter or Tom, because that puts me outside the Church and tumbles me into hell.

Now it is as evident as has never been seen before the disgrace of the evil man that claims to be Pope today. As I have asked you before Peter, but you haven't answered, who is your Pope? where is your church? The current situation is sifting the wheat from the chaff, like never before. I know that Benedict is my Pope, because of the satanic coup that was the St Gallen Mafia who got their Freemason into the office. The failed renunciation. It is all too evident to see cause Bergoglio has no protection of the office, he has not the three guardian angels attending him; there is no grace about him.

But where do you go for the sacraments Peter? From sede priests? Where is the visibility of your Church, your Pope?
Our Church is suffering Peter, attacked by the devil from everywhere, but I will not jump the barque, I will pray and suffer for my dearest Supreme Pontiff, incarcerated as he is in the Vatican. He hasn't run because of the wolves, have you, Peter? Tom A?

Irenaeus said...

What is your personal view on the powers of the papacy, Dr. Lamb? Too much? Too little? Or just right?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Paul, Regarding the first paragraph of your response: Yes, this is all happening according to God's permissive will. We have long been warned that these times were coming. Saint Paul calls it the "Operation of Error" and says Our Lord is allowing it to separate the wheat from the chaff - the believers from the unbelievers. Our Lady of Good Success warned us very specifically. Check out her predictions.
Yes, certainly, these men could repent and convert to Catholicism by the grace of God. If bergoglio did so, he would be a true Pope.
Yes, Our Lord is in complete control and knows exactly what His will is regarding the situation and all else.
No Paul, we judge, react and proceed according to our Catholic Faith, which we have been taught precisely to guide us in life and now in these particular circumstances.
No, these men were not validly elected. As heretics, they were not eligible for election.

Dear Paul, you are sincere and by keeping searching you will find the Truth. First you must come to understand that nothing can be itself and its opposite at the same time. The water can't be hot and cold at the same time. A church can't be Catholic and non-Catholic at the same time. Start with roncalli and montini - masons - excommunicated - no authority to summon, or promulgate a Council - false council - vat II and all emanating from it false and invalid. That is the frankenchurch - IT IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. They teach dogma changes; no hell; human soul not immortal; false ecumenism etc. etc. They refute Catholic Dogma left and right! Open your eyes Paul - that is not the Catholic Church! The Catholic Church is in the fields with St. Athanasius. Scattered faithful Catholics sticking faithfully to the Indefectible Faith of their Fathers and being calumnated by many for doing so!

No, not as far as I know. Padre Pio told Fr. Luigi that "Paul VI" was a mason. See my response above and I have no doubt the ramifications and implications of that would be immediately obvious to both of them. Remember those were very early days. Things were not as clear as they are 60 years later. They died with valid sacraments. Novus bogus alterations to sacraments were made many years later.
Paul you will come to discover, please God, that sedevacantism puts you right back in the bosom of the Catholic Church. Saint Athanasius "contra mundum" - alone against the world of arian heretics. Saint John Fisher - the sole faithful Bishop in England. "When I return will I find faith on Earth?" The faithful remnant will be few!

Dear Paul, you recognize that they are heretics. He who is not a Member cannot be Head. Where is my Church? In the hearts and souls of faithful Catholics bound together in the Mystical Body of Christ. Our Church is not in buildings, bricks and mortar. Our Church is built of its Members. There is no Pope that we know of at the moment. We wait in faith and patience for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the full restoration of mother Church to her former glory. How Our Lord intends to do it, we don't know. That He will do it, we firmly believe.

Father Francis Miller O.F.M. comes from USA once a year to bring Confession and the Blessed Sacrament to me and to a family in Durban, South Africa. Bishop Rodrigues came from Mexico City to confirm our sons. TBTG. I am the only sede I know of in my city. There is no Catholic Priest or church here. So, I watch a DVD of Tridentine Mass from St. Joseph's daily and make Spiritual Communions. I say the Rosary daily and various other prayers. I read holy books. Currently reading " Cardinal Herbert Vaughan." I practice the Faith as I have Always tried to do. I obey St. Paul and let the heretics be anathema. I'm just a layman. If you want to know about sede read Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn, Rama Coomaraswamy, Patrick Henry Omlor.
God bless you. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Irenaeus,

I don't fully understand your question. I would separate the Papacy and the Pope. I think you mean the Pope. The Pope is the Vicar (Representative; Ambassador; Steward), of Christ on Earth and the visible Head of the Temporal Church. His functions are to Teach, Govern and to Sanctify the Temporal Church. He is Sovereign and the ultimate authority when teaching Faith, or Morals; in governing the Church and in regulating the Liturgy. His magisterium, (both solemn and ordinary and universal), are protected from error, or from teaching anything detrimental to the salvation of souls, by the Holy Ghost. He has no human superior on Earth. He is judged by no man on Earth. He is judged only by God. His powers are conferred by God and determined by God, therefore they are "just right". :)

Irenaeus said...

Thanks, Dr. Lamb. You answered my question. But that is an awful lot of power for one man to hold and bear. Man - irrespective of who he is - cannot handle that amount of temporal power. History demonstrates that truism. Do you think we should limit that power?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Irenaeus, No, we could not possibly limit that power. All authority comes from God. Our Lord Himself gave that power to Peter and his successors. "What you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven." Think of that! The Pope's power extends to Heaven! BUT only in his field and subject to the supervision of the Holy Ghost and in the presence of Christ. ("I will be with you until the end of the world.") We dare not interfere with what God has ordained!

Dear Paul, I said the elections were invalid. I was wrong. You are correct - they are legal and valid.
Election is a process. If conducted properly by the proper authorities, the election is legal and valid. However, if the candidate is not eligible for election, (the Pope MUST be a Catholic; an heretic mason is not a Catholic), then although legally valid it is void - i.e. worthless. So yes, in terms of Canon Law the impostors were legally elected. That is why the proper authorities must have an official procedure to depose them in terms of Canon Law in the interests of good Church governance. An heretic cannot become Pope because he is not a Member and if a true Pope subsequently became a heretic, (which has never happened in the history of the Church), he would immediately be deposed and shed from the Church by Divine Law. So. the impostors were legally elected but have never been Popes. They are all luciferian anti-popes.

Irenaeus said...

Thank you, Dr. Lamb.