15 thoughts on “Anthony Stine posts video on suppression of Fairfield Carmelites, gets 36K views in one day”

  1. Still to this very day, the Catholics of both Traditional and Novus Ordo are still calling him the “pope” of the Catholic Church???!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is not even a real Catholic but the ENEMY against God and the Catholic Church. “LOOK AT THE FRUIT AND KNOW THE TREE”… all the fruits of the Vatican II’s popes are rotten and decayed to the bone. They wanted to destroy the church from within. Late Fr. Martin Malachi tried to tell the whole church by writing so many fact-fiction novels. Fr. Hesse, Fr. Gruner, Fr. Fuentes, Fr. Miceli, Fr. John O’Connor (deceased)……….. and Fr. Kramer (living) have been trying very hard to wake up the Catholics but they heard or heeded nothing. NOW IT’S TOO LATE. THE SEAT OF St. PETER WAS OVERTHROWN AND ANTIPOPE/ANTICHRIST IS SEAT ON IT.
    Are you Catholics waking up yet? Or you, one billion and three hundred million Catholics have been braindead by now???!!!
    Time to raise a CHURCH MILITANTS “CRUSADERS OF LATTER-DAY” AND FINISH THEM ALL. DO YOU PEOPLE THINK GOD ALLOWS NO “SELF-DEFENSE?” On the contrary. God allows “self-defense” in every case. Read the Bible and relearnt it again for you are being brainwashed to the point become braindead.

    1. I’m one who doesn’t believe the “official numbers” for Catholics worldwide.
      I’d be shocked if there were more than 300 million Catholics worldwide. I think that most of the rest of them are pew-sitters who are just along for the ride. Give things another 15 or so years, especially for all the baby-boomers in America to pass on, and Catholics will shocked at how few remain.

      1. Our holy father, Pope Benedict XVI, said that the Church would become smaller. Let it happen. We can’t go on with all the sodomitical priests and CINOs like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

  2. I think this deserves a response from you and Ann…
    Just my own two cents, because I freely admit that Canon Law isn’t my strength.
    A quote from the post that caught my attention: “the problem of having to deal with a genuine pope who says and does theologically highly problematic things…”
    Benedict XVI being weak on islam is “problematic.” John Paul 2 holding an interfaith “thingy” on the feast of St. Francis is “problematic.”
    What we’ve got with bergoglio is a terrifying train wreck in slow motion, and I think that most of Western Europe, and the Vatican in particular, is going to burn to the ground because of his demonic insanity that he’s flaunting for all to see.
    If you don’t think so, read the comments on that post cheering on a man who worshiped and venerated a demon in St. Peter’s, and most likely just consecrate humanity to that same demon…

    1. When they say the pope can make errors, they don’t realize the pope cannot profess heresy, even when not teaching infallibly, at least not formal, pertanacious heresy:
      “These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”
      That the pope is the one who keeps the gates of hell from prevailing would seem to imply that the pope and heresy are necessarily not overlapping. Otherwise you’re saying Jesus was wrong.

  3. I think there is a strong, logical argument for why Francis isn’t Pope, but I am not quite convicted. But man the commenters and more “official” voices espousing this position need to stop pointing to his moral failings as if that’s a tell tale sign. Didn’t we have a Pope do a toast to Satan, sleep with men, and die with his mistress? If he was Pope today, I’d be getting told, “He isn’t really the Pope.” I suppose Manasseh wasn’t really King of Israel either. And Judas wasn’t really an Apostle.

    1. We’ve had immoral men be pope before, but none of them ever dared to touch doctrine. This man has done just that, on several occasions. A true pope can’t do that.

    2. You are obligated to educate yourself about the CATHOLIC FAITH and its teachings. Francis denied the principal foundation of the Catholic Faith. He denied the DOGMAS. Learn and be a real Catholic before blame on someone else for your ignorance. Nobody is responsible for your soul but yourself.

  4. POffP: don’t give video comments too much weight. Satan has his team’s of commenters, and I don’t think the number of views is trustworthy esp on Utube.

  5. I’m really, really trying to understand why this doesn’t apply to all the post-conciliar popes. Obviously Bergoglio’s heresies are worse(?) and more frequent…..but all the popes since VII have promoted ecumenism, religious liberty, new Catechism, etc. My thinking is that they (post-conciliar popes) are just as, if not more dangerous than Bergoglio. At least we can clearly see his poison, whereas the drop of poison from the others can be undetectable to many. I wish you, Ann and Dr. Mazza would address this in a podcast.

    1. Both R and R and sedevacantism contradict the mark of apostolocity. Also maybe popes can err materially as long as their heresy is not formal or pertinacious. Also, this might sound strange, but VII doesn’t seem to contradict dogma, but the language can be interpreted in a heretical way.
      For example, I don’t see heresy in the claim that the Church respects what is true in other religions but it would be heretical to claim that any other religion leads one to salvation directly. What Bergoglio is doing is destroying the Church by appealing to ambiguities in VII documents and the infiltrator bishops say “It’s okay, this is all in Vatican II.” The trad Catholic media say that this is all in line with VII, and up presenting the view that the only way to reject Bergoglio is to become a sedevacantist.

      1. SSPX is the epitomy of R&R. FWIW, I still believe Ab. Lefebvre will be/is a Saint
        Not sure how you can say both R&R and sedes lack the mark of apostolocity, they both have bishops…..and far more “Catholic” bishops than most ED communities.
        For years I’ve been thinking “conservative” Republicans (Trump) are far more dangerous because it’s harder to identify them as our enemy. With democrats, we can see clearly they’re our enemy. Now I’m wondering if it isn’t the same with the post-conciliar popes. They’re far more dangerous with their “little bit” of heresies then the in your face Bergoglio is.
        Last point, because I truly do not know; when exactly did the Church start saying heresy is not that big a deal as long as it’s not formal or pertinacious?

      2. SSPX clergy lacked jurisdiction for many years. They may have had valid orders, but until the pope sends the bishops, they cannot claim to have been sent. Sedes also claim epekia as to why they have legitimate authority, like SSPX doing it for a good reason. I read a book on traditional Catholic moral theology for lent.
        I’m guessing about what it means to be a heretic, because it seems to be the only way to avoid a logical contradiction. It is clear the Bergoglio doesn’t care is he contradicts what the Church teaches, but maybe his predecessors did.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.