US nuncio Cardinal Pierre told Bishop Strickland ‘there is no deposit of faith’

“Look, the Holy Father (sic) is watching you. You need to stop talking about the deposit of faith. There is no deposit of faith.”

Folks, these people aren’t Catholic. Not even a little bit. In fact, their religion is much closer to, if not in fact, Satanism. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” is the creed of the Satanic church.

It’s also the Marxist notion that truth flows from power. The biggest thug is the arbiter of truth. The Catholic faith is whatever WE say it is, dammit.

Stop giving these people power they do not have. What if five Cardinals stood up and declared what is so painfully obvious, and called for a conclave. How many thousands are losing their faith because of the visibility of all this? Eminences, every one of those souls will be shown to you at your Particular Judgment. Pray on that.

12 thoughts on “US nuncio Cardinal Pierre told Bishop Strickland ‘there is no deposit of faith’”

  1. JP2 and BXVI have a lot to answer for. They could’ve strengthened the Church. But JP2 chose to travel the world and preach ecumenicalism and BXVI was simply weak.

  2. Mark, I was thinking about this while reading Ed Pentin’s speech. How many souls are lost during this time of waiting? The church is nearly impossible to evangelize for because you can convince people all day and eventually they have to go to Mass and it doesn’t align with the beautify and majesty we all talk about! Everyone is waiting for “the next Pope” or some miraculous solution. Is that what Martel did? Is that what we did in Lepanto and Vienna? Sit and wait? Many people are hurting. This isn’t an intellectual exercise. Real souls are at stake.

    Bishops, where are you??????

    1. The Professional Catholics are scared shitless. Many of them know that Bergoglio isn’t pope, can’t possibly be pope, but they can’t say it in public. A bunch of them confronted Ann in Rome years ago with a Shut Up Stupid speech, which began with the words, “Look, we all know you’re right.”

      1. What are they so afraid of? Losing money or respect?

        Do they even believe in hell? If they did they would be more afraid of going to hell than losing money or power. If they know he is an antipope and say nothing and poopoo those who do, do they expect to end up in heaven when they die?

  3. In John Henry Westin’s recent interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, the bishop advances the claim that Bergoglio is the true pope whether we like it or not, and that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Suppose he’s right on both counts. If Bergoglio is the true pope and still allows non-ex-cathedra heretical teachings to spread throughout the church like wildfire, then countless people are still being led toward damnation. Trannies believe that they can continue in their delusion and still be baptized members in good standing. Sodomites will continue to practice their sodomy, and their supporters will still happily embrace sodomy in the name of love. Ecumenist-minded syncretists will continue bowing to “mother earth.” Muslim calls to prayer will be issued from Catholic pulpits in the name of the “one God” whom both religions allegedly worship. I guess the idea is that future popes and councils will correct the error. Meanwhile, what happens to those who were deceived and die in their deception?

    1. Regardless of how we got here, a non-Catholic cannot be pope. Bergoglio is obviously not Catholic. As for the souls being deceived… I don’t know. Maybe there will be clemency. But they would first need to be of good will.

  4. To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.

    In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.

    This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good.
    Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful.

    After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted.
    Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.”

    Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

    Pope Leo XIII

  5. …”the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra.” I always have a hard time wrapping my head around this because it means that the Pope’s pronouncements are only reliable on those EXTREMELY rare occasions of speaking ex cathedra. As I understand it, ex cathedra pronouncements have only been issued a small number of times. Maybe my thinking is too simplistic, but why wouldn’t a Pope issue more ex cathedra pronouncements in order to guarantee orthodoxy?

  6. Every pope from Gregory XVI to Pius XII reiterated that what the pope teaches as pope (through documents, the Holy Office, etc) is trustworthy. That means the faithful cannot be lead astray by the pope, and can be sure the pope is teaching truth. It doesn’t mean that the formula used is precise, or that it can’t be revised for precision, just that you can trust it.

    The idea that we can “resist” a pope who is in error is only a post-Vatican II phenomenon, because Vatican II itself taught error. Thus, we are forced to rethink how things work: councils and papal teachings must be filtered through a lens; because we presume V2 is Catholic, we must then presume that councils and popes can 1) teach error, 2) promote faulty ideas, laws, or practices that can lead souls astray. Then, we necessarily have to restrict the “Magisterium” to a certain, really tiny collection of specific things.

    In reality, the idea that the Church can teach error is 1) contrary to the Magisterium, and 2) contrary to the mission of the Church. Our souls cannot depend on our own actions or or intellect, so we NEED a sure guide. Christ gave that to us in the Church and Her Head, the Pope.

Leave a Reply

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