(Correction, an earlier version of this post incorrectly asserted that he was wearing the antichrist cross… several readers pointed out that my eyes aren’t very good this morning: It is in fact a proper crucifix. -nvp)
“…I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, from which I would like to highlight several fundamental points: the return to the primacy of Christ in proclamation (cf. No. 11); the missionary conversion of the entire Christian community (cf. No. 9); growth in collegiality and synodality (cf. No. 33); attention to the sensus fidei (cf. Nos. 119-120), especially in its most authentic and inclusive forms, such as popular piety (cf. No. 123); loving care for the least and the rejected (cf. No. 53); courageous and trusting dialogue with the contemporary world in its various components and realities (cf. No. 84; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 1-2). These are evangelical principles that have always inspired and guided the life and activity of God’s Family. In these values, the merciful face of the Father has been revealed and continues to be revealed in his incarnate Son, the ultimate hope of all who sincerely seek truth, justice, peace and fraternity (cf. Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 2; Francis, Spes Non Confundit, 3).”
I think that cross is different than the one Bergoglio and Bernardine wore.
Fixed!
What Antichrist cross? The cross that he wears is clearly not the inverted foot monstrosity worn by Bergoglio.
Fixed.
Most of those statements sound like the typical V II gobbledygook we have come to know and loathe. Only tome and concrete actions will tell us what he means by them.
Have you purchased your L14 commemorative yoga mat yet?
Seems like nothing in that excerpt is theologically incorrect, as many things in the V2 documents weren’t theologically incorrect, while others were (but he didn’t cite those).
Interesting to see what follows long term.
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate a moment.
Do I think it’s possible that L14 is worse than Antipope Bergoglio? Sadly yes. Which is why the role is called, Devil’s Advocate.
First, look what his speech highlights.
– “the return to the primacy of Christ in proclamation”
– “the missionary conversion of the entire Christian community” – which, in a sense, is or should be all mankind
– “attention to the sensus fidei…popular piety”
I see his other V2 gobbedygook. I just don’t just skip over what might be promising.
Second – L14’s older brother on Twitter (Lou Prevost?) is based, which means, based thoughts are rattling around in L14’s upbringing & the back of his head.
It’s still POSSIBLE – again, this is Devil’s Advocate stuff and I will NOT call it at all likely – that L14 is a sleeper for some L13 viewpoints, or at least more “convertible” or “revertible” than Bergoglio was.
Boooo. Come on. Of course he is saying this. The Church is biggest cruise ship in history. It’s hard and slow to turn her. Takes time. I myself am personally committed to making sure the Council of Trent keeps providing the actual Engine and or sail power.
FYI Mark….there are pics of Prevost with the satanic backwards foot cross on Twitter.
I don’t know why this is so hard to process after 60 years of apostasy at the top. Every post-V2 “pope” is an apostate. Why? They believe there are other means of sanctification/salvation outside the confines of the One, Holy Roman Catholic Church. (See Lumen Gentium). What V2 Cardinal today could take the Oath Against Modernism in good conscience today that was instituted by Pope Pius X in 1910 as part of his campaign against Modernist theology? It was once required of all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. The oath affirmed:
– The certainty of God’s existence through natural reason.
– The divine origin of Christianity, supported by miracles and prophecies.
– The Church’s authority as instituted by Christ and built upon Peter.
– The immutability of doctrine, rejecting the idea that dogmas evolve over time.
– Faith as an intellectual assent, rather than a subjective religious sentiment.
– Adherence to previous condemnations of Modernist errors, particularly those in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu.
The oath remained in force until 1967, when it was replaced by a revised Profession of Faith under the Modernist Paul the Sick. Nothing has changed since and nothing will until this chastisement of apostasy is ended by an improbable restoration or it culminates in the False Church of the AntiChrist.