PAGE COLLECTIONS -- CHECK THEM OUT!

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Bergoglio Is the New Muhammad

IMPOSTURE
Definition: act or an instance of deceiving others, especially by assuming a false identity 
Similar: pretense, deceit, deception, hoax, trick, ruse, fraud, trickery, artifice, false

Jorge Bergoglio, posturing as the Vicar of Christ, is fast inventing a new religion from the remains of the Catholic Church that he's currently deliberately destroying. Using the Seven Marks of Imposture we see that Bergoglio fits the description of an impostor, picking up pieces of Catholicism here and there and changing them into something else entirely, exactly as his predecessor Muhammad did 1400 years ago. Muhammad was not stopped then, and so far no one has stopped Bergoglio now.

The Life of Mahomet by Humphrey Prideaux, written 327 years ago, therefore minus any hint of political correctness whitewashing the truth, was followed by Prideaux's 200 page Letter to the Deists outlining Muhammad's fraudulent imposture as the Prophet of Islam. Muhammad's false identity as a prophet was a lie, his new religion of Islam a deception, and his imposture as God's last prophet a complete counterfeit, yet today almost 2 billion people on earth believe in Islam with Muhammad as their prophet. The goal of Muhammad the Impostor was to subjugate and destroy through the act of pretending to be someone else in order to deceive others.

Looking at Jorge Bergoglio through Prideaux's Seven Marks of Imposture wherein he proves that Muhammad was an impostor, we see that Bergoglio likewise fits the description of being a deceitful fake, tricking Catholics into a new religion parallel with Muhammad's trickery with his invention of Islam. Bergoglio the Impostor's goal is to subjugate Catholics and destroy the Catholic Faith through the act of pretending to be the Vicar of Christ in order to deceive the world.

There are Catholics who inerrantly believe Bergoglio's imposture, believe in the reality of his fictive personna. They believe Bergoglio's fraudulent actions imposed upon themselves, they believe his fake identity as the Vicar of Christ destroying Christ's Church, inventing new doctrine and stepping on the Latin Mass while twisting his heel as if the Old Mass were a poisonous insect to be crushed into the dirt.

Each of the Seven Marks of Imposture is several pages long. The list below merely gives a hint of each Mark, whereas Prideaux goes into each in extensive detail.

1. The first Mark of an Imposture: "That it must have for its end some carnal interest is a thing so plain and evident that it will not need much proof. For to impose a cheat upon mankind, and in the matter of such great importance...cannot be conceived as to why anyone should put himself upon such a design that doth not propose some very valuable advantage to himself in the success....To enterprise a cheat upon all mankind and in a thing of such importance as introducing a new religion and the abolishing of the Old one must be an undertaking of the greatest difficulty and hazard imaginable. And when a man puts upon himself all this, the Nature of the Thing manifestly leads us to conclude that he must propose something to himself which may make him amends for all the result.

For when so much is put to hazard, men do not do it for nothing. There must always be some great benefit in the bottom of such a design, something that the undertaker values at a more than ordinary rate to make him engage in so exceeding a difficulty and dangerous an enterprise. For whenever a venture is great, it must be taken for granted there is an end proposed which in the estimation of the venturer is equivalent thereto.

What it was that put Mahomet on his imposture, the foregoing history of his life sufficiently shows; it was his ambition and his lust. To have sovereignty over his country, to gratify his ambition, and as many women as he pleased to satisfy his lust was what he aimed at...." 

2. The second Mark of an Imposture: "That it can have none but wicked men for the authors of it. For thus to impose upon mankind a false religion is the worst of cheats and the highest injustice which can be done either to God or man; to God because it robs Him of the worship of His creatures, either by diverting it to a false object, or by directing it to Him in such a false way that it cannot be accepted of before Him. And to man because it deprives him of his God by putting him upon such a false religion as must necessarily alienate both God's Mercy and God's Favor to him. And to do this is such a consummate piece of iniquity that it is impossible anyone can arrive thereto without having first corrupted himself to a great degree in all things else. For such a one must have cast off all fear of God, as well as all regard of Man before he could ever offer so great a wickedness against both..."

3. The third Mark of an Imposture: "Both these two last Marks must appear in the very contexture of the imposture itself. If they had been such wicked persons as thus to have imposed upon us a false religion for their own interest, both their wickedness and the interest which they drove at must necessarily appear in the very contexture of the religion itself...for when a Man proposes an end of self interest and invents a new religion, and writes a new law on purpose for the obtaining of it, it's impossible but that this end must appear in the means....For this purpose the new religion and the new law must be calculated for this end and be all formed and contrived for such an end..."

4. The fourth Mark of an Imposture: "That it can never be so framed but that it must contain some palpable falsities, which will discover the falsity of all the rest. For whoever invents a lie can never do it so cunningly and knowingly but still there will be some flaw or other left in it which will expose it to a discovery; and no man who frames an invention can ever secure it herefrom without two qualifications, which no man can have, and they are 1) a thorough knowledge of all manner of Truths and 2) such an exact memory as can bring them all present to his mind. 

For to make a lie pass without contradiction he must put it on a seeming agreement with all other Truths whatever...If there be but any one known Truth in the whole Scheme of Nature with which it interferes, this must make the discovery, and there is no man that foregoeth an imposture but makes himself liable this way to be convicted of it...."   

5. The fifth Mark of an Imposture: "That where ever it is first propagated, it must be done by craft and fraud, and this is natural to all manner of cheats. For the end of such being to deceive, craft and fraud are the means whereby it is to be effected. In this case, a lie must be made to go for a truth, and an appearance for a reality, and to compass this, a great deal of art must be made use of to be what it pretends, and also to craft such a mist before the eyes of men, that they may not see it to be otherwise and that especially where the cheat is an imposture of religion..."

6. The sixth Mark of an Imposture: "No imposture, when entrusted with many conspirators, can be long concealed. For what plot or conspiracy have we ever known or heard of which has been thus managed and had not for some false brother or other to discover it, especially if there be any great wickedness intended by it, or any great danger attending the execution of it as mostly in such designs....And what plot can be more wicked than to impose a false religion upon mankind? And what can be more dangerous than to attempt it?...And especially in a case to discover a plot against the souls of all mankind and deliver the world from being imposed upon thereby..."

7. The seventh Mark of an Imposture is: "That it can never be established unless backed with force and violence. For if it has wicked men as its authors, worldly interest for its end, falsity and error for its doctrines, and received its rise from the craft and fraud of its prompters, the search of the inquisitive will soon find it out and mankind will not long bear the imposture unless they be overruled by violence and have all objections against it silenced with the sword at their throats. 

This was the method which Mahomet took to establish the false religion which he invented. For he prosecuted with war all that would not submit and made it no less than death for any to gainsay it, or so much as raise the least dispute against any of the doctrines of it....For the impostor declares all those to be heretics and prosecutes them with sword, fire and faggot that refuse to receive them...For it is only force and violence that can cram such things down men's throats, which their reason and their judgement must ever renounce..."

Conclusion: "The mistakes and errors about the worship of God, and the service we owe unto Him, which men are apt to run into when left to the conduct of their own light only, are monstrous and endless, and therefore demonstrate the necessity of Divine Revelation. For if God doth expect from us an account of our actions, it is necessary He should give us a law for the rule of them..."

Humphrey Prideaux's conclusion is that Islam was not from God and that Muhammad the Imposter was an instrument of the devil for inventing a new religion.

Similarly Bergoglio, like the rooster in the above picture walking on stilts pretending to be a flamingo, is an impostor, the Great Pretender, and The New Muhammad inventing a new religion from what was once God's Holy Catholic Faith.


71 comments:

  1. "inventing new doctrine and stepping on the Latin Mass while twisting his heel as if the Old Mass were a poisonous insect to be crushed into the dirt."

    Say what? Wasn't the Latin Mass prohibited in 1969? I have family members who say they never knew any mass but the new mass. They like it. They also like religious liberty and believe protestants as well as most everyone is going to heaven if they are good people because all religions teach basically the same thing. They think religion shouldn't be a lot of rules. Fornication, divorce and remarriage, feminism, and now sodomy/sodomite marriage are all sins they have embraced some to a greater (younger) and some to a lesser (older) extent--but to the extent that none would protest (if the Church says it's okay, who are they to say nay). They sway like reeds with the current of popular opinion/employment requirements as does the Catholic Church. But this was all put in place in the 1960s--not by Francis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms M
      Re: "Jorge Bergoglio, posturing as the Vicar of Christ, is fast inventing a new religion from the remains of the Catholic Church that he's currently deliberately destroying."

      The Catholic Church cannot be destroyed. Neither you nor I possess the authority to say that the Pope is not the Pope.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by "authority"?

      Delete
    3. Richard thinks legitimate popes can be heretics.

      Mary Ann believes a legitimate pope's magisterial teaching can lead to damnation (because previous popes had personal moral failings).

      Very strange notions of the papacy that are completely out of line with tradition.

      Delete
    4. We know as a matter of Faith that the Holy Catholic Church is infallible when She speaks through Her Universal, Ordinary Magisterium and through Her Extraordinary Magisterium. Even in Her Ordinary Magisterium, we know that Her teachings are trustworthy and safe to believe. Further, the itbis part of of the Ordinary Magisterium that the Pope is LIKEWISE trustworthy in all he teaches and promulgated in his capacity as pope. There are numerous citations from popes and Councils on these matters.

      It is a matter of Divine Law that a pope MUST BE CATHOLIC to be pope, AND that a person, regardless of his ecclesial rank or dignity, separates himself from the Body of Christ by his heresy (see St. Paul's epistle to Titus). This is ALSO part of the Magisterium of the Church.

      The Church has already provided us with the authority. It is up to us to accept that authority and that judgement, and act appropriately. As St. Robert Bellarmine, St
      Francis de Sales, and St. Alphonsus Liguori all say: a declaration that a heretic is not part of the Church IS UNNECESSARY. Public Heresy is public heresy when it comes to membership in the Church.

      Delete
    5. Mr Tony:

      authority
      ə-thôr′ĭ-tē, ə-thŏr′-, ô-
      noun
      The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
      One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials.
      Power assigned to another; authorization.
      From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    6. Mr Anonymous:
      Re: "Public Heresy is public heresy when it comes to membership in the Church."

      Who decides what is and what is not heresy?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    7. Authority only vests in a legitimate pontiff. Cardinal Bergolio never validly acceded to the Chair of St. Peter.( That position has been vacant since the death of the last true pope Benedict xvi. ) The aforementioned cardinal has no papal authority on any matter whatsoever. That means all his actions and decisions purporting to be papal are null and void.

      Delete
    8. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: "Cardinal Bergolio never validly acceded to the Chair of St. Peter."

      And you know this how?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    9. Ms Anonymous
      re: Richard thinks legitimate popes can be heretics.

      You read minds now?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    10. "re: Richard thinks legitimate popes can be heretics.
      You read minds now?"

      That's not a denial....

      Delete
    11. Mr Frisbee:

      Do you read minds?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    12. No, I don't read minds.
      See how simple it is answer a question? You should try it sometime....
      Is Amoris Laetitia heretical?

      Delete
  2. I am so grateful for this post. I see where it can apply outside of religion. It has strengthened the courage of my convictions. I have learned and will continue, to trust my eyes and ears and direct experience in evaluating "impostors" or great "pretenders."
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this a Catholic blog? Sure doesn't seem like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Anonymous:

      Then why bother to visit?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  4. Susan, Are you saying Francis is not the pope? I agree with Richard on this. I think you make a valid point about the pope undermining the faith. He has done it over and over and has created tremendous confusion. Confusion is not from God who told us to "say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no." Francis is not the first bad pope who scandalized the faithful. Let us pray the next pope is a worhty son of God and a worthy successor of St. Peter. It doesn't seem likely since Francis has named so many of the electors, but God often surprises us if we faithfully pray and fast for deliverance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pope is the visual source of unity in the Church, and the proximate rule of Faith. As such, a pope CANNOT undermine the Faith. A pope cannot be the Proximate Rule of Faith on the one hand, and undermine that same Faith on the other.

      Delete
    2. Mr Anonymous:
      Re: "a pope CANNOT undermine the Faith"

      A pope undermines the Faith every time he sins.

      As do you and I.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    3. "A pope undermines the Faith every time he sins." The rule of faith cannot be changed or undermined because someone sins. Try again.

      Delete
    4. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: "The rule of faith cannot be changed or undermined because someone sins."

      undermine
      ŭn″dər-mīn′
      transitive verb
      To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation.
      To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap.
      To dig a mine or tunnel beneath.

      Every time you or I sin we undermine the Faith. We act contrary to the Faith. We weaken the call to the good news of Jesus Christ. We imperil our souls and the souls of others.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    5. You are mixing up "the Faith" with the "Rule of Faith"
      From the Baltimore Catechism used the phrase "rule of faith":
      Q. 561. Must we ourselves seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe? A. We ourselves need not seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe. God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept its teaching us our infallible rule of faith.

      Delete
    6. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: the Baltimore Catechism

      The Baltimore Catechism is not infallible . Cardinal Burke among others, recommends the Catechism of Trent instead which can be found online in PDF for free.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  5. Francis A.K.A. Bergolio has never been the Pope. The See has been vacant since 12/31/22.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: "The See has been vacant since 12/31/22."

      And the Pius X crowd claim the See has been vacant since he died in 1914.

      The Protestants claim there is no See to be vacated.

      Some Orthodox claim the Popes are not Christians.

      By what authority are these claims made?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    2. Comerford has an incorrect idea - that an individual person cannot condemn an evil pope or decide whether he is an anti pope. Comerford is wrong. One does have this natural authority. Bergoglio is a profoundly evil man.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely incorrect. In 1993, Carlos Vasquez Rangel, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Masons of Mexico stated in an interview with the political weekly, Processo: "On the same day, in Paris, the profane Angelo Roncalli and the profane Giovanni Montini were initiated into the august mysteries of the Brotherhood. Thus it was that much that was achieved at the Council (V2) was based on Masonic principles. Either this is true or it is false. If a Catholic becomes a Freemason he incurs ipso facto excommunication. If Vasquez Rangel is telling the truth, then neither were ever true Popes whether we are aware of it or not. There are two ways to be fooled Comerford: to believe what is false or to refuse to believe the truth.

      Delete
    4. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: "Carlos Vasquez Rangel, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Masons of Mexico"

      You trust the word of a Mason on this matter?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    5. Mr. Comerford,
      Do you trust the word of Bergoglio on Freemasonry?
      God bless,
      Ms. Paolo Carlini

      Delete
    6. Ms Anonymous
      re: "decide whether he is an anti pope"

      Where in Scripture or Tradition are you given authority to declare the pope to be an anti-pope?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    7. Ms PC
      Re: "Do you trust the word of Bergoglio on Freemasonry?"

      I know nothing on the subject.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  6. None of the bad popes ever taught error to the entire Church.
    And the other thing is all this "authority". Yes, nobody has authority to DO anything. But you don't need authority to comprehend the obvious.
    If Bergoglio is pope, Jesus gave the crown of the papacy to a man that does not hold the Catholic faith (Bergoglio did public acts of apostasy decades years before 2013). If Bergoglio is the Pope, Vatican 1 is wrong. If Bergoglio is the Pope, it is right to teach my children that "Mama is right on this, don't listen to the Holy Father" (take your pick: adultery, gays, the fact that Lutherans are heretics, that Orthodox shouldn't have a feast day...all DOCTRINAL ERRORS).

    How do we heed the Pauline admonishing to flee the heretic if we don't have the authority to do so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Smith:
      Re: "Jesus gave the crown of the papacy to a man that does not hold the Catholic faith"

      Jesus does not give the crowns of the papacy to men.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    2. OK, Richard...attack semantics when you can't address the main point: "None of the bad popes ever taught error to the entire Church."

      Is Amoris Laetitia heretical?

      I already know you won't answer that...and I'm not even a mind reader!

      Delete
    3. Mr Frisbee:
      Re: "attack semantics"

      semantics
      sĭ-măn′tĭks
      noun
      The study or science of meaning in language.
      The competence of a speaker with regard to the interpretation of the meaning of linguistic structures.
      The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent.
      From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

      If words have no meaning then we cannot communicate.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  7. Possible signs that a future pope is a true pope to those who question the legitimacy of post VII popes:
    1. Restores the Traditional Latin Mass as the form of the Latin Rite.
    2. Reintroduces/updates the Oath against Modernism/Neomodernism.
    3. Proclaims ex cathedra that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
    4. Releases the Vatican's study on freemasonic infiltration into the Catholic hierarchy.
    5. Proclaims that the pastoral character of VII was a failure, that its documents were never protected by the Holy Ghost nor infallible.
    6. Reinstitutes the ban on homosexuality in the clergy and asks for resignation of all who are so at this time.
    7. Regularizes the SSPX.
    8. Issues a correction of every papal encyclical since VII with ambiguity or error.
    9. Proclaims that ecumenism means a return to the Catholic Church.
    10. Restores the Church's emphasis on the Social Kingship of Christ and renounces the false sense of religious liberty introduced at VII.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: "Restores the Traditional Latin Mass as the form of the Latin Rite."

      Search the Bible. Review the Deposit of Faith. There is much concerning unity and obedience. Nothing about hearing the Mass in Latin.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    2. And also return to Orthodoxy. That means the future pope must shake off the heresy of papal infallibility.

      Delete
    3. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: That means the future pope must shake off the heresy of papal infallibility.

      The Communists, Masons and Protestants agree with you.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    4. Mr. Richard W Comerford,

      The Communists, Masons and Protestants, inspired by the Devil, always introduce new dogmas and all type of heresies to the Church. It seems that that you support them. The Orthodox church long ago renounced it as heresy. Hundreds of catholic bishops and priests were persecuted during Vatican I, like today, those who disagree with Bergoglio.

      "My post below questioned the wisdom and relevance of both Vatican I and Vatican II and that both need to be thrown into the dustbin of history. The whole concept of "infallibility" has been used as a cudgel against the faithful. Save your commentary and accusations on this point, I have no time, nor patience for your inanity. Both of those Councils gave us Francis. Some day, the Church will need to send Vatican II to the dustbin of history and the absurd parts of Vatican I that have allowed a Francis to take place and causes continuous estrangement with the Orthodox."

      Here is the text: https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-vatican-tomorrow-demos.html

      Delete
  8. Susan, simply outstanding. Stating obvious truths does not require any "authority." Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Docherty:
      Re: Stating obvious truths does not require any "authority".

      There is no truth without authority.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    2. Who are you to say that 2+2=4? Who gave you the authority to uphold the Law of Non Contradiction? Submit and accept that black and white are the same color, you slave.

      God bless.

      Richard W. Troll

      Delete
    3. Fideism: "A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority."

      https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

      It is an error because the Church teaches that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason alone. Logical truths can be known a priori and don't rely on authority.

      Delete
    4. Mr Richard Troll:
      Re: "Who are you to say that 2+2=4? "

      People are not numbers. Almighty God intervenes in a supernatural way in the natural world. He makes the sun dance. He raises the dead. He cures the blind.

      And He, by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity protects the Pope from teaching error on matters of faith and morality found in the deposit of Faith.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    5. Ms Anonymous
      re: "the Church teaches that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason alone."

      The Church teaches that the law of God is written on the hearts of every man woman and child. We know right from wrong. Without that law written on our hearts we cannot rightly reason.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    6. Is it a sin to convince anyone the Catholic faith is true? Is the part of the mission Jesus gave to his apostles to proselytize “solemn nonsense”? Or is the person who taught this erring in faith and morals?

      Delete
    7. Is it a sin to convince anyone the Catholic faith is true? Is the part of the mission Jesus gave to his apostles to proselytize “solemn nonsense”? Or is the person who taught this erring in faith and morals?

      Delete
    8. Ms Anonymous
      Re: "Is it a sin to convince anyone the Catholic faith is true?"

      Matthew 28:19-20 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"

      No.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  9. Ms Anonymous
    Re: "Bergoglio is a profoundly evil man."

    Search Scripture. Search the Deposit of Faith. Where is it taught that "a profoundly evil man" cannot be Pope?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  10. Francis may not be the first bad Pope, but he is the first to promote heresy and the approval of sodomy. As to the Pope’s title, “Vicar of Christ “, does no one remember his renouncing of this title?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I'm sure you would have said that Christ was promoting adultery when he forgave the woman taken in the very act. You seem to think that all sinners must be treated with disdain and total rejection.

      I'm convinced that this is NOT a Catholic blog but anti-Catholic whose purpose seems to be to try to destroy the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. Ms Anonymous

      He did the renounce the title

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    3. I know Muslims who act more Catholic than Anonymous @ 7:34 PM with his/her implication of what he/she thinks we think as if we didn't know that Christ said, "Go and sin no more" which applies to all of us, even Anonymous who needs to remove the log in his/her own eye. Richard Comerford is not a member of Les Femmes, but rather a very active commentor with whom I don't always agree.

      Delete
    4. Ms M:
      Re: "Richard Comerford is not a member of Les Femmes, but rather a very active commentor with whom I don't always agree."

      I rarely comment on posts. Sometimes going for months at a time without comment.

      And I would be surprised if we agreed on anything of substance.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  11. Re: On Rebellion

    Rebellion is serious business. Lucifer was the first rebel. He continues to encourage rebellion. And in so doing the rebels suffer the same fate as he - the great deceiver.

    Pope hatred is a violation of the 5th Commandment. It is commonly practiced by Communists, Masons and some Protestants and Muslims.

    Catholics should pray for the Pope every day.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do unrepentant adulterers have the right to receive communion after a time of "dicernment"? Don't you say no, or you're in rebellion against official papal teaching.

      Delete
    2. Mr Josh:
      Re: "Do unrepentant adulterers have the right to receive communion after a time of "dicernment"?"

      When did the Vatican say that "unrepentant adulterers have the right to receive communion"?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  12. If I make a comment on my own post, Richard Comerford will castigate me like he has AUTHORITATIVELY corrected all other people here...because...his VII Novus Ordo obedience or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms M
      Re: "Castigate"

      castigate
      kăs′tĭ-gāt″
      transitive verb
      To punish or rebuke severely. synonym: punish.

      I have castigated no one.

      Our Lord and Savior did not divide his Church into Novus Ordo and Latin camps. We should not either.

      BTW I prefer the Old Mass.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    2. Old Mass as with the SSPX, or Old Mass as with diocesan allowed TLMs?

      Delete
    3. Ms M

      There is a difference?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
    4. Ms M:

      What difference?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  13. "Bergoglio the Impostor's goal is to subjugate ... destroy the Catholic Faith through the act of pretending to be the Vicar of Christ...." I though that in the Papal Year Book they refer to that
    title of "Vicar of Christ" as "Historical" So is Bergoglio not even the vicar of Christ then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms Anonymous:
      Re: "So is Bergoglio not even the vicar of Christ then?"

      The Catholic Herald has an interesting article on this matter.

      The Pope has not renounced the title.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford


      Delete
    2. But according to Cardinal Mueller and others I've read in my meandering around the internet it is a distancing of the idea the the Church is governed by Christ through his vicar. He is not his own servant.

      Delete
    3. Ms M
      Re: "Are you done yet"

      Timothy 4:7-8: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith".

      When I am dead.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Delete
  14. So while pretending not to understand my question, what you're coquettishly saying is that you will continue to troll comments here until you die.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, folks, it's been entertaining, but I think it's time to put this to bed. I'm closing comments.

    ReplyDelete