What People Are Commenting
‘China Implements Doctrine of the Church’
Chancellor Sorondo Speaks
about the Vatican selling out the Underground Church.
Here is confirmation of the communist spirit of the post-Vatican II Church, which is getting redder by the moment, so it seems. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, has said that China’s government offers an outstanding example of social justice. “
Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese
,” he said.
Read the story
I hope Our Lady steps in soon to stop the revolution in the Church. "Rome will be destroyed" says the
you published. I do not see any other solution.
Please, continue your good and tireless efforts.
Sede-Vacantism ... Once Again
Out of curiosity I Googled Dr. Horvat, who frequently writes excellent articles for you (including her latest on
the China scandal
), and I found that she is promoted by a sedevacantist website,
of their site, as you can see, the following sedevacantist authors are promoted: Stephen Grieve, Mario Derksen (sic), Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI and Bishop Donald Sanborn, Griff Ruby, Thomas Drolesky. As I’m sure you know, these people are disreputable company.
Moreover, on the same page, they feature a series of articles by none other than Senor Guimaraes, entitled “
On the Battle Line,”
which features the following quote:
“This is one of the first series we ran written by author Atila Sinke Guimaraës beginning in 2001 until he established the Tradition in Action site.
Even though what he wrote hints at sedevacantism, he vehemently denies it.
Yet, it was his work on the
Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani
collection of books that prompted this editor and the
to connect the dots to realize there is no other answer but sedevacantism.”
In view of these disturbing entries, I have two questions:
Is Dr. Horvat a sedevacantist (I’ve found no evidence that she is)? If not, she should demand that
remove her bio immediately.
Why is Senor Guimaraes allowing this website to promote his work? Or at the very least, why does he not insist that this website correct the above insinuation?
The editor of
, Mr. Michael Cain, was a good friend of Dr. Horvat and Mr. Guimarães for several years. He had been an active progressivist and then converted to traditionalism by reading
In the Murky Waters of Vatican II
. For a certain period of time, he and these members of TIA collaborated closely. At that time our website posted some of his articles (
) and, vice-versa,
regularly posted ours.
Since those collaborations were not adulterated, we believe that there is no inconvenience in keeping both his works on our website and ours on his.
Unfortunately, Mr. Cain became a sede-vacantist. We hope and pray that now or later he will reconsider his position, as he did with his previous progressivist stance. Until this happens, we do not see the need to patrol what he or others commented about Dr. Horvat and Mr. Guimarães and ask them to retract their words. The Internet is a public forum where each one is free to give his opinion. Mr. Cain is entitled to his.
When Mr. Cain says that Mr. Guimarães has hints of sede-vacantism, he is wrongly referring to the fact that the latter believes that the conciliar Popes are heretics. This is a presupposition that the sede-vacantists hold as indissociable from their position. They are wrong, because a pope can err in doctrine or even be heretical and continue to hold his papal power of jurisdiction, as History has demonstrated many times, please check
The sede-vacantists cannot discern this distinction – a pope can be wrong in teaching and continue to govern the Church – due to a type of mental disease that blinds them to this reality. Discussing the topic with them has proved to be fruitless. It is like discussing colors with the color-blind. The only way to change their mind is to pray for them. So, to ask
to retract its articles or positions is to open an endless and vain discussion.
Now, to answer your final questions, we repeat: Obviously, neither Dr. Horvat nor Mr. Guimarães are sede-vacantists. If you still are not convinced of it, you may find abundant evidence of this visiting
We thank you for expressing your urgent and imperative concerns to us, but they do not coincide with ours.
TIA correspondence desk
Two Sister Lucys’ Chronology
Hello Tradition in Action,
I have been reading about the two Sisters Lucys’ controversy, and I have not been able to establish a clear chronology of the facts and the pictures.
I could gather
, Sister Lucy became a Carmelite nun in 1948, and her last interview, the one with Fr. Fuentes was on 1957.
you say that the picture of Sister Lucy is from 1957. That seems to be incorrect, since by 1957 she would be wearing a Carmelite habit, and not a Dorothean one as the picture shows.
This other website
shows pictures of Sister Lucy in 1947 and 1949. In case their dates are correct, this gives another strong evidence for the two Sister Lucys Theory, because the pictures are just a few years apart.
Also, if my chronological reconstruction is correct, is seems that we have no picture of the real Sister Lucy after she became a Carmelite nun.
Fr. Fuentes interview was in 1957, with a Carmelite Lucy, and the contents of the interview are perfectly in tune with the personality and thoughts of the real Sister Lucy. This makes things even more strange, because if the fake Sister Lucy posed as the real one beginning in 1949, this means that for some time there were two Sister Lucys being shown to the public simultaneously: the fake one shown in the picture in 1949, and the real one who gave the interview in 1957.
Am I missing something here? There must be some more pictures or information available. Maybe this could help us establish the date of the last known sighting of the real Sister Lucy. Can you shed some light on this?
I know this is all based on doubtful dates of pictures, but still, it makes for some interesting thoughts.
Finally, I thank you for the great content that you make available for us in the internet.
Thank you for your email. After some research, according to
this Portuguese website
, it seems that we have mismarked the date on the photo. Our mistake in that caption will be corrected soon.
To our knowledge, there is not any known photo of the real Sister Lucy taken after February 1947 when she appeared in the garden of the Dorothean Sisters at the Convent of Tuy, Spain.
As our editor Atila Guimaraes notes at the end of
that there is a mystery surrounding this controversy that can only be resolved in the future, perhaps after the Chastisement and in the Reign of Mary.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted February 6, 2018
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
Vatican Betrayal of China’s Underground Bishops
‘Third Secret’ Was Written by Sr. Lucy
Resistance - Historical Precedents
Can a Pope Err in Doctrinal Matters?
Are You Sede-Vacantist?
Related Works of Interest