Hate Mail
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Progressivist, Homo & Sede-Vacantist Hatred
Fundamentalists
Regards
R.M.R.
______________________
Way off Base on Voris’ Homosexuality
I am new to most Traditional Catholic media sources, so I am not famiar w/ TIA. I just tonight read the comment on Michael Voris' revealing his homosexual past. EJ is way off base in his judgment of Mr. Voris. Period.
I will examine TIA, hopefully, I will find consistent support for the Historical Magisterium as well as the necessary exposure of the internal subterfuge by high trusted prelates of Holy Mother Church.
Mr. Voris is providing a trusted and courageous service of Holy Necessity. All Catholic media outlets should be as revealing and direct. In tandem, Church Militant is a true Apostolate of Catholic Faith rendering various levels of Holy Instruction.
We pray for all Lay media personal that they do not fall as Father John Corapi. We pray for your protection and enlightenment by the Most Holy Spirit.
In the Hope of Jesus Christ,
J.N.
______________________
You Are Brainless
Your wrote: "The elegant Basilica of the Most Holy Sacrament, where perpetual adoration takes place, is one of the preferred churches in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for marriages and ceremonies of high society. On August 25, 2012, the church was the stage for a sequence of scandals.
"Homosexual Roberto Carlos Trinidad submitted himself to surgeries to change his sex and became "Florencia" Trinidad, above at left in the white dress."
Homosexuality and transsexuality are NOT the same things, but I don't expect you to have the mind or even will to tell them apart.
B.B.
______________________
Furious Sede-vacantist Blah-blah-blah
Dear TIA,
Regarding the letter about conditional adoration, you mentioned the conditions necessary for a proper consecration to take place and the dubious wording of the Novus Ordo consecration formula perhaps making the consecration of the host invalid.
My question is: What are we to think about the validity of the Novus Ordo ordination rites for priests and consecration rites for bishops?
In some circles it is believed that both are invalid, which would then present the problem of even traditional Latin Masses having the effect of an invalid consecration because the priest is not really ordained.
I visit your website all the time.
Cordially,
K.B.
______________________
TIA responds:
Dear K.B.,
Thank you for your constancy in visiting our website.
We deem wrong the sede-vacantist thesis that when a priest, a Bishop or a Pope falls into heresy, he automatically loses his power of Holy Orders, and as consequence, the Sacraments he administers are invalid.
Sedevacantists do not at all believe this, this once again displays your lack of knowledge of sacramental theology. We say as does divine law and canon law that when a cleric, no matter what office he holds, falls into heresy he automatically loses his office, not his sacramental capacity. This goes to show as usual how ignorant you are, name one reputable Sedevacantist that teaches such nonsense.
We believe that there are two realities - the integrity of the Faith and the validity of transmission of Holy Orders - which must be dealt separately and carefully, under the risk of increasing the confusion we have today.
Any studied Sedevacantists knows that even heretics and schismatics can confer holy orders as long as the rite is performed validly and by one who is validly ordain/consecrated in the first place. Thus the eastern schismatics that your pope calls true members in the Church of Christ, the same schismatics that your popes have refused to condemn for their opposition to the doctrines laid down infallibly in 1870, the same doctrine your pope now does not believe in at all as proven in his writings and actions, thus the Bellamand Agreement and the Revenna Document.
The Catholic Church took this distinction into consideration when she spent centuries studying the question of the validity of the ordinations of priests and consecrations of bishops administered by Protestant bishops. After more than 350 years, Leo XIII declared the Anglican Orders null; nonetheless, the question is still open regarding other Protestant sects that have bishops.
The Holy Orders administered since Vatican II are done by rites almost identical to those of the Anglicans as you agee with me Leo XIII declared null. Its amazing how you also say there is still an open "question" regarding other protestant sects that have "bishops," with this I would include the Vatican II sect which you spend all day trashing, but still claim is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Your theology is so off that you don't even understand what infalliblity is, when Pope Pius XII defined solemnly the rites of Holy Orders in Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947 that didn't give Paul VI the authority to change them since they were laid down, infallibility, especially when Pius XII gives us specific words necessary for validity in the Episcopal Rite, words of which do not at all appear in the new rite of Paul VI, therefore rendering Episcopal Orders invalid since 1969 in the Vatican II Sect.
Given the great care the Catholic Church takes in studying this matter, it seems to us rash and presumptuous to make personal and definitive judgments about the post-Vatican II administration of Orders.
Is all you succeed in is confusing your readers with truth and lies, you write great articles on times past but ignore very obvious theology that leads to only one conclusion, the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the invalidity of Holy Orders since 1969, the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, and VII being a robber council, thus fulfilling the real third secret of Fatima and La Sallette. Blind Guides!!!!!
Indeed, if the Church took such a long time to declare the Orders of the Anglicans null, and still has not declared the other Orders of the mentioned Protestant sects null, we believe that to act with the mind of the Church one can say that the similar ceremonies made after Vatican II should enjoy at least that same status given to those heretics.
What is a heretic to you? Apparently your definition of a heretic varies upon the person we are defining as a heretic, it seems that none of these "Bishops" and "Priests" and "Popes" you attack constantly, all the time, throughout the whole history of your website, ever since the beginning, from day one are not heretics for the constant heresies that they have done through word and deed. So please tell me who in the Vatican II Sect is a heretic? Is Casper? Was Ratzinger before his election? Come on now let's be honest with yourselves. Look at your website, take a step back and just look at it. It's like this, you say 2 + 2 = wait a minute 2 + 2 = well not in this circumstance because well you know and then 2 + 2 = hold on we must resist the 4, that's illogical we can't go there, that's to extreme 2 + 2 = not four, but kind of four read our books and liturature and we'll give you some nebulous load of [bad word] that throws 4 into the perverbial garbage. Wake up! You don't even understand sacramental or dogmatic theology, nor do you know 2 + 2 so why do you insist to resist?
In brief, we believe that, generally speaking, the post-Vatican II ordinations should be supposed valid. Stronger doubts, however, may be raised regarding particular cases of bad translations of the formulae of this Sacrament.
We hope this will help you to see clearer in these confused times.
Apparently you are confused because us credible Sedevacantists are not at all confused. It's pretty simple, John XXIII + Paul VI + Vatican II + John Paul I + John Paul II + Benedict XVI + all their acts, decrees, changes, speeches, catechisms, new code of canon law, new dogmas of ecumensim, religious indifferentism, religious liberty, and all the rest including the false third secret, invalid orders, invalid mass, no longer believing in being Catholic = NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cordially,
I would appreciate a retraction of your false statement that we believe that once a cleric is a heretic he loses his orders, rather that he loses his office, oh that's right, you don't believe that dogma. So you + not believing in the dogma of a heretic being outside the Church therefore rendering his office vacant = you being a heretic! I should have been a math teacher, what do you think? You are absurd in your apostolate, what a waste of time, you help no one in this crisis, it's like telling a drowning man just to keep treading water. Although you do write some good historical work which if you applied to today you would be Sedevacatist but once again you must have skipped logic, reason, sacramental and dogmatic theology, and mathmatics in your educational process. – K.B.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted October 16, 2018
______________________
______________________
Just a response to your posting of what some claim to be part or the actual Third Secret of Fatima. This can plainly be seen as a joke. I can't believe that you fell for this.
This phrase alone should make you suspicious
"Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church ... This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960."
Since we know that Sister Lucia told us that the Blessed Virgin said "The secret is to be revealed in 1960 or at your death, whichever comes first." This other statement seems to indicate the death of Pius XII and not Sister Lucia's death which is alluded to happen before 1960 in what Sister Lucia told us the Blessed Virgin stated.
This next one is just rediculous
"In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima."
I highly doubt that the Blessed Virgin would name John Paul II as a pope in this message and ask that St Peter's grave be moved to Fatima. The new Rome will most probably be moved to Jerusalem as stated in the Apocalypse
I havent got anymore time to write as I am at work and the boss just drove up, but this should give you some idea as to how ludicrous this is
D.X.