Bishop Williamson & Maria Valtorta (Again and again!)

Catholic Candle note: The false visions of Maria Valtorta have become a contagion infecting a small number of Traditional Catholics. But this number could grow because of misguided recommendation of these false “visions”, by influential persons in Tradition. To attempt to head-off the spread of this evil, we present a short analysis of these false visions, to warn people to stay far away from them. In the original version of this article, Catholic Candle inadvertently gave the wrong citation for a quote. We have now corrected this error.

The false visions of Maria Valtorta

Condemned by the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Church; Beloved by many conciliars

Although these visions themselves are objectively evil, we do not (and should not) judge the subjective, interior culpability of anyone connected with them, just as we must not judge the subjective culpability of anyone else committing evil. 
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1-2; see also our treatment of rash judgment.


The book’s countless evils begin with its title

The disturbing features of Valtorta’s (false) visions, begin with the title itself: The Poem of the Man-God. This title is not traditional, fitting or reasonable! Catholics refer to our Lord’s natures in order of their dignity—and the Divine nature is infinitely greater in dignity, than the human nature. Catholics refer to our Lord as the “God-man”, not as the “man-God”. However, this title accurately reflects the books “earthy”, humanistic focus, which fits well with conciliar humanism.

Note about the title: the book originally was published anonymously over a several year period (one volume per year). The first volume was originally published under title “The Poem of Jesus”. The subsequent volumes were published under the title “The Poem of the Man-God”. (See the Wikipedia article.) For the rest of this article, we will refer to the entire book as “The Poem of the Man-God”.

Pre-Vatican II condemnation by the Church

The Holy Office (which was in charge of safeguarding the Catholic Faith) condemned The Poem of the Man-God before Vatican II and placed the book on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Shortly after the book was first compiled, it was condemned (in 1949) by Holy Office commissioners, Msgr. Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P.. (Source: catholicculture.org.)

The Holy Office examined a new edition of the Poem and again condemned it, on December 16, 1959. The book was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, with the decree published in the January 6, 1960 edition of the L’Osservatore Romano(reproduced below).






Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office


Decree
Proscription of Books
Wednesday, December 16, 1959

The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to whom the safeguarding of things of the Faith and Moral is confided, after receiving the previous opinions of the Consultors, have unanimously condemned and ordered that the books by an anonymous author, in four volumes, be inscribed in the Index of Forbidden Books, the first of those books being:

Il Poema di Gesù [The Poem of Jesus] (Tipografia Editrice M. Pisani);

followed by,

Il Poema dell’Uomo-Dio [The Poem of the Man-God], (Ibidem).

On Friday of that same month and year, the Most Holy and Dignified Lord John XXIII, Pope by the grace of Divine Providence, in an audience given to the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office, after hearing the report of the Most Reverend Fathers, approved this resolution and commanded that it be published.

Given in Rome, in the seat of the Holy Office on January 5, 1960. Sebastian Masala, Notary
[Permanent volume: Acta Apostolicae Sedis LII (1960), p. 60].

This Holy Office condemnation was accompanied and explained by a front-page article in the L’Osservatore Romano, entitled “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus”. (Source: catholicculture.org.)

Enthusiasm of conciliars

After Vatican II, the Index of Forbidden Books was abolished. The Poem of the Man-Godbegan to acquire conciliar advocates, who liked the book for its “earthy”, chatty, approachable, humanistic style.

For example, one conciliar advocate was Fr. Gabriele Allegra, who has been (supposedly) “beatified” by the conciliar church, and who was a collaborator and co-author with the Arch-heretic Teilhard de Chardin. See their book: My conversations with Teilhard de Chardin on the primacy of Christ, by Gabriele Maria Allegra and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Franciscan Herald Press, 1971, p.8. Fr. Allegra loved The Poem of the Man-God and wrote about it often. (Source: valtorta-maria.com.)

Another conciliar advocate is (false) “visionary” of Medjugorje, Vicka Ivankovich, who declared:
Our Lady says The Poem of the Man-God is the truth. Our Lady said if a person wants to know Jesus he should read Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta.

1988 Vicka Ivankovich interview.

Evil and scandalous contents

Perhaps no more need be said beyond that the book was condemned by the pre-Vatican II Church, was on the Index of Forbidden Books, and is beloved by many prominent conciliars.

Further, The Poem of the Man-God is riddled with banalities, vulgarities, blasphemies and doctrinal errors. There is continual idle talk between Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles.

However, we include (below) a very few examples from this shocking book, demonstrating beyond any doubt that it is evil and not from God. All citations are from the online book (to allow the reader to confirm the quotes).

Valtorta portrays Our Lord joking with St. Peter about committing impurity with His Most Pure, Ever-Virgin Mother.

Valtorta writes:


Jesus stands up and calls out loud: “Simon of Jonas, come here.”



Peter starts and rushes down the steps. “What do you want, Master?”

“Come here, you usurper and corrupter!”



“Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?”

“You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?”

Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. “You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.”

Vol. 2, p. 185.

Valtorta slanders Our Lady’s knowledge of her own sinlessness.

Valtorta (falsely) quotes Immaculate Mary as saying “I did not know I was without stain!” Volume 1, p.50.

Valtorta asserts that Our Lady thought (like the Arch-Heretic Luther) that it is good to sin out of love of God.

Luther declared: Sin boldly, but believe more boldly. Letter #99, Saemmtliche Schriften.

Valtorta (falsely) has Our Lady uttering the similar blasphemous thought that God loves us more for sinning:


[supposed BVM]: “Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?”

[supposed St. Anne]: “What are you saying, my dear? I don't understand you.”

[supposed BVM]: “I mean: to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the Savior. Who is lost, is saved. Isn’t that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look.”

Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23.

Valtorta falsifies the sin of our first parents.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had original justice and innocence, and their passions could not be aroused to act against reason. Summa, Ia, Q.95, a.2.

Contradicting this Catholic dogma, Valtorta writes that Our Lord gave this erotic description of Eve’s first sin when she sees the snake:


With his venomous tongue Satan blandished and caressed Eve’s limbs and eyes… Her flesh was aroused … The sensation is a sweet one for her. … And “she understood.” Now Malice was inside her and was gnawing at her intestines. She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed. She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion.

Vol. 1, n. 17, p. 49.

Valtorta’s heretical opinion about the essential joy of heaven

The Church teaches that the essential joy of heaven is the intellectual vision of God in His Essence. Summa Supp., Q.90, a.3. Any other joy of heaven is an “extra” which is merely accidental. Id.

Contradicting this, Valtorta declares that half the joy of heaven is being with Our Lady:


the joy of Paradise would be halved … if Paradise in future should not have the living Lily [Our Lady] in whose bosom are the three pistils of fire of the Divine Trinity— the light, perfume, and harmony …

Vol. 3, p. 367.

Valtorta falsely says Our Lady is second, below St. Peter, in the Church hierarchy.

Valtorta (falsely) has “Our Lord” tell His mother that she will “be second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy”. Vol. 4, p.146.

This is utterly false! Although Our Lady surpasses St. Peter (and all other creatures) in holiness, she has never had any part in the hierarchy of the Church. 

Valtorta’s scandalously portrays Our Lord as taking revolting, unnatural liberties with the Apostles.

Valtorta becomes especially disgusting in her false portrayal of Our Lord’s relationship with His Apostles.

Let one disgusting incident suffice:


Valtorta describes Our Lord as kissing St. John while he is “half-naked”, lying on his bed. She says St. John is “panting”, “inflamed by his love” and “exhausted by his ardor”. She says Our Lord “caresses him, burning with love Himself.”

Vol. 2, pp. 57-58.

Of course, the book’s blind defenders will say that all of this was meant in a (supposed) “spiritual” sense. We trust you (the reader) will not be blind and not be led by the blind, because we don’t want you to fall with them, into the pit.

Conclusion

Stay far away from this evil book and this false visionary!

Rev. Father Altamira: The Situation of the Resistance

(Source)

Google translation with some small corrections.

Dear faithful, I am writing this letter so we can be aware of "¿What is the situation of the so-called resistance?".

[1]
Before the state of affairs in which we find ourselves (the empire of confusion, the damage upon parishioners, all priests fighting each other): The one responsible for all this is Bishop Williamson. I speak objectively; culpability will be judged by God.


We are the laughing stock of the world.

Even Bishop Fellay and his group "die of laughter because of us." Nothing better could have happened to him, because when we are so ridiculous and phonies (for the problems we have), no priest of the Society of St. Pius X (those who are thinking of breaking with Bp. Fellay) will want to come join us .


Faced with what has been caused by Bishop Williamson, we have: In the case of Bishop Faure, the future Bishop Dom Thomas, Father Trincado with  his site Non Possumus, and other priests, to defend the "interest of the group" (interest of the political party), by compliance, or whatever, Bishop Williamson is defended and justified at all costs for the things he said and the things he has done. If Bp. Fellay had said or done these same things, those mentioned above would be "eating him alive." But it was Bishop Williamson! who said it, "ah, then let's not say anything, and defend him publicly."


We are not honest with ourselves nor with our faithful.

[2]
In July from last year, 2015, I received information from Europe regarding Mons. Williamson.


It was said, among other things, Bishop Williamson was telling the priests of the SSPX not to leave the Society. "No, Father. It is impossible Bishop Williamson has been saying that." Is that really impossible? We answer: I can not express myself on these [specific] cases because I don't know these priests. But I do know some other case[s]: "The case of Father Altamira, Father Trincado and Bishop Faure".

In October 2012,  Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X. At that time, Bishop Williamson wrote me [and said] "in one week they'll expelled me from the Society of St. Pius X". I replied with a copy to Father Trincado and a copy to Father Faure: Bishop Williamson, when they expel you, I will publicly manifest; send your orders and we'll do something here. Father Trincado answered from Argentina: Me too. Monsignor Faure said: Me too. And who stopped us from doing it? The answer is: He who stopped us was Bishop Williamson.. Therefore, a year later, I took the step. I still had hopes on Bishop Williamson. Silly me!


In September last year (2015), I wrote a joint letter to Monsignor Faure, Father Pierre Marie (the Superior of the Dominicans in France) and Father Bruno (in charge of the priests of France), saying that if the things reported about Bishop Williamson were true, we had to do something! This letter is here attached (*).

In this letter I told the three of them:


"If it is true that these problems exist or that these things happened, we have to do something(!): Neo-Nazis; Father Bruewieler (Hannover, Germany); Father Jacqmin; Fr. Weber and Fr. González; Fathers Weinzierl, Trauner and Zaby; the situation of P. XX; Father Ramón Anglés (?); what happened regarding the modern Mass in Canada (and USA); the situation of the faithful in England (London); etc.".


In another more recent letter, I wrote to the priests of the so-called Resistance, and told them: "If only half of all these things [the reports] were correct and true, the problem [with Bishop Williamson] is more serious than we think. "


[3]
All this information is known by Bishop Faure and he has them. The future Bishop Dom Thomas (Brazil). Father Trincado (with his site Non Possumus) has them, and almost all priests of the so-called Resistance. Therefore it is inadmissible to continue defending Bishop Williamson publicly. We will explain a little more ahead.


All this shows how bad we are in the Resistance. We are not serious. We are the laughingstock before everybody.


Here we must answer an objection and reject a possible temptation: it is true the Resistance is very bad, but it is also true that the solution is not Bishop Fellay and his path to Modernism, and his way to the Conciliar Church..

[4]
Given all these facts, it would be wrong (and I think it would be a sin) to remain silent. But one might say ad hominem: "Since you [Bishop Faure, Dom Thomas, Father Trincado] do not want to say [condemn] the errors of Bishop Williamson, at least keep quiet and do not defend him publicly; it would've been less unworthy. "

Let me explain more.


Regarding Bishop Williamson we have:


His many tricky and veiled manifestations in favor of the false Conciliar Church and the Religion of Vatican II. His statements about keep going to false Rome. His statements about making an agreement (a legal status, a canonical regularization, "is something very desirable"). His slyly manifestations in favor of the validity of the rite of modernist bishops, in favor of modernist bishops (when in fact there are serious doubts about the validity). His outrageous statements saying that he needs to be named the authority of the Resistance by Francisco (Eleison Comments 420). Its manifestations saying he needs permission from Francisco to found a religious congregation. His manifestations for the modern mass (go to her, the miracles of the modern Mass, the fruits of modern mass: the sanctuary of Poland ... towards the false religion of the II Vatican Council and to make ecumenism within the shrine - as has been published-). His apparitionism, the visionary of Bishop Williamson, her messages. Maria Valtorta (condemned by the Holy Office), the [visionary] lady from United States, the apparitions of Akita, etc. His praise of Putin (complete lack of common sense!: Putin, with Obama, are the two best managers or employees of the devil here on earth, to bring the World Government). In short: The list is endless.

The above mentioned,  completely disqualifies Bishop Williamson, and his public defense cannot be admitted, to the contrary.

This is all too severe, and these attitudes are too scandalous and incoherent as to keep quiet and not say anything.


"But we must defend the interests of group!, the interest of the party must prevail. And take note that the priests who oppose it [and we are almost half already], will be left alone, will be put aside, will be isolated, marginalized; they won't have a Bishop; their seminarians won't be ordained. "

[5]
What is the tragedy we are living in this fight?


All this effort we make is so difficult to accomplish. It is an effort which costs us priests and faithful a lot (I'm not referring to economics, but the effort involved in this fight).


So, we are doing all this for nothing!, we'll fall for the same things as Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson leads us to the same. Attention: We are actually worse off than Bishop Fellay..


Yet with all the defense of the modern Mass and the "miracles" of Bishop Williamson, let's make an  argument ad absurdum, an argument ad ridiculum:

Suppose Bishop Williamson had said in that conference in USA (also from Canada?), and also in the three or four Eleison Comments, that "there can be no miracles in the modern mass". Father Trincado with his Non possums blog, Bishop Faure with his writings and sermons or the future Bishop Dom Thomas, would they be writing articles to justify the miracles of the modern mass? Would they be writing to defend the validity of the modern mass? Would they be writing to justify Bishop Williamson statements regarding going to the modern Mass? Would we be having all this fight against the priests who were opposing?


No; we can not remain silent; we must do something. May the Good God help us out of this swamp, where we were placed by who should have been light, but have only been and sown darkness.


I give you my priestly blessing. In Mary Most Holy.

Father F. Altamira (March 13th, 2016)

_____________




(*) LETTER TO BP. FAURE, FR. PIERRE-MARIE , FR. BRUNO



Bishop Faure,
Father Pierre-Marie,
Father Bruno (coordinator France).



Dear bishop, dear fathers:


I am writing regarding the information which has to do with Bishop Williamson, information I received just over a month ago, before I sent you my other letter.

I'd like to make it clear from the get go that I write with no bad spirit but with a "constructive" spirit. I do it because I think we have a problem on our hands, and if we do not give it a solution, this tiny thing we are (which some call it the Resistance) will eventually disappear and die.


If it is true that these problems exist or that these things happened, we need to do something(!): The Neo-Nazis; (!) Father Bruewieler (Hannover, Germany); Father Jacqmin; Fr. Weber and Fr. González; the priests Weinzierl, Trauner and Zaby; the situation of Fr. XX; Father Ramón Anglés (?); what happened regarding the modern Mass in Canada (and USA); the situation of the faithful in England (London); etc.


I once heard a priest saying something like this: Many superiors in the SSPX do nothing and let things keep going, and then end up worse for not having [done anything] ... I think we should not risk falling into the same [mistake], and this is to help Monsignor [Williamson] himself.



I said in another letter: The problems are already so many that the only "constructive" attitude is not to deny or excuse them, but address them. Perhaps they are the last opportunities Providence gives us to do it. We run the risk of not being honest with ourselves and our faithful.


Our fellow companions from the SSPX (priests, brothers) do not join us, "do not take the step", because they see the problems we have and then they don't think it is reasonable or sensible to join us. I do not know if you can say that maybe this is also happening with the Benedictines of Bellaigue or the Capuchins of Morgon; -there in France- you'll know more about them.


I have the impression, with all these things, Msgr. Fellay is "dying of laughter" because of us.


Dear brothers, please, let us solve these problems.


Cordially I send my greetings. In Mary Most Holy.


Father F. Altamira (Sunday September 6, 2015, Solemnity of St. Pius X)

Quo Vadis, Dom Thomas?

Nota praevia: It is with sadness I find myself obliged to rebuke an article of a person who has been a solid rock within the Traditional Movement, a person who has survived through Le  Barroux, Campos, Dom Lourenço, Bishops de Galarreta and Fellay... only for, in the end, be brought down by him who was expected a commitment and support to battling the modernist forces which have crept into Tradition: Bishop Williamson.


Defending the indefensible

Dom Thomas Aquinas: "Bishop Williamson wrote in his Eleison Comments no. 438: "If the evidence for eucharistic miracles taking place within the Novus Ordo Church (see EC 436 and 437) is as serious as it seems, then Catholics must conform their minds to the mind of God, and not the other way round." Many attacked Bishop Williamson because of these comments on a possible Eucharistic miracle that took place in Buenos Aires."

First off, it doesn't seem fair to pick out the mildest of all Bishop Williamson's statements --bolded and underlined above-- regarding "eucharistic miracles", in order to bring about a defense which seems to be biased right off the bet. Why is Father Thomas Aquinas quoting the third Eleison Comment (438) instead of the very first of the series (436), where Bishop Williamson describes these so called 'miracles' as "stubborn facts"???

“Facts are stubborn things,” is a famous quote of the United States’ second President, John Adams (1735–1826), “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Concerning the New Order of Mass imposed upon the entire Latin Rite Church by Paul VI in 1969, there are some stubborn facts, apt to perturb the “wishes and inclinations” of Catholics cleaving to Catholic Tradition. Let successive issues of these “Comments” first of all present some of these facts; secondly let us see how they may be explained in view of the disastrous role played over the last 46 years by the NOM in helping Catholics to lose the Faith, and thirdly let us deliberate as to what conclusions a wise Catholic needs to draw. First of all, some facts: (...)

Bishop Williamson - Eleison Comments (436), November 21, 2015 - Novus Ordo Missae I

Bishop Williamson has also affirmed in many other Conferences (Canada, E.U.A, Mexico), as Fr. Thomas Aquinas is well aware of, that Eucharistic Miracles have been happening within the Novus Ordo Mass on different occasions and locations. Hence, let's not try to conceal the truth with "damage control words" such as " if ", "as it seems", "possible", etc., because they aren't compatible with reality. Let us not allow our culpable silence to be raised to an unwise attempt to defend something which can very easily be proved wrong if compared with many and verifiable facts against Bishop Williamson; at least on this regard.

There's another point worth of mentioning regarding Dom Thomas' paragraph above:  Would Dom Thomas consider himself an "attacker" of Bishop Fellay (persona) when he criticized or condemned his many statements or actions? No! Father Aquinas, as well as the whole of the resistance, when we had a "resistance", were attacking his words, conduct and betrayals. 

It is not Bishop Williamson's persona we are interested in attacking either, but his words, ideas and actions. They have been proved to be very imprudent at best and outright anti-Catholic at worst; therefore, as Catholics committed to the truth, we have a duty to speak up, especially if one is a priest about to become a bishop.

Bishop Williamson states Catholics "must conform their minds" to this foolishness! How can one not be in dismay? 

"We can summarize the arguments into :
Outside the Church there can be no miracles. The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. Therefore there was no miracle in Buenos Aires.
No one acts without an end. A miracle in the New Mass could have no other purpose than to induce the faithful to attend the New Mass. Therefore there was no miracle in Buenos Aires.
A miracle is an endorsement from God. God cannot endorse a heresy. The New Mass favors heresy. Therefore there was no miracle in Buenos Aires.Let's look at each of these arguments."

Before we go to the response of these arguments, I would have to mention beforehand the responses should not be "summarized" by secondary arguments (1, 2 and 3 bellow). This does not seem very fair either. But we'll come back to this later on, let's proceed to the Fr. Aquina's response.

"1- The first argument is an oversimplification and mixes two issues. The first is whether we can have miracles outside of the Church. The other is whether the Conciliar Church is completely separate of the Catholic Church or not.

To the first question we have to answer with St. Thomas, yes. Under certain conditions, there can be miracles "outside of the Church". On this matter, see the articles of Carlos Nougué. God does not confirm an error or a vice with a miracle, but He can confirm the truth or a virtue with a miracle, even so among the pagans. If some good is done among pagans, this good is done under the inspiration or by the action of God (cf. De Potentia, question VI, Article V, ad 5um). In the same article St. Thomas says it is possible that God performs a miracle to attest to the chastity of a pagan virgin. One can also recall the miracle of Balaam's mule, speaking clearly, as we read in the Holy Scriptures. Now, Balaam was a pagan magician. The mule spoke because God wanted to warn Balaam not to go ahead with this intention to curse the Jews (Num XXII)."

That we cannot have true miracles outside of Body and Soul of the Church (as implied by Dom Thomas' own collaborator)  is obvious, and maybe that is why Dom Thomas himself uses "quotes" when he says: "Under certain conditions there can be miracles "outside the Church"(sic). Now, if there could really be miracles fully outside the One True Church, he wouldn't need to have used quotes on "outside of the Church" at all, would he?

St. Thomas attests miracles can only confirm true doctrine and holiness, therefore every miracle under the sun belongs, in reality, to the True Church one way or another. 

We could use the baptism of desire as an analogy; a person who attain salvation through this extraordinary mean might not have seemed to be Catholic, nonetheless he/she was one and was saved by the Catholic Church through her Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, the same way there isn't salvation outside of the Catholic Church, there isn't true miracles outside of the Church (Body or Soul), after all, who else on this world carries the TRUE DOCTRINE, which is the reason why miracles are bound to work for? (St. Thomas)

In a book entitled "Santa Ecclesia - Historia da Única Igreja de Cristo", (Major Catechism of St. Pius X) published by Permanencia, and reproduced by one of Dom Thomas's Chapel, we read in respect of the Church's Holiness:


139. HOLY. - The faithful who reads Ecclesiastical History with righteousness of heart will see the brightness of Church’s sanctity , not only in the essential of her invisible head, Jesus Christ, in the sanctity of the Sacraments, in her doctrine, her religious congregations, in very many of her members, but also in the abundance of heavenly gifts, of sacred charisms, of prophecies and miracles that the Lord (refusing to give to other religions) makes it shine forth in the face of the world the mark of holiness which exclusively adorns His One Church.

One of Dom Thomas' own chapel has published this text as being part of the Major Catechism of Saint Pius X (!); hence, why the big fuss and red-lighting of Fr. Cardozo's Masses all about? What is the agenda? Who is behind it? Why is it better, on his estimation, to have two missions in Sao Paulo going (even longer) without the sacraments, than having Fr. Cardozo to say Mass to them? Is it a mortal sin to disagree with Bishop Williamson?  Is it a matter for excommunication? 

QUO VADIS, DOM THOMAS???

It's going to be interesting to see how those extremely sensible to red-lighting the SSPX's Masses are going to react with this red-light applied to Fr. Cardozo... Are they going to be honest enough to admit this is plain insanity or are they going to justify it because, after all, the priest in question dared to disagree with Bishop Williamson?

Also, it is extremely disedifying to see Dom Thomas recommending articles of a lay person, who has many qualities,  but that on this particular point has obsessively attacked Fr. Cardozo and some lay folk alike, calling them all sorts of names (e.g Sectarian, Illuminated, Puritan, Saint of the latter days, Proud, Erzats, etc.). How can Dom Thomas, who have been a rock of common sense for so long put up with articles so distasteful and confusing as these articles of Carlos Nogué? 

Anyhow, let's look at the 'argument' where St. Thomas is brought up. According to Dom Thomas, the Angelic Doctor says "God can perform a miracle to attest to the chastity of a pagan virgin...".

This is true and in any way, shape or form contradicts what St. Thomas, the major catechism of Pius X and all those who criticize Bishop Williamson have been saying: Miracles confirm true doctrine and holiness, never a false doctrine which is obviously not a sign of Holiness.

Is Chastity a Catholic virtue or is it not? Yes it is.

Was God leading people into believing Paganism was acceptable or good because of the catholic virtue this pagan virgin practiced so well? 

No, this was an event in order to teach a few unfaithful believers a lesson about the truly Catholic virtue of Chastity; and not a special reward which would mislead people into believing *her Paganism. Her virginity was not intrinsically connected with her belief or worship but with a truly Catholic Virtue: Chastity!  The same cannot be said of the Consecration and the place where the transubstantiation occurs: Holy Mass! They are intrinsically connected, the latter only occurs when the former is accomplished. You can't separate the two. 

The same principle applies to Balaam's mule, this was an event brought up by God to protect true believers from a curse, not to transform the Mule into an acceptable offering/worship to God.

- Does the N.O.M have anything chaste to teach us?

- Does the N.O.M protect true believers or rather endanger them?

Therefore, it is most definitely not fair to compare an individual or animal to a supposedly universal Rite of worship. Furthermore, if one denies that the so called 'eucharistic miracle' would at least "lead many people into believing" the Novus Ordo is acceptable, they might as well throw the towel in. It is interesting to note, though, not even Bishop Williamson denies this immense possibility: See point# 2 here.

Hence the question should be: Could God irresistibly lead many into believing something "protestantized" and "intrinsically evil" to be acceptable or good?

"To the second question we must answer that the authorities of the conciliar church form a modernist sect, occupying key posts in the Church, which they keep captive. We can not say with absolute certainty that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church, neither that it is not."

This is unbelievable! If this were coming from Bishops Rifan or Fellay I would not be surprised, but from Dom Thomas Aquinas(!), really? So, according to him, we can no longer say with absolute certainty that the cancer is not the body? I mean, what's going on? How can Bishop Williamson spread his nonsense so extensively and effectively to the point of starting to crack this seemingly unmovable rock? 

QUO VADIS, DOM THOMAS?

Catholic Church = Immaculate Bride of Christ

Conciliar church = Made up by evil men

Therefore we must say with absolute certainty that the evil and corruptible Conciliar Church cannot be the Incorruptible and the Spotless Bride of Jesus Christ, the holy Catholic Church! 

We must say the Cancer is not the Body! 

We must say the parasite is not the body either!

Difficulties may (and will) arise regarding the individuals or their powers, nevertheless that do not change the fact stated above. But since this is not an article about individuals or their powers (or lack of it thereof), we'll leave at that.

"Because of the modernist teachings and the intention to destroy the doctrine of the Catholic Church, it is not [the Catholic Church], of course; but because of the fact that she has a power of jurisdiction which belongs to the Catholic Church, it possesses something Catholic. If the current Pope converts, it [the conciliar church] will exercise a Catholic power, that today it exercises in a modernist manner."

The power of jurisdiction is debatable, but for the sake of the argument let's suppose that is, in fact, the case. Now, considering this was true, we could still not say they have something Catholic, after all, power of jurisdiction belong to the Catholic Church, as acknowledged by Dom Tomas himself at the paragraph above; so even if they temporarily have [an usurped] possession of power, they should still most definitely not be praised, respected, recommended nor rewarded in any way whatsoever.

Or should a bank robber who has taken hostages and all the money of a bank be defended from "Pharisees" and/or promoted with a "golden rule" in any circumstance?

Furthermore, do we say the greek-Orthodox church is Catholic because they posses the power of consecration/ordination? Do we say the Protestant church is Catholic because they posses the power of performing valid Baptisms?

"This seems to me to be the position that Archbishop Lefebvre has always adopted."

Again and again Dom Thomas uses the tactic of talking about other issues (jurisdiction, validity of the Newmass, etc.) when the main and plain issue lies on the FACT that Bishop Williamson has told a lady who lives around "resistance grounds" and goes to a Traditional Mass on Sundays she could go to a decent Novus Ordo Mass if her conscience allows her, accordingly to him this is the "golden rule". On the other hand Archbishop Lefebvre stated: 

“That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to

this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass." (Archbishop Lefebvre)

Would anybody honestly say Bishop Williamson adopted Archbishop Lefebvre's teaching regarding the attendance at the Newmass?

Dom Thomas KNOWS bishop Williamson has told an individual he was ashamed of the infamous conference and that he had asked this particular person to not talk about it anymore and remove the video of circulation... He KNOWS this!

Wouldn't be easier to just apologize for the mistake, make amendments and move on?

"2- No one acts without an end. But to what end would God perform a miracle in the New Mass?Bishop Faure has already answered this question.If Our Lord is present in the consecrated host of a New Mass, and especially if this host has been desecrated, it is not unreasonable to think that God would perform a miracle to show us the gravity of this desecration. But, some will say, Bishop Williamson also cited an alleged miracle in Poland. The same argument must apply. Wherever there is the real presence, we can have a miracle without contradicting the truth.
But would it not be approving of the New Mass?No, just as we have shown that the miracle did not condone paganism, but that through it the innocence of a pagan virgin was attested."

Bishop Faure's response is unsatisfactory at best. 

His 'argument' is that it wouldn't be a surprise to have a miracle (eucharistic miracle) on the top of another miracle (Transubstantiation).... 

Now, THAT is a oversimplification, to paraphrase Dom Thomas.

In a proper sense, the Real Presence is not an "*extraordinary" event if form, matter and intention are present; this is a "normal consequence". 

On the other hand, we know that a miracle is an extraordinary gift from God to confirm true doctrine and holiness. And since a Consecration cannot be separated from the Mass in which it is enwrapped, it is only obvious if God were to perform a real miracle in a Novus Ordo Church, during a Novus Ordo Mass, with a Novus Ordo Priest, many "would be led to believe" the Mass in which such a WONDER has happened may be acceptable, good or even the most beautiful thing under the sun, as it really is the case with the True Catholic Mass!

Notice that such an "eucharistic miracle" would not have to outright approve of the Newmass as Dom Thomas proposes. What we are trying to call his attention to is the fact that even the great possibility of having many people being irresistibly led to approving the Newmass due to such a miracle would prove this event to be evil, therefore it wouldn't be from God. 

How could this be even slighted accepted by many as a possibility is beyond comprehension.

"3- A miracle is a sign from God, and God can not condone a heresy. But this miracle, if it was indeed a miracle, is not a confirmation of the New Mass, but of the real presence. The Sacrament received in the conciliar church may be true, yet the accompanying doctrine may be false. So we have to make a distinction. The one does not negate the other. Confirmation of one, even by a miracle, does not confirm the other; just like the approval of the innocence of the virgin, does not approve of paganism."

If even Dom Thomas admits the miracle has not been proven, wouldn't we be correct in criticizing bishop Williamson at least for presenting it to the Catholic world as a "stubborn fact" in which "Catholics must confirm their minds" to it?

Or has the bishop --who claimed not having authority to lead the Resistance on numerous occasions-- all of the sudden received a special jurisdiction to approve and promote miracles?

Apparently promoting condemned visionaries hasn't been enough for him, eh?!

Once again, this so called 'miracle' would not have to explicitly "approve of the Newmass", all we'd need to know to realize it could not have come from God is the fact that it leads a great deal of people into believing the Newmass is acceptable or good.

"The arguments that have been presented don't seem conclusive to me. In any case, they can not be used to discredit Bishop Williamson,"

This isn't a political debate where one tries to "discredit" the other. We are dealing with Catholic principals, moral and standards. Whatsoever we criticize is based on that, not on anybody's persona. 

On the other hand, I would have to charitably urge Dom Thomas to take a deeper look at his own double standards:

Dom Thomas allows people to go to SSPX Masses (This article is not here to debate if this is right or wrong but only to state a fact). 

Dom Thomas has blindly defended the Bishop who recommends a "semi-Traditional" lady who has and goes to a Traditional Mass on Sundays to attend at a decent Novus Ordo Mass during weekdays if her conscience allows her. But he intransigently "red-lighted" the Masses of Fr. Cardozo because of the "nefarious heresy" of taking a picture of Bishop Williamson down from one of the Resistance chapels...!!!

Also, Dom Thomas was not long ago in Anapolis-GO trying to rescue some nuns from this convent where the priest is known to be a conservative/semi-traditional type, and the reason he has given for the nuns to abandon such a priest was that the priest (Fr. Fernando) "believed the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church"(sic).  What a contradiction, eh?

QUO VADIS DOM THOMAS?

"who still is the bishop who opposed the suicidal policy of the accordistas,"

Did he really? If that is true, how can we explain the celebration of the Motu Proprio and the thanksgiving for the "lifting of the excommunications"? 

He apparently does not agree with the terms adopted by Bishop Fellay, but he certainly does not discard an accord with Modernist Rome: 

"If the Holy Father would authorize me to found a Society, I would be on the next plane to Rome." (Bishop Williamson - Post Falls, Idaho, USA, June 1, 2014)

"who consecrated Bishop Faure, ordained priests for the Resistance, confirmed many of the faithful;

All that glitters is not gold!

"who gives us all hope to continue the good fight of Archbishop Lefebvre, which is nothing else than the good fight of the Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman and, as St. Pius X said, persecuted."

 How can we honestly say we are continuing the good fight(?) of Archbishop Lefebvre while placing our hope in Bishop Williamson, who Dom Thomas Aquinas KNOWS to have:

- Thanked Benedict XVI for the Motu Proprio with "a deep gratitude for this great spiritual benefit" 

- Accepted with filial devotion the "lifting of the excommunications"

- Apologized to Benedict XVI and the Jews

- Recommended people going to a decent New Mass

- Promoted "eucharistics miracles" in the New Mass

- Performed the Sacrament of Confirmation at the heretical Chapel of the Feeneyites

-  Invited a Rabbi to lecture to his seminarians

- Promoted the blasphemous Maria Valtorta, a visionary condemned by the Catholic Church (not the Conciliar!)

- Promoted various other Novus Ordo apparitions (i.e Grabandal, Akita, etc); 

- Promoted his own visionary: Dawn Marie, "Le Petite Plume"
Eleison Comments (379, 380, 381, 382, 383)

- Who lives with homosexual / pedophile priest and promotes him to the point of sending him to missions at family houses and even participating in retreats with him

- Protected and ordained seminarians accused and expelled (by SSPX Seminary in Argentina) for homosexual misconduct


- Who has been undisputedly rebuked by Fr. Ceriani

- Or even by Dom Thomas himself

Is that the man we are counting to continue the "good fight" of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre??? If that is the case I can't help but ask:

QUO VADIS, DOM THOMAS??? 

It is really sad to witness Dom Thomas changing his discourse so drastically in such short period of time; let's look how he used to talk in 2012:

"It is either John Paul II who has the truth on his side, or Archbishop Lefebvre. It is not possible to exalt John Paul II and withdraw --if they really withdrew-- the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. Both cannot be right at the same time. This is pure modernism. As for the Mass, it is the same thing. If both are allowed, the result is the contradiction. It is a principle of dissolution. It is a principle of corruption of the Catholic faith."

"We read in the Old Testament Abraham expelled the slave Hagar and his son Ishmael, in order that Isaac would not stay with the son of the slave, as St. Paul says: "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born after the Spirit", and St. Paul adds, "so also it is now" (Gal. V, 29). Abraham did this, reluctantly, in consideration of Sarah’s request, and God agreed with Sara, because the one who is free should not be equated to the slave. Hagar is the new Mass. She has no rights. She must be suppressed." (Dom thomas Aquinas - Two Currents, 2012)

Now, it would be fitting to ask:

If "the Newmass is the slave Hagar", why treat her as something legitimate who would still "build the faith"???

If the Newmass "has no rights", how could it have privileges ("Eucharistic miracles")???

If the Newmass "must be suppressed", how could Dom Thomas not criticize Bishop Williamson for recommending it publicly to someone who lives around a resistance territory and has affirmed going to Traditional Masses on Sunday???

If it is a "contradiction" and a "principle of corruption" allowing the two masses, how can Dom Thomas defend Bishop Williamson, the bishop who not only allows but recommends the Newmass, even in public???

One last thing. Upon being asked in a recent interview of March 6th, 2016, to send a message to Tradition/Resistance, Dom Thomas has said:

"A message? Study the works of Archbishop Lefebvre and learn from his examples. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Le Floch is the Magisterium: It is the love of the Magisterium of the Church. Only this way we'll win over Liberalism and Modernism. Furthermore, read and seek to understand the great anti-liberal authors, above all, the ones who better understood  the errs of the modern world, such as Bishop de Castro Mayer, Bishop Williamson and also bishop Tissier, who expose the strange theology of Benedict XVI with precision (...)"

How can Dom Thomas have the audacity of recommending the "anti-liberal" Bishop Williamson when the Resistance around the globe finds itself in terrible turmoil because of him and his latent liberalism?

Can't Dom Thomas realize how cynical and hypocritical recommending this destructive bishop sounds, specially at the present moment? 

Also, how can Dom Thomas recommend Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier at the same time, in the same sentence? One has promoted the "Bavarian heart" and the "good will" of Benedict XVI", the other has completely exposed the deadly hermeneutical of continuity of Benedict XVI???

Would the ambiguity, cynicism, blindness and confusion of Bishop Williamson have contaminated Dom Thomas?

May God and His Most Holy Mother help us!

" CerebrumVacantism "

The confusion seems to never end and Bishop Williamson sure seems to enjoy it way too much.

In his new series, yes, a new series of torture(!) known as Eleison Comments #445, His Excellency is adding more and more confusion to Catholic tradition/resistance.

Bishop Williamson at his new Eleison Comments 445:

"And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? "

Surreal! The Novus Ordo people who have come to the Faith (Catholicism-Tradition) have done so despite their false beliefs, not because of them. Bishop Williamson unfortunately implies this is because of the "good left in the Newreligion".

"Depending on how a celebrant uses the options in the NOM, not all the elements that can nourish faith are necessarily eliminated from it, especially if the Consecration is valid, a possibility which nobody who knows his sacramental theology can deny. "

The elements that might nourish the faith (e.g Rosary, Novena, Grace, Good Will, etc.) are NOT derived from the cancer (Conciliar Church) but from the healthy body (Catholic Church) through her channel of graces!!! 

Should we credit the Greek Orthodox church if one of them decides to convert to Catholicism? Should we credit the Protestant church if one of them decides to convert to Catholicism?

God can grant the necessary grace for conversion to a Novus Ordo, Schismatic, Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist... But that does not mean their "elements" were the ones "nourishing" their good will, quite the contrary. The Novus Ordo converts find Catholicism/Tradition through their genuine catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Rosary; so to credit the "elements" of the Novus Ordo instead of the Holy and Merciful Mother of God bear an insult, to say the least. Other converts receive their grace of conversion due to their good will not the mistakes of their heretical/schismatical/pagan beliefs.

 His Excellency has gone as far as inventing a new word to describe his thesis: "Ecclesiavacantism"(?!).  According to him, those who affirm the Novus Ordo has absolutely nothing Catholic left "in" it, should be called "ecclesiavacantists": 

"However, given the weakness of human nature and so the risk of encouraging Catholics to go with the new and easy religion by the least word said in favour of its central rite of worship, why say a word in favour of any feature of the Newchurch? For at least two reasons. Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement, and firstly to ward off what is coming to be called “ecclesiavacantism,”(?!?!) namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever."

Why the disproportioned concern to "ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement"?? Is it not Tradition just a name we were forced to 'add' because of the Conciliarists but that in reality it is nothing less than Catholicism itself? And if that is so, is it pharisaical to say outside Tradition (Catholicism) there are no believers and no salvation?? Now, am I denying that some people or groups may go overboard towards some Novus Ordo individuals? Far from it, but as Cicero says: "Abusus non tollit usum", "The abuse does not eliminate the usage" . We should still univocally use the condemnations of their beliefs despite some abuses from the pharisaical ones, whoever they might be.

Or should we stop condemning Protestantism because some go as far as saying they couldn't even have a valid Baptism? Should we stop condemning Paganism because some go as far as saying they don't have a soul, etc.? Again, "abusus non tollit usum".

The "Newchurch" has absolutely nothing Catholic “in” it, despite what Bishop Williamson implies; whatever is Catholic (individuals, devotions, teachings, sacraments...) belong to the Catholic Church! Not the "Newchurch”!  A parasite or a cancer (e.g., Conciliar church, Newchurch) cannot be credited for being somewhat good because they are attached [infiltrated] to something good (Catholic Church), they are strange bodies, not part of it. To say otherwise would be to succumb to Vatican II ecclesiology.

So, instead of inventing insipid words such as “Ecclesiavacantism”, we should be more worried with something plaguing Tradition which could be called: “CerebrumVacantism”.

Private Revelation - St. John of the Cross

Here are some excerpts of chapter XI:

 2. "And it must be known that, although all these things may happen to the bodily senses in the way of God, "we must never” rely upon them or accept them, but must always fly from them, without trying to ascertain whether they be good or evil;(...)" 

 3. "So he that esteems such things errs greatly and exposes himself to great peril of being deceived; in any case he will have within himself a complete impediment to the attainment of spirituality. For, as we have said, between spiritual things and all these bodily things there exists no kind of proportion whatever. And thus it may “always" be supposed that such things as these are more likely to be of the devil than of God; (…)" 

 4. “(…) they very easily become the means whereby error and presumption and vanity grow in the soul; since, as they are so palpable and material, they stir the senses greatly, and it appears to the judgment of the soul that they are of greater importance because they are more readily felt. Thus the soul goes after them, abandoning faith and thinking that the light which it receives from them is the guide and means to its desired goal, which is union with God. But the more attention it pays to such things, the farther it strays from the true way and means, which are faith." 

 5. "And, besides all this, when the soul sees that such extraordinary things happen to it, it is often visited, insidiously and secretly by a certain complacency, so that it thinks itself to be of some importance in the eyes of God; which is contrary to humility. The devil, too, knows how to insinuate into the soul a secret satisfaction with itself, which at times becomes very evident; wherefore he frequently represents these objects to the senses, setting before the eyes figures of saints and most beauteous lights; and before the ears words very much dissembled; and representing also sweetest perfumes, delicious tastes (281) and things delectable to the touch; to the end that, by producing desires for such things, he may "lead the soul into much evil". These representations and feelings, therefore, “must always be rejected”; for, even though some of them be of God, He is not offended by their rejection, nor is the effect and fruit which He desires to produce in the soul by means of them any the less surely received because the soul rejects them and desires them not." 

 7. The soul, then, must never presume to desire to receive them, even though, as I say, they be of God; for, if it desire to receive them, there follow six inconveniences. 
 1. The first is that faith grows gradually less (…) 
 2. Secondly, if they be not rejected, they are a hindrance to the spirit (…) 
 3. Thirdly, the soul becomes attached to these things and advances not to true resignation and detachment of spirit. 
4. Fourthly, it begins to lose the effect of them and the inward spirituality which they cause it (…) 
 5. Fifthly, the soul begins to lose the favours of God, because it accepts them as though they belonged to it and profits not by them as it should. 
 6. Sixthly, a readiness to accept them opens the door to the devil that he may deceive the soul by other things like to them (…) 

 8. It is always well, then, that the soul should reject these things, and close its eyes to them, whencesoever they come. For, unless it does so, it will prepare the way for those things that come from the devil, and will give him such influence that, not only will his visions come in place of God’s, but his visions will begin to increase, and those of God to cease, in such manner that the devil will have all the power and God will have none. So it has happened to many incautious and ignorant souls, who rely on these things to such an extent that many of them have found it hard to return to God in purity of faith; and many have been unable to return, so securely has the devil rooted himself in them; for which reason it is well to resist and reject them all. For, by the rejection of evil visions, the errors of the devil are avoided, and by the rejection of good visions no hindrance is offered to faith and the spirit harvests the fruit of them. 

 12. It is clear, then, that these sensual apprehensions and visions cannot be a means to union, since they bear no proportion to God; and this was one of the reasons why Christ desired that the Magdalene and Saint Thomas should not touch Him. And so the devil rejoices greatly when a soul desires to receive revelations, and when he sees it inclined to them, for he has then a great occasion and opportunity to insinuate errors and, in so far as he is able, to derogate from faith; for, as I have said, he renders the soul that desires them very gross, and at times even leads it into many temptations and unseemly ways.

----- 

 Consequently: (22) All this shows clearly the error of imprudent directors who, impelled by curiosity, are concerned with souls favored by visions and revelations.(23) This curiosity is a deformation of the spirit which casts the soul into illusion and trouble, and turns it away from humility through vain complacency in extraordinary ways. The Ascent, 22. Ibid., Bk. III, chaps. 9, 12 / Bk II, chap. 22
 St. John of the Cross and excepts from The Ascent of Mount Carmel

______________________ 


And to top it off, just in case one feels inclined to believe something of this nature or someone with these powers, remember:

 Private revelations may not be published without the approbation of ecclesiastical authority. 
6. Cf. the decree of Urban VIII, March 13, 1625, which was confirmed by Clement IX, May 23, 1668.

Sermão do Padre Joseph Pffeifer - 22 de Julho 2012

A verdade não envelhece - Explosão do passado

Como a verdade é sempre atual, disponibilizo uma entrevista legendada de 2003 do ilustríssimo Dom Williamson.

Agradecimento do Bispo Tissier de Malerais as "Letters from Rector" (Cartas do Reitor) de Bispo Richard Williamson

Ecône 20 de Agosto de 2009

Caro Sr. Heiner, Sua Excelência o Bispo Richard Williamson mandou alguém emitir-me o quarto volume de sua "Letters from the Rector" que você publicou, e eu tenho que agradecer-lhe por esta nova publicação da coluna do meu estimado Bispo.

Eu comecei minha leitura com o poema ao fim do livro, aonde Sua Excelência escreveu "one and twenty years" nos EUA, de onde saiu "nos gemidos e lágrimas" , mas em quais igualmente ecoou e exultou, "Eu retornarei, ordenarei e confirmarei! Que isto seja verdadeiro!

Os quatro Volumes das Cartas de Ridgefield e de Winona fazem os leitores de hoje um espectador de quarenta anos da história da Igreja, quarenta anos em que a Igreja foi movida e sacudida como nunca. Elas ajudam-no a ver as coisas à luz de Cristo Rei, e a pesá-las no contrapeso da Verdade Eterna, d'Ele que disse, " Eu sou a Verdade" (Jn. XI: 6).

O leitor sente compelido a descobrir como a Santa Igreja de Deus, após ser creditada com o Divino Depósito a ser mantido sagrado e a ser apresentado fielmente aos homens "depositum sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum" (Vaticano I, Decreto Pastor Eternus), conseguiu, por uma permissão inescrutável do Céu, deixar este Santo Depósito nas mãos ímpias dos proponentes da " Igreja" do homem, que tem, obviamente, se escravizado ao liberalismo opressivo e submetido às mentiras do oficialismo: "(...)Qui nititur mendaciis, hic pascit ventos;
idem autem ipse sequitur aves volantes. "(Prov. X: 4).

Graças á Deus que a mente ereta, olhos sãos e o santo pensamento do nosso Reitor Episcopal são uma luz na escuridão. Sua Excelência não somente foi um forte defensor da Verdade de Deus, mas igualmente foi um advogado persuasivo da verdadeira masculinidade e da sã feminidade, que são pertencentes ao Cristianismo. Baseado nesses dois fatos, com a graça de Deus, ajudou a regenerar duas gerações de homens e mulheres cristãs, que reconstruíram uma Cristandade íntegra, em uma pequena escala talvez, mas com uma grande esperança que se encontra na Igreja, na patronagem das grandes famílias, em numerosas escolas e no corajoso compromisso cívico de homens cristãos a aplicar os princípios da Realeza política de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo à vida real.

Assim, então, nos despedimos, Vossa Excelência, com lágrimas nos olhos e com o coração pesado! No entanto " Sursum Corda"; elevemos nossos corações, os corações dos reconstrutores da Cidade de Deus!

Leitores, lêem e apreciem! Comece pelo primeiro ou último destes quatro volumes, e nas palavras da escritura, "Que teus olhos vejam de frente e que tua vista perceba o que há diante de ti! Examina o caminho onde colocas os pés e que sejam sempre retos! " (Prov. IV: 25, 26).

Caro Sr. Heiner, que você seja eternamente recompensado por seu trabalho!

Fielmente seu em Cristo Rei,

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Entrevista com Vossa Excelência Bispo Richard Williamson (Junho 2009 - Inglaterra)

Eis o link para a fonte da entrevista:

http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2009/07/video-interview-with-bishop-richard.html

Esta é somente a primeira parte da entrevista, com duração de 1h:39m; a segunda parte estará disponível nas próximas semanas.