Clericalism in Action: Lima Archbishop REFUSES Communion TWICE
Shocking pictures were transmitted in a life-stream of a NO Eucharist in Lima Cathedral, Peru. The event was presided by the local Pachamama worshipper, Francis-Archbishop Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio. …More
Shocking pictures were transmitted in a life-stream of a NO Eucharist in Lima Cathedral, Peru.
The event was presided by the local Pachamama worshipper, Francis-Archbishop Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio.
Cheap guitar pop music was playing while Castillo was handing out Communion, when a young man came forward, humbly knelt down, and waited to receive Communion.
But Castillo started repeating at him: „¡En la mano Señor!“ [In the hand Sir!]. When the young man didn’t react, likely because he didn’t understand Spanish, Castillo stepped forward leaving him at a side and continued handing out Communion to those behind the young man.
But again Castillo was not lucky. He was faced with a young woman standing next in line to which Castillo said „¡En la mano!“ [„Into the hand!“]. The young woman shook her head, and Castillo AGAIN refused Communion.
This is the same prelate who said during an archdiocesan synod that “no one converts in front of the tabernacle.”
#newsFucsxgijxz
The event was presided by the local Pachamama worshipper, Francis-Archbishop Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio.
Cheap guitar pop music was playing while Castillo was handing out Communion, when a young man came forward, humbly knelt down, and waited to receive Communion.
But Castillo started repeating at him: „¡En la mano Señor!“ [In the hand Sir!]. When the young man didn’t react, likely because he didn’t understand Spanish, Castillo stepped forward leaving him at a side and continued handing out Communion to those behind the young man.
But again Castillo was not lucky. He was faced with a young woman standing next in line to which Castillo said „¡En la mano!“ [„Into the hand!“]. The young woman shook her head, and Castillo AGAIN refused Communion.
This is the same prelate who said during an archdiocesan synod that “no one converts in front of the tabernacle.”
#newsFucsxgijxz
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Caroline03
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Maybe the young adorer of Christ should have muttered these words to the Archbishop
"I'll go and adore Christ elsewhere. That God YOU serve clearly doesn't see himself as worthy to be kneeled before."More
Maybe the young adorer of Christ should have muttered these words to the Archbishop
"I'll go and adore Christ elsewhere. That God YOU serve clearly doesn't see himself as worthy to be kneeled before."
"I'll go and adore Christ elsewhere. That God YOU serve clearly doesn't see himself as worthy to be kneeled before."
Caroline03
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Come to think of it, neither does HIS god feel worthy enough to have his liturgy celebrated on the breath-taking High Altar of Christ! - and as for that mask. Clearly that god of his is rendered incapable of protecting him from China flu! Notice the young warrior of Our Lord is less fearful and does not think he needs to wear the mask.
Digital Logos
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
And in other news, the Novus Ordo isn't Catholic and water is still wet.
mccallansteve
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The priest is upset because someone was trying to show respect to Christ.
Caroline03
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Satan's envy. It's well known that the Devil can not BEAR that people kneel before Christ & show humility. It really makes him furious. Actually, it's truly awful to see Satan's clear proudful resentment quite so apparent here, - in someone administering Our Lord's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. What a deluded Rogue - aping Satan before men of God! It should be obvious to this excommunicated …More
Satan's envy. It's well known that the Devil can not BEAR that people kneel before Christ & show humility. It really makes him furious. Actually, it's truly awful to see Satan's clear proudful resentment quite so apparent here, - in someone administering Our Lord's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. What a deluded Rogue - aping Satan before men of God! It should be obvious to this excommunicated proud fool that it is SATAN who hates to see servility towards God!
There are none so blind as the arrogant who claim to serve Christ but see the humility of Parishioners as a threat - something to despise & rebuke.
There are none so blind as the arrogant who claim to serve Christ but see the humility of Parishioners as a threat - something to despise & rebuke.
The Novus Ordo is the cradle of heresy.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The Catholic Church disagrees with you.
Caroline03
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Ultraviolet Hi Ultraviolet. the Francis Church does assuredly. That is the problem. That's why it can not be lawfully adhered to. We know that a NEW Dogmatic Statement from Rome can not nullify what has been pronounced to be eternally binding before. The proclamations regarding the Liturgy at the Council of Trent (and then "Quo Primum" later on ) removed FOREVER any future permission for a New Rite …More
@Ultraviolet Hi Ultraviolet. the Francis Church does assuredly. That is the problem. That's why it can not be lawfully adhered to. We know that a NEW Dogmatic Statement from Rome can not nullify what has been pronounced to be eternally binding before. The proclamations regarding the Liturgy at the Council of Trent (and then "Quo Primum" later on ) removed FOREVER any future permission for a New Rite to ever be promulgated in the Church. No one is allowed to counteract a previous order from a Pope for in doing so it could result in every past Papal Decree being classed as something that a future Pope could abolish! ie The Proclamation on Our Lady's Immaculate Conception or binding Pronoucements made relating to the Divinity of Christ etc.. What if a future Pope should tackle THOSE, seeking to overthrow them and announce that they are from now on to be called "Anathema" & harmful to be believed by the Faithful?
Since the Holy Spirit was always decreed by the Church of yore, to be the Divine Author of all Dogmatic Pronouncements, (by usage of the Royal "We" which is not used by Francis - with him it's always "I" who he assures us is making these fresh Dogmatic Pronouncements) the Holy Spirit would not have pronounced anything hitherto to be eternally binding, that he would later denounce as error. We must not confuse Christ with someone who makes a binding Statement that He will later schizophrenically order to be viewed as harmful to the Faithful. Common sense should advise us that to abrogate the none abrogateable (??
) is an error that should arouse suspicions.
The Tridentine Rite was Mass that had been used by the Church for over 1500 years. Only altered in that time ONCE by Pope (St) Gregory the Great who added the Agnus Dei to the previous format) It is THAT Mass of which Trent speaks. It is THAT Mass that none can abrogate. It is THAT Mass that is not allowed forever to be termed in any way "Harmful" to the Faithful. (It is called "Tridentine" as it was decreed the Roman Catholic Rite at Trent (The Latin Name for Trent being Tridentium) The Pope decreed that abrogating the Mass of Trent would result in another Pope burning in Hell. So, hush, hush - who would FOLLOW such a bad insurance risk? So when Francis abrogates former Proclamations of Trent, he has no authority to do so. That is the problem
Since the Holy Spirit was always decreed by the Church of yore, to be the Divine Author of all Dogmatic Pronouncements, (by usage of the Royal "We" which is not used by Francis - with him it's always "I" who he assures us is making these fresh Dogmatic Pronouncements) the Holy Spirit would not have pronounced anything hitherto to be eternally binding, that he would later denounce as error. We must not confuse Christ with someone who makes a binding Statement that He will later schizophrenically order to be viewed as harmful to the Faithful. Common sense should advise us that to abrogate the none abrogateable (??
The Tridentine Rite was Mass that had been used by the Church for over 1500 years. Only altered in that time ONCE by Pope (St) Gregory the Great who added the Agnus Dei to the previous format) It is THAT Mass of which Trent speaks. It is THAT Mass that none can abrogate. It is THAT Mass that is not allowed forever to be termed in any way "Harmful" to the Faithful. (It is called "Tridentine" as it was decreed the Roman Catholic Rite at Trent (The Latin Name for Trent being Tridentium) The Pope decreed that abrogating the Mass of Trent would result in another Pope burning in Hell. So, hush, hush - who would FOLLOW such a bad insurance risk? So when Francis abrogates former Proclamations of Trent, he has no authority to do so. That is the problem
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
No, @Caroline03 I said, "The Catholic Church" there is a difference and I would thank you to remember it. Protip: The "Novus Ordo" predates what you choose to call "The Francis Church" by about 40 years, at least.
"That's why it can not be lawfully adhered to."
Feel free to cite Canon Law on that, sweetheart.. :D Or is this Canon Law as interpreted by the schismatic SSPX?
" the Council of …More
No, @Caroline03 I said, "The Catholic Church" there is a difference and I would thank you to remember it. Protip: The "Novus Ordo" predates what you choose to call "The Francis Church" by about 40 years, at least.
"That's why it can not be lawfully adhered to."
Feel free to cite Canon Law on that, sweetheart.. :D Or is this Canon Law as interpreted by the schismatic SSPX?
" the Council of Trent (and then "Quo Primum" later on ) removed FOREVER any future permission for a New Rite to ever be promulgated in the Church."
Not this again.The rite remains the same. A form of that rite not a new rite.
"So, hush, hush - who would FOLLOW such a bad insurance risk?"
Too bad it hasn't happened yet. But since you asked, probably same kind of morons who blindly follow an excommunicated schismatic archbishop when he told them what it meant to be Catholic.
" So when Francis abrogates former Proclamations of Trent..."
...which he hasn't. Feel free to quote El Francesco vebatim on the subject after you're done getting me that cite on Canon Law. I won't be holding my breath for either.
"That's why it can not be lawfully adhered to."
Feel free to cite Canon Law on that, sweetheart.. :D Or is this Canon Law as interpreted by the schismatic SSPX?
" the Council of Trent (and then "Quo Primum" later on ) removed FOREVER any future permission for a New Rite to ever be promulgated in the Church."
Not this again.The rite remains the same. A form of that rite not a new rite.
"So, hush, hush - who would FOLLOW such a bad insurance risk?"
Too bad it hasn't happened yet. But since you asked, probably same kind of morons who blindly follow an excommunicated schismatic archbishop when he told them what it meant to be Catholic.
" So when Francis abrogates former Proclamations of Trent..."
...which he hasn't. Feel free to quote El Francesco vebatim on the subject after you're done getting me that cite on Canon Law. I won't be holding my breath for either.
