Lying fake “Catholics” pretending to “answer Questions”

Before I begin the drawing and quartering of this fake and supposedly “Catholic” Edmund Mazza, who lies about Catholicism so smoothly and easily he makes John Salza jealous, let me point out this is a guy who spells his own name wrong too. From his site:

Subscribe now

Share

Anyway, Ed-Mund, over at Anna Barnhardt’s site “Answered” the question I have been asking Ann for years, which she has dodged, refused to acknowledge and generally pretended is a “crazy” question without ever saying why. Nor, has she ever explained after how long her OWN “Sedevacantism” (fake too because she figures Ratzi-the-Nazi was a legitimate Catholic, and, ridiculously, valid Pope) becomes “crazy”.

But be that all as it is, here is her post, via Ed-Mundi as I shall call him from now on (as in: education of/from/by the world, from the Latin).

This is the question, posed by an ignorant reader of Ann’s who has nevertheless smelt a bit of a rat…

Question :

Dear Ann and the Gang,

While I can agree that Prevost cannot be Pope based on what he is saying, the thing that bothers me is the reasoning you are using to make the case: how does it substantially differ from the arguments made by the sedevacantists who say there has been no valid Pope since Pius XII or John XIII?

If you rely on “heresy disqualifies or takes away any office” then how can you accept any of the Popes after Pius XII?

Sincerely yours,

P

It’s Roncalli, who took on the name of a previous antipope John XXIII not XIII, but hey, these people can’t even spell their own name right, we can’t hold them to any kind of standard of truth, duty or logic.

And here is the intentionally disingenuous lie, posted by the lying liar, Ed-Mundi Mazza. 1

Which we will now tear to pieces with sunlight, truth and disinfectant.

Subscribe now

Share

Answer (written by NonVeni Mark): I believe the answer is that none of post-conciliar, pre-Bergoglian popes ever denied an infallibly defined dogma of the faith .

That is an outrageous lie, of course, with dozens of examples for each of the freemasons pretending to be Popes. All you need to do is read the 16 documents of Vatican II and realise that from Roncalli on they ALL promoted them and promulgated them. Roncalli died before the first two documents were published, but he approved them officially and finally before publication, which even if he weren’t a freemason, and invalidly elected (which both things he was beyond any doubt) would on its own, be enough to make him an antipope posthumously as almost all antipopes before him were declared.

Aside from Inter Mirifica which is the ONLY document that does not have clear and direct heresy, 2 ALL the other 15 documents of Vatican II do. I have detailed SOME of these in EVERY document in my book, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, and there has been ZERO refutation of the facts presented there by anyone. Because you simply can’t refute the truth.

The errors of Vatican II do not rise to the level of dogmatic negation, and the council itself declared that it defined no new dogma.

This is a lie. Plain and simple.

Sacrosanctum Concilium was the other document that Roncalli Approved of officially before dying, along with Inter Mirifica , and what do we find in it?

Because this is such an outrageous lie, I have copied the entire section from my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church regarding this document alone:

Pretence: It ordered an extensive revision of worship so that people

would have a “clearer sense” of their own involvement in the Mass and

other rites.

Heresies:

The whole point of this constitution is to literally modernise the sacred

rites and sacraments of the Church. That, in and of itself is heresy of the

highest order. Some choice quotes will be examined, which I want to

stress are not taken “out of context” as anyone who cares to can verify

for themselves since all of these documents are online.

In any case, it is all quite plain in the very first opening sentence:

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart

an ever increasing vigour to the Christian life of the faithful; to

adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those

institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can

promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen

whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household

of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent

reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

In that sentence alone we see the beginning of the heresies that permeate

the whole of Vatican II:

1) The sacraments and truths of the Church are not mutable with the

times, nor have they ever been so. Particularly, the Holy Mass and

divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, which have been immutable for

many centuries, yet are referred to immediately in the second point

of this false constitution. And in case you were doubtful of the

intent, it is clearly expressed in the last sentence of point number

4 (emphasis added):

“The council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be

revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they

be given new vigour to meet the circumstances and needs

of modern times. ”

You see, if you are not familiar with the perfidy of the Satanists,

you might, in your innocence make the vague assumption that this

is all just really quite harmless and just trying to keep up with the

times, maybe using electricity to light a church instead of

candles… but no. Remember how right in chapter one I pointed

out that clarity of thought, and word, and action, and deed, is one

of the paramount principles of Catholicism? Well, let me refer to

it again: what exactly requires modernising in the sacraments that

have remained unchanged for almost two millennia? The simple

answer is nothing. Unless of course, you intend to become of the

world, rather than just survive in it but not be of it .

2) Similarly if you are not accustomed to thinking clearly or as a

Catholic, you may have skipped over that seemingly innocuous

sentence, which instead is truly a dagger with Protestantism

written all over it: “…to foster whatever can promote union among

all who believe in Christ…” the emphasis added is mine in order

to help you see the problem. But wait, if you’re Protestant-raised

or influenced, or confused, or a badly catechised “Catholic”, you

might be thinking I’m being over-zealous. Let me show you why

that is not so. You know who also believes in Christ? Demons.

Demons actually believe in Christ. Which is why His name is used

to chase them away in exorcisms. And why it works in that

function. So, do you really want to promote whatever will bring

union with demons? Now, I am not saying all protestants are

demonic fiends, but the point is clear: Either there is one

indivisible Church under God or there isn’t. Being one of 40,000

“ maybe I’m the one ” really cannot be it. This is simply basic logic.

If there is an absolute truth, anything else, whatever it is and

however well-intentioned, cannot be equally true. And as you will

see from the rest of the documents as well as who the creators of

Vatican II were, the whole point of it was, indeed and in fact, to

essentially make Catholicism become just another major branch of

Protestantism. Insofar as the infiltrators have succeeded, the

schismatics ruled by the antipopes —currently Bergoglio— have

become exactly that; just another Protestant sect. They are rapidly

trying to introduce female clergy, married priests, divorce by

granting 100% accepted annulments, something that should

happen only in the rarest and specific circumstances dictated by

Canon Law, bowing down, literally, to demonic idols, offering

the host to divorcees who have “remarried,” to abortion supporters

and others in knowing mortal sin who have not repented nor

confessed, and so on. Now, if you’re a protestant reading all this (I

know there are more than a few of you from my book Believe!)

and it offends you, or you don’t believe in the Catholic sacraments,

well, that’s your ignorance and loss and to a certain extent

understandable because you have been indoctrinated probably

from birth to believe all sorts of lies about Catholicism, but if

you’re a cradle “Catholic”, none of these absolute dogmatic

positions should surprise you. Either you’re a Catholic… or you’re

not. It’s not difficult.

3) In essence the above two points really suffice, but reading the rest

of this documents one can begin to appreciate the underhandedness

of the authors, an exercise I did best perhaps in the evisceration of

the work of John Salza, which I have on my blog and have referred

to also in part 6.3.1.5.

If you read section III of this document it goes on at some length

about how the liturgy is sacred and

“… made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and

of elements subject to change. ”

What elements would those be exactly, that are subject to change?

Again, it’s never defined, instead we read:

“ These not only may, but ought to be changed with the

passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of

anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the

liturgy or have become unsuited to it . ” (Emphasis added).

Wait, what?! The hypocrisy and audacity of these people is

nothing short of spectacular. In plain English then: The liturgy is

sacred, and immutable… except for those elements that are not

(whatever they may be) which indeed should, nay, must be

changed if they have suffered from an intrusion of some sort that

brings them out of harmony with their spiritual intent. Now… a

ten-year old can understand that if you leave the liturgy alone, and

don’t molest it, then, by default, nothing can enter it that is counter

to its intent and spirit. But if something ever did do that (through

some change) then it should simply be identified in specific and

returned to the original. Surely that makes sense. What do we have

here instead? We are told that there will be a change, because of

some other change that supposedly occurred at some previous

time, though no one will tell us when or where. And this new

change, we are assured will be all in keeping with… the original

immutable intent? Well… not exactly, but in keeping with the need for

modernising it so that they;

“… express more clearly the holy things which they signify. ”

Really? Something that has been unchanged for centuries

suddenly needs changing to be understood better? And tell me that

in your own life you have not noticed that whenever this

progressive garbage-language is used, what immediately follows

is a veritable deluge of ineptitude, confusion and brokenness. And

that occurs in businesses actively trying to remain profitable.

Never mind a Satanic infestation of people intentionally trying to

muddy the waters. The hypocrisy is precisely that they are

pretending some mystical unseen, unheard, unknown something

has intruded in the Liturgy and as such requires them to be

changed. We are then assured that all proper care must be taken to

ensure this is done carefully and in keeping with good sense and

so on, only to be immediately followed by this:

“ 25. The Liturgical books are to be revised as soon as

possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and

bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the

world .”

4) A short while later we’re being directed to a Protestantism that is

bold-faced in its declaration that not only should as many of the

Liturgies as possible become public performances but that all

involved must:

“ 30. To promote active participation, the people should be

encouraged to take part by means of acclamations,

responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by

actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper

times all should observe a reverent silence .”

Umm…no. We’re Catholics, not Charismatic Evangelicals, or

Baptist snake-handlers, or Kumba-ya Happy-Clappies. If you have

never attended a Latin Mass, this may seem again, facetious, it is

not. Holy Communion, The Mass, is a reverent, respectful and

dignified event and until it was eviscerated by the impostors and

made the illicit parody that is the Novus Orco Mass, you certainly

did not have any such foolishness such as singing and dancing by

the congregation, or much less the priest. However, after Vatican

II, all such utterly disrespectful rubbish, including gay, fake clerics

in rainbow capes dancing at the altar, became seen in what used to

be Catholic Churches. Don’t take my word for it. Feel free to injure

your retinas by searching videos on YouTube. The document goes

on to say the liturgical revisions must also make allowances for the

parts played by the laymen in the audience. One is reminded of

Presidential Candidate hopeless, Jeb Bush: Please clap .

5) The list of heresies continues, as does the gradual corrosion of

aspects that are not strictly speaking direct heresy in isolation, but

are once they are stacked. In part 35 there are instructions of having

Deacons or other laymen lead celebrations of various feasts by

doing Bible readings and study, yet another practice that is very

Protestant in its form, though there isn’t any rule against it

specifically. But in Catholic thought, the practice would be seen as

arrogant and egocentric, since the specific function of leading

others in matters spiritual is for the ordained members of clergy.

Of course, discussion amongst friends is fine and even great, but

to presume one man should arrogate to himself a role reserved for

people who have made huge sacrifice and dedicated their lives to

it, is certainly not seen as wise or welcome.

In part 36 we are told that while Latin should always be preserved

(it was later tried to be done away with at every turn), there should

be nothing preventing doing the Mass in the common tongue of the

region. Why? Why would there be any reason to change it at all?

The Latin Mass had been observed for centuries by all Catholics

and any Catholic could have the same Mass anywhere in the world

without needing to know the local language at all since it was a

familiar ritual to him. Today, most young people have no idea that

70 years ago your mass in China, America, Portugal, Vietnam,

England, Brazil, or anywhere else, was identical.

In part 40 they sort of rip off the band-aid and pretty much spell it

out:

“ 40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even

more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this

entails greater difficulties. ”

And then goes on to say that where adapting existing liturgies to

include local practices is a bit difficult, they should refer them to

the Holy See (who being led by an impostor, would no doubt be

approved).

The full and final nail in the coffin of this excretable “Constitution”

is however point 50. It reads as follows:

“ The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the

intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the

connection between them, may be more clearly manifested,

and that devout and active participation by the faithful may

be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care

being taken to preserve their substance; elements which,

with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were

added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded;

other elements which have suffered injury through accidents

of history are now to be restored to the vigour which they

had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or

necessary .”

There is only one teensy-weensy little problem with that though.

It’s an immutable Papal Encyclical called Quo Primum issued by

Pope Pius V in 1570, and in short it says that the Latin Tridentine

Mass shall not in any way be changed, for time immemorial, and

that any attempt to do so is an attack on the Church. It really is that

clear and definitive. Don’t take my word for it, read it yourself, it’s

included in its entirety in Appendix III at the end of this book.

All of the above points concerning Sacrosanctum Concilium , only cover

the first 10 pages of a 34-page document; and not at all exhaustively. It

would probably take a year of full-time work to list every single problem

with each of the 16 documents of Vatican II, but hopefully this gives you

a sense of things. The remaining documents will not be gone into in such

detail, but rather more perfunctorily dealt with. I urge, however, anyone

trying to refute my points here to please go and verify all I say in this

chapter by referring to the documents themselves.

So, even in just that ONE document, you have absolute direct heresy, that wants and indeed DID change the Holy Mass, which goes against an immutable aspect of dogma, which as if it wasn’t already obvious, also has been immortalised in Quo Primum .

Even if this was all we had, it would be enough to prove Mazza 3 a complete and knowing liar.

Of the errors that do exist, some are a matter of interpretation (Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium), and some are indeed more serious and opposed to perennial teaching (Nostra Aetate).

Nope, nope, and nope. they are filthy heresy, plain and simple.

Want proof? Okay then, this is in Lumen Gentium which he says are a matter of “interpretation” (a heresy in itself since the Church has ALWAYS made it very clear what is true and good and what is not). Again, from my book:

Part 16 however is where we find the absolute centre of the heresy

here, for it unambiguously dispenses with the Catholic Church

altogether and equates all manner of heretic and even demon-

inspired sects as equivalent and all suitable for salvation.

“ But the plan of salvation also includes those who

acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these

there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of

Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God,

who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far

distant from those who in shadows and images seek the

unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and

breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be

saved .”

I mean, to see that this is heresy doesn’t even require a shred of

faith. Regardless if you even believe as a Catholic or not, it is

absolutely a fundamental principle of Catholicism that outside of

the Catholic Church there is no salvation. There literally would be

no point in the Catholic Church even existing if it were not for the

fact that it is clearly distinguished from all the other beliefs in God

we find on Earth. It is such a ridiculous heresy that as I say it is

nonsensical. It would be the equivalent of saying to a Muslim that

eating pork steaks is just fine, never been an issue.

Penis-head continues:

Our faithful assumption is that these errors will be corrected in due time, because… this sort of thing has happened before.

No. It has not. You lying liar that lies. Oh wait… you mean that antipopes were seen as antipopes and things corrected even several decades after the fact? Oh, yeah, okay then. This may happen eventually. And you will be in Hell along with the impostors for throwing shade for them.

The most famous case is that of the omission of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed, something that wasn’t corrected for 700 years, at the cost of schism. Surprisingly, this does not rise to the level of dogmatic error, because none of the various creeds are considered infallible.

As always the sophists take something completely different and try to pretend it is the same as what they are trying to pass off as “valid”. An omission of something is not a dogmatic intentional heresy. The inclusion of an intentional, dogmatic heresy is. And 15 of the 16 Vatican II documents all have this in them: Intentional, dogmatic heresy. Which is completely different from not stating a point of dogma in a credo (there could potentially be hundreds of omissions of dogma in any credo, after all!)

For me, the most relevant episode in comparison to Vatican II is the Council of Constance during the Great Western Schism. This validly-convoked council eventually obtained the disposition of all three simultaneous claimants to the papacy, and the installation of a valid and universally accepted one.

Once again, let’s take this donkey, and look at it and pretend it is an orange, so we can say an orange is similar to an apple, and so the apple Eve ate is just fine. This is the level of “proof” these Satanists try and slide past you, like a rapist with Rohypnol at the ready for your drink.

But before that, the council in 1415 promulgated the heresy of Conciliarism (Haec Sancta), which does indeed violate at least two infallible dogmas. This error was not corrected until a hundred years and three popes later. None of those men were considered antipopes, and no one thought the Church had apostatised.

Once again, because ERROR is NOT HERESY. You liar. And trying to pretend it is, is a LIE.

The backstop of the Petrine Promises came in the form of the Holy Ghost preventing the proper implementation of plan as was laid out in the document”Frequens” which determined the frequency of councils going forward as having the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church. Again, no one went Sede, no one claimed the Church apostatized. People simply waited, and it was eventually corrected.

Here he just babbles about things obscure to most people, in baby, obfuscating, imprecise, bafflgarble nonsense in the hope it confuses you to become hypnotised into accepting his overall lie.

Aside: The current heresy of Synodality is much worse, of course, because it uses the model of Conciliarism but extends the ruling body to the non-ordained, violating still other infallible dogmas. A laymen attempting to wield ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a heretic by Divine Law.

Oh, you mean EXACTLY like in Sacrosanct Concilium right at the start here, that ALL the fake “Popes” promoted along with the other 15 documents of VII and all their dozens of heresies? Right.

(Everything in the above answer was written by NonVeni Mark.)

And approved by Satan himself.

These people can in no way any longer be thought to be in “error”. Mazza is clearly a Satanic promoter of Freemasonry and the destruction of the real Church, as are people like John Salza and so on.

Ann is instead, to my view, simply a completely prideful and silly woman, who out of sheer arrogance and pride will not admit her fault, which is that 1958 Sedevacantist (and only the Totalises at that) are the only people still following the actual Catholic Church.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

[ X ]

This entry was posted in SubStack. RSS 2.0 feed.