12 thoughts on “Rewind – The Church of Propaganda Is the Counterfeit Conciliar Church”

  1. I agree with Pkc. I read the quote from Father Meinvielle in the person of Pope Benedict XVI, being the Pope of the “visible” Church until 2013, and then the Pope of the “invisible” Catholic Church led by Father Minutella and the Catholics who considered Benedict the Pope until his death, while they were and continued to be persecuted and attacked by the false Catholics to this day. Thank you Pkc, very interesting quote, I will look it up.

    • The Catholic Church must always be “visible”. This is one of her attributes. The Church is “visible” today despite the fact that we are currently in a period of sede vacante.

      • The theory of “one church comprises of two (a true catholic and a false counterfeit) churches” of ia. Fr. Kramer.
        The main problem of this theory is not so much holiness, catholic, apostolic, nor unicity, but visibility (in the sence of Bellarmine).

        What is bizarre paradox that – for the two churches theory, which aims to explain the heresie of V2 to hold – one would need not so much Traditional teaching, but the very teaching of V2 that one is resisting (namely that – whatever it may be – there IS a difference between the Church of Christ and the CC, a modernist invention).

          • Thank you, enlightening. Yes, if visibility is believability of the four marks, as C. Billot puts it, it is an attribute of the true catholic church, as opposed to the conciliar (Fr. K.’s counterfeit) church. There seem to be two options then. Either the conciliar church is an antichurch, in which case the conciliar popes are antipopes and the 1958-sedevacantists are right afterall. Or you introduce the nobelty of a Tyconian concept of two churches under one valid pope. But that’s a novum; pre-V2 catholic dogmatic ecclesiology simply doesn’t permit that position (V1, P10). Bizarre is, that it was V2 where first was promulgated that the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are not identical. A paradox.

            We’re all talking 1962-2013 of course, as after that we have no problem in searching the truth at all. B. is evidently a visible antipope.

              • “This see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error..
                This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. ”
                (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4)

                That can hardly be reconciled with the idea that a valid pope is head of two churches, a true one and a heretic one.

                So the 58sedes were right after all?
                Maybe this is a thought..
                If Fr Kramer is right, and in the Church of the present Hierarchy, subsists both the true Church of Christ as well as – what Father calls – a conterfeit church, and those two are largely intertwined, then one could speak of a church and an antichurch, likewise, the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel, maybe a magisterium and an antimagisterium.
                V2 was largely ambigious and therefore false, but not in all an antimagisterium. Maybe in introducing the concept of a church that is unidentical to the church of Christ, (a novelty), is was – despite its herecies (antimagisterial) – also prohetic (magisterial).

                Likewise, JP2 could, despite bis errors, have been prophetic in saying:

                ““We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through .. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.” The same novelty – that is, in case you accept a valid pope being the head if noth, like Father does. The preconciliar church did not acknowledge that as a possibility.

                • What is the title of Chapter IV? It is “DE ROMANI PONTIFICIS INFALLIBILI MAGISTERIO” (On the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff). What you quoted is what partially introduces and prepares for the definition of papal infallibility, so it is no surprise that it would say such things. However, from the very fact that Vatican I gives the conditions for papal infallibility, we can deduce that if one of these conditions are not met, then the teaching given is not necessarily infallible. Therefore, what you quoted does not exclude the possibility that a pope can be the head of two churches, formally of the Catholic Church and materially of the Conciliar Church.

  2. Interesting prophecy. However, where Gloria.tv quotes: “Father Meinvielle stresses that the same Pope will preside over both Churches”, this could lead to the misunderstanding that this applies to Bergoglio. He cannot be, as he was never validly elected and therefore never Pope. This may well refer to the conciliar popes though.


Leave a Comment