TIA,

I would like to weigh in on the tactics that Russia uses to bring the U.S. to its knees. We need to keep in mind that Lenin said we will take the U.S.A. last, and it will not be necessary to fight much for that country as it will fall into our hands like a piece of rotten fruit. He planned to use cultural and societal poison on our nation long before any armies or soldiers come for us.

He also said to his inner circle: We have told the workman of the world to throw down their chains, that they have nothing to lose; but what we have not told them is that we will teach them to make new chains - and not only make them but to love them, asking for more and more chains.

There are those who fear the Federal Goverment and an agency such as Homeland Security more than the Moslems, who were the last group on the world stage that did not fit into the New World Order. We often hear the words "Be Safe," on parting from others, and I can't help but think they are being duped into asking for more chains. Alcatraz, at first a fort, is a fine example of what men do to a country. They either turn it into a fort or castle, as during the Middle Ages, or turn it into a prison. A few men once planned to escape from a Russian concentration camp then gave up the idea. They concluded, why leave the little prison for the big prison?

Our elected officials are in office to keep us free - not to protect us. In fact, the government can't do something for us unless it does something to us. Barack Obama is a trained Marxist, but he is not recognized as one. So he is more of a danger than Mr. Putin or Medvedev, whom we know are more than likely still communists. There was another man who fooled the State Department in Washington when he took over his country yet needed time to consolidate his power. He is Fidel Castro, and he even said the only fear he had was the Catholic Bishops. They failed Cuba during the critical hours and days before Fidel had a firm grip on the country.

     Our Lady of Good Success, Pray for Us.

     S.M.

TIA,

I was Googling for the "Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel", and found your excellent page on that topic.

I was wondering why you say: "this practice was almost completely swept away [...] in the wake of Vatican Council II" (which is sad and true, of course), but you don't mention this:

"On Sunday April 24, 1994, Pope John Paul II recommended this prayer be used by all Catholics" and also here.

I wasn't aware that JPII said that! Shouldn't you mention it on your page? Otherwise, you make it sound like the pseudo-Catholic cretins who gave us "bongo masses" and "inclusive diversity" also include the Pope.

     In Christo,

     S.T., Canada

Hello!

I love this site for it's portrayal of the crisis in Holy Mother Church. I'll be as brief as I can. I recently read a Q/A on the site in which the person asked about "praying with Schismatics", the fact it is forbidden, and then the person mentioned Mass attendance at the SSPX, and their "alleged" Schismatic state. I am a 45 year old male who last year left the Novus Ordo after long deliberations (Am I Schismatic? Am I being disobedient?, etc) and have been attending the local SSPX chapel and feel much better in my soul. I am now intending to be Conditionally Re-Confirmed.

My question is this, because of "political reason", i.e. money, the Chapel I attend is contemplating a re-location which may be out of my way as far as distance is concerned, given my economic situation. In my immediate area, I could still attend the Latin Mass at either of two other site's, these being the local "Indult" parish, the other being the SSPV. My concern is that I know the Indult gives in to Vatican II, on the other hand, isn't the SSPV sede-vacantist? I am not unlike yourselves, in that I don't subscribe to that theory. I had fewer qualms with the SSPX, as they are in some degree of Communion with Rome. I would be a bit afraid of the SSPV for that reason, that they don't have any degree of Communion.

My question would be this: Which would you recommend? I do recall that you said you thought that both SSPX and SSPV were good for Catholics, provided they did not either lean too far to the left, should the SSPX cave into Vatican II, or too far to the right (sede-vacantist) if one should attend the SSPV.

     Thank you and God Bless!

     T.S.

P.S. Mr. Guimaraes, your work is great, Thank you!!




TIA responds:

Hello T.S.,

Thank you for your kind words regarding our website; we are forwarding your message to Mr. Guimaraes.

We are glad to know that you are not sede-vacantist. We, too, recognize the present day Pontiffs as Popes. We hold a position of resistance, however, against their teachings that don't harmonize with the perennial magisterium of the Church.

Regarding which Mass to attend among the traditionalist places you mentioned, you may go to the place your conscience advises, as long as you are sure that true sacraments are being administered.

If the sacraments are valid, the issue, in our view, is transferred to another field. It is the question of whether one should enter into parish life. If the priest obliges every attendee to engage in parish life so that he might control him, as well as his convictions, he is in trouble. He would have to either compromise with Vatican II (FSSP, ICK) or subscribe to the sede-vacantist theory (SPV).

If a person is allowed to attend Mass and leave afterwards, without being forced into parish activities, he is free to go wherever is more practical for him. If pressure is exerted on him or his family in order to persuade him to align with wrong positions, he should look for another place.

We hope this answers your question.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

Follow us

  The Obama Doctrine and Global Tyranny

  Clinton: Ideology Belongs to the Past; Marxists Disagree

  Prayer to St. Michael Archangel

  The Pope Prays with Heretics at the Blue Mosque

  Benedict Practicing "Communicatio in Sacris"

  John Paul II Greets Voodoo Priest at Assisi