Posted on 11/25/2004 10:27:28 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
But this Gantin letter was answered, above, and by others. You don't convince anyone by ignoring replies. You have to address them, and consider them.Please do not play games! Please point to where "this Gantin letter was answered, above, and by others." I am not a mind reader.
A false 'Catholic' organization exist in China with the endorsement of its atheist government. That same demonic 'church' is wrongly supported by Wojtyla, and you find no fault with his heretical decision?
Why does your masked evil fail to come to the aid of the true and persecuted Roman Catholic Church in China?
Is Wojtyla not the alleged defender of the One True Faith?
Is it not an abominable sin for Wojtyla to turn his back to true Chinese Latin Roman Catholics, while embracing satanic communist heretics?
Is this the purpose of the false church Wojtyla now leads into hell?
That wasn't the point. What you could learn from reading this particular article by Stephen Hand was that the neo-Catholic slanderers of traditional Catholics were busy claiming that Michael Davies and Archbishop Lefebvre were hand-in-glove throughout Davies life in one place, while over here on FR Hand's pal Sean OL is claiming the opposite, that Davies repudiated Lefebvre.
That they agreed. I think it was Davies who wrote a defense of Lefebvre. But I never heard that Davies made that final connection between the things he described in monographs and books such as, Cranmer's Godly Order, and what even Paul VI referred to as "innovations" falsely promoted in the name of the council, even by Paul VI. Davies believed in what I think is an overbroad sense of indefectibility which had the effect of a total 'infallibility', to the detriment of souls.
Just read what people have written. And don't YOu try to waste their time. Fair?
Firstly:
I see - you're a sedevacantist!
Debating sedevacantists is equivalent to debating Satan!
Satan IS extremely intelligent - some sedes also are very intelligent. The net result is that both Satan AND sedes are "outside the Church".
Secondly:
That I state the it is the Pope's "job" to attempt to reconcile schismatics (including Chinese schismatics AND sedevacantists!) is translated as an "apostacy by the pope."
It is NOT! Christ Jesus instructed His Shepherds to even "leave the 99" in order to bring the "one" back to the fold so that "they may be one".
Begone Satan! I will have none of your insidious drivel!
Just read what people have written. And don't YOu try to waste their time. Fair?
What people? In which post? What text? Generalizations applying to limitless posts is NOT fair!
Here are extracts from specific documents on the excommunication and schism: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex1.htm All the weeping and groaning of SSPX adherents cannot get past the fact of the excommunication. The ONLY thing left open to them is whether the excommunications were "just." However, Our Lord NEVER placed any resprictions on "whatsoever...bind/loose".
You blindly declare you do not have a responsibility to stand against violations of Sacred Dogma by a priest, bishop, or pope. How very V2 of you.
But again, you're as phony as a four-dollar bill. I see it. Everyone sees it. But you don't see it. You blather on about 'sistren and brethren' in your 'new order' 'worthship service'. I know this for a fact. There's a lot of cant, a lot of jargon. And it's obvious you don't mean a word of it. Look at these very messages. Look at your two-faced attitude when it comes to the schismatic Greek. This stuff is plain to see. You're no different than a Carville or a Begala trying to con people into the latest Dem scam.
Now your objections, as such, have long been answered, and were even in these threads. That you continue with such animosity toward Catholics is something you chose to do, as an act of will. It's not holiness you defend or seek. It's chaos and destruction. And I really think you know that, yourself. I don't think I'm telling you something that you don't already know.
"But overall, one has to give him (Davies) credit for always making the best of the situation, and whenever his optimism strayed too far into fantasy, he would eventually correct himself."
Yes, his approach was such that all shades of tradition from tepid to staunch claimed him as one of their own. Quite a remarkable feat among people who are prone to splinter at the slightest inflection! But it was eventually clear where he belonged with his position in the broader Una Voce organisation. This gave him access to certain cardinals in Rome without stopping him from associating with people like the Remnant group. But it would be a pity if his liking of red and purple weakened the impact of his work and we learn of another death-bed retraction or modification.
Read #15,oh heck read the whole thread,many interesting comments.
Recent fruit from a few good bishops:
. . . Archbishop Burke says he'll continue politics-abortion campaign
. . . Bishop Gracida's Twelve Step Program for Bishops
. . . The Latin Mass continues to be nurtured in Phoenix by Bishop Olmsted
A good bishop bears good fruit.
A bad bishop cuts away at the tree.
I went over to the article in the Phoenix Catholic Sun that you provided with your link. It is a good article and the picture shows how beautiful the Church is and how well they were able to adapt. Is there any chance you could start a thread with that article. I think many Catholics would be heartened to see and read such good news!!Thanks!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.