Jewish leaders denounce traditionalist's remarks on 'deicide'

cns ^ | October 20, 2011 | John Thavis

[Tzfat]

But I suppose in my favor, I am not anti-Semitic...

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Fortunately in our favor, neither are 98% of those who you would label as such.

[BlackElk]

1. After SSPX is ground into the dustbin of history, you might want to try Pope Michael pf North Dakota. He's young enough to outlast Marcel's schism and he can give you a new venue from which to resist actual popes, God's own Church and God, defying each to "his or its face."

I noticed, as usual, no answers to questions posed. Quelle surprise! What else is new? Schisms and even heresies come and go. The Church itself (the one HQd in Vatican City and not at Econe) persists and will persist as Jesus guaranteed. The gates of SSPX and its ilk will not prevail against it.

SSPX sympathizers should live so long as to witness me conceding ANYTHING to the schism or any of its apologists. Go chug a case of Dos Equis.

Roma Locuta Causa Finita. Marcel et Fellay et Williamson et de Mallerais delenda est.

I am not sure why but I am less hostile to their surviving Hispanic bishop. He is a sort of Hubert Humphrey to their collective George McGovern or Barack Obozo act.

[mas cerveza por favor]

I noticed that you could not answer my questions. I asked, if the present situation "does not constitute an emergency, what does?" No answer. I asked "didn't Vatican II try to pretend that doctrine can be changed and has changed?" No answer. All you could manage were silly insults devoid of any content. I proved that resistance to erroneous popes is venerable and sanctified Catholic tradition. Crickets chirping. Nevertheless, it would be mistaken to expect coherent thought from a self-styled "conservative" defender of liberalism . I shall answer your most recent silly insults even though you failed to address my previous points.

FSSP soooo admired Marcel the grand schismatic that they fled SSPX and returned to Holy Mother the Church.

The founding FSSP fathers were all formed by Archbishop Lefebvre to uphold Tradition by rejecting the Modernism of Vatican II. The FSSP hands down +Lefebvre's teaching in their seminaries, just as +Lefebvre faithfully handed down the teaching he received from Monsignor Le Flock. The FSSP supports the Archbishop's actions up until 1983 as necessary for the preservation of the traditional mass. Any objective observer would certainly agree. The FSSP founders accepted the deal that +Lefebvre rejected, not because they abandoned the Archbishop's cause of restoration, but because they wished to fight that battle from within the regular structure. FSSP fathers still preach against Vatican II from the pulpit, but they have muzzled themselves in their publications. I happily assist at an FSSP mass when traveling. Many from the FSSP happily assist at an SSPX mass when traveling. FSSP priests refuse to say the Vatican II mass.

As a "Traditionalist," dead excommunicated Marcel was on a par with "Pope Michael" of North Dakota and other loons of that ilk. No one did evil to Marcel and his satraps. They got what they deserved from John Paul II and the survivors have so far gotten far better treatment than they deserved from B-XVI.

You had better take back that calumny here and, if you are Catholic, in the confessional. +Lefebvre was made Archbishop and founded his traditionalist seminary with full ecclesiastic approval. It was only when the Modernists realized that he was foiling their evil plans to wipe out the traditional mass that they tried to shut him down. The Archbishop had been one of the most prolific and successful apostles to Francophone Africa and he eventually was elected Superior General of his missionary order, the Holy Ghost Fathers. He was called from retirement by refugees fleeing the takeover of European seminaries by Modernist heretics. Do you deny that the European seminaries were taken over by heretics and are not still heretical to this day, with restored Latin Mass traditionalists being the sole exception? Only a heartless reprobate would fail to empathize with these young men fleeing the heretical seminaries. Heresy, however, was likely the least of their worries. The authoritative "Good Bye Good Men" by Michael Rose documents how seminaries in the West became the stomping grounds of aggressive homosexuals. Seminarian who opposed the Modernist changes were kicked out. I personally know ex0seminarians who were prevented from becoming priests because at diocesan seminaries because they were "too rigid."

In the Age of Faith, these miscreants would have been subjected to a just inquiry and burned at the stake. We live in gentler times and a good thing for them since it prolongs the period during which they may repent as publicly as they have revolted. If Pope St. Pius X were alive and had available the remedies of the Age of Faith, he would certainly burn these chronic malcontents and eccentrics at the stake for impersonating Catholics.

Gentler times? The large-scale sexual abuse of teenage boys and spiritual abuse of everyone else by the plague of homosexuals protected and enabled under Paul6 and JP2 was not gentle. In the Age of Faith, our shepherds felt an obligation to defend their flocks from such abuse. These criminals would have been taken out by the Holy Inquisition, if not first strung up by the peasants. One of JP2's favorite channels of abuse was the "conservative" Modernist cult of the homosexual Marcel Marciel, the Legionaries of Christ. JP2 never tired of promoting the Legionaries as a model of his fatuous "new springtime." JP2 ignored and covered up the documented, credible evidence from sexually abused former Legionary seminarians for decades. It was not until JP2 fell sick that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was belatedly able to begin investigations. This is only one small example among many others. Pope Benedict apologized for the abuse but JP2 never did. That did not stop JP2 from apologizing to every anti-Catholic under the sun for events that took under popes who, unlike JP2, faithfully handed down the same teachings they had received.

John XXIII and Paul VI made prudential errors and they are being corrected no thanks to the sulfuric rage of Marcel and SSPX and SSPX's ceaseless attacks on the Church.

You keep making spurious claims that Archbishop Lefebvre attacked the Church. That never happened. You need to back up or withdraw you calumnious accusations.

Fellay is still presuming to instruct the papacy on Catholicism (flea, elephant's leg, rape in mind). Has de Mallerais gotten control over his infernal mouth yet? Did Marcel die excommunicated and in schism? Were John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II popes or not? Did they have the keys or not? Were any of Marcel and his malcontents ever popes or not? Is Williamson still rampaging against history as well as against Catholic tradition or not?

I fully addressed this issue in my previous post but you failed to answer. I hope you will find the courage to respond this time around. Here it is again:

Our Tradition has always allowed and in fact required that we resist Church officials who distort or fail to pass on the faith, whole and entire. You cannot say that resisting errors apparently sanctioned by popes is wrong. Otherwise you reject St. Athanasius for the Arian heresy sanctioned by (non-St.) Pope Liberius. You must reject St. Paul's resistance against the judaizing of St. Peter. You would accept the Monothelite heresy of the subsequently anathematized Pope Honorius. Some modern respecters of persons have said that St. Paul was unique in history in that nobody else can get away with saying "I resisted him to his face" (Gal 2:11) to a reigning pope. But for almost 2000 years until Vatican II, all Catholics followed St. Paul's admonition "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8) Therefore, Catholics have always demanded that their leaders be able to say with Paul "For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me" (1 Cor 15:3). And indeed all real Catholics still do heed St. Paul's admonition by demanding unambiguous conformance to Tradition from leadership. If a leader fails or appears to fail in this regard, it is incumbent upon laymen and religious to resist alongside the Apostles, Saints, and Martyrs.

As to non-Catholics (including SSPX?) having a "right" to embrace their religions, we Catholics have a name for it: free will. We are not Calvinists. We are not Feeneyites. We draft no one and we leave it to God to judge each person including ourselves.

You are saying that the 2000-year-old teaching of the Church, that error has no rights, is Calvanist? Think again.

God knows better than you and better than Marcel and better than me. Don't you think?

Vatican II pretended that it knew better than the constant teaching of God's Church. The Holy Spirit does not change His mind. The only "crisis" experienced by Marcel and his mad hatters at the hands of the Vatican was that their infernal ids were stylistically offended

You are still denying the existence of a crisis? You yourself admitted that you almost left the Church to join the Russian schism. You may think that the crisis has gone away but it appears to me that you really have only seared your conscience to the crisis out of respect for persons. What gives you such disdain against shepherds faithfully handing down what they have received?

Whatever will you folks do when JP II is canonized and Pio Nono and even John XXIII?

These two must have elevated many times more Modernists and homosexuals to the episcopacy than any of their predecessors. You can have them--patron saints of homos and heretics.

Marcel is a hindrance and not a help but we shall have our Mass back as the norm sooner or later and the sooner the better (which probably requires Fellay, de Mallerais, Willimason, Gallaraga and their minions to dry up and blow away). maybe the miscreants will go the way of the "liberation theologians," of Charles Curran, of Fr. Drinan, etc.

It is your beloved Modernists that will dry up an blow away. +Lefebvre will canonized for defending the Faith just like Athanasius before him.

If you make it to heaven and find Protestants or Jews or popes of whom you do not approve there, will you ask God for permission to leave or just try to escape lest the Teaching Magisterium of Marcel and you be transgressed without your resisting God to His Face?

If I make it to heaven I will count my blessings. Unlike Modernists, I do not believe that getting to heaven is easy .

[mas cerveza por favor]

I noticed, as usual, no answers to questions posed. Quelle surprise! What else is new? Schisms and even heresies come and go.

BlackElk, I have responded to all your questions many days ago but you still have not responded to mine.

[BlackElk]

Since you insisted at #65:

"I noticed that you could not answer my questions."

ANSWER: You actually noticed that I DID NOT answer your questions.

You: asked, if the present situation "does not constitute an emergency, what does?"

ANSWER: Jesus Christ, founder of the Roman Catholic Church (not of your schism but of the Church) promised to be with the Church all days until the end of the world. It was in all the Bibles. With the backing of Jesus Christ, we suffer no genuine crises even if dead excommunicated Marcel and his colleagues were grabbing the lapels of anyone foolish enough to listen to them bleating: "My word (certainly not His Word), man don't you see that this IS a CRISIS???" Instead of taking an apparently needed sedative, Marvelous Marcel and his partners in grand theft ecclesiastical, massacred their vows of obedience, figuratively spit in the face of Pope (as in successor of Peter in possession of the keys) John Paul II and he excommunicated them and declared them in schism which was a good down payment on what they deserved. Nowadays, it is considered de classe to burn their likes at the stake after a thorough, ummm, inquiry as to their perfidy.

YOUR CLAIM: You "proved" that resistance to erroneous popes is venerable and sanctified Catholic tradition.

ANSWER: You pointed out, as I recall the rare instance of error in discipline and not of dogma having to do with St. Athanasius and the Arian heresy. If St. Athanasius had not been in the right, he would not have gained his new first name "St." by later canonization by a POPE. How wrong some pope MAY have been in discipline and not in dogma may be a matter of modern speculation by those serving their own interests by grasping at any straw to discredit a papacy whose righteous discipline of the dead excommunicated Marcel and his partners in ecclesiastical crime. See Vatican I or do you deny that Council as well. There is not enough sugar in the world to help the LeFebvrite schismatics get that justified medicine down.

YOUR CLAIM: it would be mistaken to expect coherent thought from a self-styled "conservative" defender of liberalism.

ANSWER: Those who adhere to the schism of dead excommunicated Marcel are in no position to define "conservative" or "liberal" or anything else in Church terms.

BTW, I don't recognize your annoying habit of putting + before each mention of the archschismatic Marcel. I am guessing you imagine him a saint of your, ummm, religion. He is no saint. Nor was Luther nor Zwingli nor Cauvin nor Henry VIII nor other famous revolutionaries against the papacy. If you think Marcel will ever be canonized, take some good advice: Don't hold your breath.

BTW II: Your SSPX co-religionists in England are reported to claim that B-XVI's proposed agreement will be rejected by the artificial magisterium of Fellay, de Mallerais, Williamson, et al. That comes as a welcome relief. One hopes that B-XVI will abandon the hobby of trying to give SSPX gifts that SSPX and its minions are determined not to earn or deserve. To the woodshed go since the stake is no longer in use.

BTW III: What a schismatic sympathizer terms "silly insults" are merely the uncomforting truth told to the schismatics by the faithful.

ADDITIONAL CLAIMS/QUESTIONS and My ANSWERS:

FSSP priests "formed by" the delusions of Marcel, nonetheless retauined enough of their original Catholic and non-schismatic Faith to return to Rome and to reject Marcel and his works and his pomps (as the saying goes). Marcel REJECTED a central "tradition" of his own vows of obedience and those of four priests consecrated by him and Antonio de Castro Meyer by blatantly disobeying specific papal commands by John Paul II (or the Great as I anticipate). There was ABSOLUTELY no legitimate excuse for ordaining bishops against papal orders. No bishop will receive permission to ordain lesbians or even women as priests much less as bishops. Apparently Rome suspended Marcel's authority to ordain priests (much less consecrate bishops) in 1976 or so.

I have no idea who Monsignor Le Flock may have been but I fear hat I am about to find out. Since there have been no french popes lately (whatever Marcel may have imagined as to himself in the "emergency"), I trust that here is no claim of papal authority attaching to Le Flock to disagree with popes on matters of doctrine. Thus, he may safely be ignored.

I rather doubt that FSSP is teaching its priests to defy papal authority or they would again be out in the schismatic cold as their predecessors were under Marcel.

Dead excommunicated Marcel was not excommunicated until he launched outright ecclesiastical revolution against the papacy by consecrating his fellow miscreants as bishops. That was in 1988. If FSSP would have originally fallen for the drivel that there is some sort of emergency (presumably beyond the power of Jesus Christ Himself to thwart which must have been Marcel's belief in leaving the Church). What are you seeing as significant between 1983 and the 1988 decree of Ecclesia Dei by JP II which excommunicated LeFebvre and his illicitly but validly consecrated bishops.

Are you praising FSSP priests on the one hand by claiming that they continue to agree with dead excommunicated Marcel but only from the pulpit while not committing such views to writing??? You are fully delusional. Do you remember the uproar when the leadership of FSSP said that its priests would be allowed to say Novus Ordo Masses? I do not favor the Novus Ordo but I recognize it as fully valid because, after all, several popes have said so, and that trumps dead excommunicated Marcel.

There may well be heretics involved with the leadership of SOME European seminaries. What else is new? Jansenist heretics ran the French seminaries that trained all of the Irish seminarians from Ireland during Brit persecutions and taught that receipt of the Holy Eucharist more than once per year (when required by the Church) was sinful and that sexuality, even between husband and wife, even for procreation, was always sinful. Whatever may be going on in Europe at SOME seminaries today is not an equivalent of Jansenism. Nor as bad as the "traditionalist" (which is to say SSPX schismatic) seminaries teaching at least by example that defiance of popes is "traditional" for the whim of the week club of schismatics. Why do seminarians go to SSPX seminaries when they cannot be lawfully ordained by the bishops of Marcel's cult? In short, I certainly deny your insane claim that only the SSPX schismatics are running the only non-heretical seminaries in Europe. Such claims on behalf of the schism do not enhance the schism's credibility or yours.

I must be a heartless reprobate because I do not empathize with the seminarians you reference (if they fled to SSPX and the schism). Right, chief!

Michael Rose's Goodbye, Good Men and the abuses it details as to the manifest shortcomings of the Jadot/Bernardin era seminaries in the USA are beside the point and NOTHING perpetrated by Marcel ever relieved that problem in the slightest. I also know seminarians (looked like sound priestly prospects to me) who were forced out because they were "too rigid" which, of course, is to say the actually impossible: too Catholic. One was attending the North American College in Rome itself.

You may recall that the Age of Faith was not perfect either. If you think otherwise, prove its perfection by explaining the reasons for the Cluniac Reform of the Benedictine Order. Today, we could use a personal Cluniac Reform of former Benedictine Abbot and all purpose miscreant Archbishop Rembert Weakland (thankfully retired). Weakland's problems were other than joining with your schism but in joining with other men. Other than Jesus and Mary, all are sinners but not as spectacularly as Weakland OTOH or the schism leaders on the other (for entirely different reasons).

As to Legionaries, I have known several and they are and were men's men.

Speaking of calumny, I will take Fr. Hardon's definition that it is the taking away of the reputation of another by false charges. I stand by my statements. You should re-examine as calumny your generally expressed contempt and that of the schism for Blessed Pope John Paul II and of Blessed Pope John XXIII and of Blessed Pope Pius IX all of blessed memory.

If Marcel the Magnificent did not believe in Religious Freedom, why did he, as a Vatican II Council Father, sign off on its Declaration on Religious Liberty when he had the alternative of not doing so.

You have not touched the paragraph starting with: "Fellay is still presuming...." None of your "response" is a response to that paragraph. All you do is provide a litany of the usual Reformation excuses for resisting the popes and the Church. Neither you nor Marcel are St. Paul or St. Athanasius or any others you cite. No One died and left you or Marcel or any other schismatic the authority to judge popes.

Get used now to the inevitable and joyous occasion: SAINT John Paul the Great. SAINT Pius IX; SAINT John XXIII. Also get used to the fact that there will never be a canonized Marcel LeFebvre.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia!

Roma locuta. Causa finita!

Unless you have something else which you imagine relevant to justify rebellion against the Church, stop wasting my time with impertinent and schismatic drivel.

[mas cerveza por favor]

My first response to your previous barrage of unsupported assertion was short. I only gave a detailed response after you taunted me to do so. This time I will limit my response to this short post only, especially since you flat out refuse to address the issue of heresy except by downplaying the worldwide homosexual infiltration and conflating homosexuality with Modernist (as the term was defined by St. Pius X) heresy.

For the record, I must demand that you either back up your specious charge against me of calumny of withdraw it. It is not that I expect you are honorable enough to support accusation with evidence, but I demand it for the record.

[Religion Moderator]

Don't make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[BlackElk]

We have had SSPX wars on here forever. The best of your breed was ultima ratio who seems to be long gone. You are not up to being his hod carrier. The fact that you insist on clinging to the nasty little SSPX schism does not mean that actual Catholics have any obligation to entertain your pretensions of Catholicism.

Homosexual pederasty and homosexuality generally have certainly been a problem and probably persist although with heightened attention to their presence in the clergy. That having been said, it also serves the purposes of the Church's enemies (and obviously of that particular enemy which is SSPX) to endlessly resort, as you do, to the scandals as a cudgel with which to beat Holy Mother the Church as though it were somehow Vatican policy to encourage homosexual perversion and child abuse. After all, without the scandals, what credible attacks could you launch??? That is why both SSPX and the actual Modernists (such as the National "Catholic" Reporter crowd) never cease to whine, moan, bitch and groan about the scandals. As promised by the very highest Authority, the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (which, you will recall, is HQd in the Vatican and not at infamous Econe).

Nobody died and left me or you (or dead excommunicated Marcel for that matter) in charge of discerning and indicting heresy. Blessed John Paul II, however, was the pope and he had ample authority and used it to point out the obvious that Marcel and Company were schismatics and to be excommunicated.

There are many scandals in the history of the Church: Alexander VI being a particularly egregious example, or the scandals surrounding the treatment of the corpse of Pope Formosus followed by the Cadaver Synod, the matter of Marozia and Popes John X and John XI, etc. etc., etc. That there are individual sinners in high places is no surprise and by no means unprecedented in Church history. That does not authorize the malicious schismatic chronic malcontents like Marcel, Fellay, de Mallerais, Williamson, Gallerata, et al. to attack the Church itself with their delusional nonsense, nor you to adhere to and promote that delusional nonsense. Next you will be telling us that Cardinal Siri was elected pontiff ("Gregory XVII) at the conclave of 1958 and that all popes elected starting with John XXIII are antipopes. Of course, that would make you an admitted sede vacantist.

Demand square circles if you like. That "demand" would be far more likely to succeed. I don't remember "conflating homosexuality with Modernist heresy." That is the stance of SOME of the Church's enemies like SSPX and not of the Church's members and defenders.

I suppose that, in order to be guilty of calumny you would have to possess the ability to recognize the truth. You may feel free to use your lack of that ability as a defense to a willful evil like calumny. Of course, as in civil law as to libel and slander, truth is a complete defense to the charge of calumny. By definition, that defense is unavailable to the schjismatics of SSPX. Having the truth as the schism does not means not having to cave to your pretentious "demands."

Have another beer in anticipation of the canonizations of John Paul II, John XXIII and Pius IX [and hopefully Pius XII, Isabella of Spain and Emperor Charles I (Karl) and his wife Empress Zita].

Whether or not I am regarded as "honorable" by the mad hatters of SSPX is of little concern. The "record" is a figment of your imagination which is obviously working overtime without any "record." I flat out refuse to entertain the farce that your schismatic nonsense is other than schismatic nonsense.

Bear in mind that by propagandizing for the schism here, you are seeking these exchanges. If the truth offends you, tooooo bad! And BTW, I was in serious study of Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane by the time of the abuses "in the spirit of Vatican II" and have not deviated. Marcel and Tyrrell and Loisy were kindred spirits in that each launched attacks on the Church albeit from differng directions. Pope St. Pius X would have burned Marcel at the stake if Marcel's crimes occurred during Pope St. Pius X's tenure as pope and the remedies of the Middle Ages had still been available. And rightfully so.

If you consider yourself taunted, I can assure you that you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

Roma locuta. Causa finita!

[BlackElk]

I had not seen your #68 before posting #69. I have not taken personal offense but I will comply.

[mas cerveza por favor]

I suppose that, in order to be guilty of calumny you would have to possess the ability to recognize the truth. You may feel free to use your lack of that ability as a defense to a willful evil like calumny.

So you have nothing but sophistry to back up your charge of calumny. If you had evidence, you would copy and paste it from my previous posts. It is obvious that you hastily cried calumny because you could not deal with the facts I put forth.

I was in serious study of Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane by the time of the abuses "in the spirit of Vatican II" and have not deviated.

Are you saying that you understand and accept these two encyclicals? This from PDG: "13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles." Do you still think that a pope or a council has the power to change dogma? In that case the label of Modernist would apply, according to St. Pius X.

The typical pseudo-conservative response is to say "That was then, this is now. All that was changed by the recent popes." What was changed? The definition of Modernist or the anathemas against Modernism? When and where were these changes made? Or were the encyclicals of St. Pius X (and every other pope) simply ignored at Vatican II? BTW, the encyclicals of JP2 almost never quote from any source prior to Vatican II. Why do you think that is?

[BlackElk]

This is the usual case of the tail trying to wag the dog. No Catholic need have any concern whatsoever for the essentially dishonest party line of Marvelous Marcel, the dead excommunicated schismatic and ring leader of the SSPX circus.

Do you think that Cardinal Siri was elected by the 1958 conclave as Gregory XVII?

Do you think that the Holy See has been vacant ever since?

Do you think that Angelo Cardinal Roncalli was elected and served as Pope John XXIII?

Do you think that Giovanni Cardinal Montini was elected and served as Pope Paul VI?

Do you think that Albino Cardinal Luciani was elected and served as Pope John Paul I?

Do you think that Karol Cardinal Wojtyla was elected and served as Pope John Paul II?

Do you recognize that Pope John Paul II excommunicated your demigod of anti-papal rebellion and offended tastes and id Marcel Lefebvre and his pals and fellow miscreants Fellay, Williamson, de Mallerais, Gallarata (sp.?) and de Castro Mayer and declared SSPX as schismatic?

Did Josef Cardinal Ratzinger as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bernardin Cardinal Gantin as head of the Congregation for Bishops fully participate in and approve the actions taken in Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II?

Do you think that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger was elected and serves as Pope Benedict XVI upon the death of John Paul II?

Did Pope Benedict XVI lift the excommunications of the still living SSPX bishops (not LeFebvre or de Castro Mayer)?

I have a life to live and it does not require the waste of my time engaging you over the delusions of the SSPX schismatics. It is my sincere hope that each and every one be firmly and finally excommunicated for his/their decades pong attack on the Church and its popes. I am no more interested in encouraging you to publicly chew on the old schismatic slipper than you are in listening to and obeying legitimate Church authority (that would be in the Vatican and NOT at Econe). The SSPX is to Catholicism what the "Westboro Baptist Church" and the "Rev. Mr." Fred Phelps is to Christianity: a gross embarrassment, a hideous parody and nothing more except that SSPX is in possession of apostolic succession by virtue of grand theft ecclesiastical on the false premise of some alleged crisis (i. e. their tastes are offended and they just had to act since they could not get their way and were fresh out of rattles to throw around their playpen).

"Could not deal with the 'facts'" you put forth???? If you were putting forth "facts," then the leaders you got those "facts" from would not have been excommunicated and, with their adherents, declared schismatic. No One authorized Marcel, de Mallerais, Fellay, Williamson, Gallerata, de Castro Mayer or you to decide matters of dogma on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

The schismatic SSPX priests have no faculties to hear confessions except in actual emergencies (such as hearing the confession of an accident victim at death's door). They have no authority to witness marriages on behalf of the actual Roman Catholic Church. They are phonies and frauds to pretend otherwise.

You may leave now and conspire with the SSPX. What you may not do is further waste my time.

[mas cerveza por favor]

No Catholic need have any concern whatsoever for the essentially dishonest party line of Marvelous Marcel, the dead excommunicated schismatic and ring leader of the SSPX circus. [...] If you were putting forth "facts," then the leaders you got those "facts" from would not have been excommunicated and, with their adherents, declared schismatic.

Anything objectively provable by evidence is a fact. As is typical for a modernist, you retreat to subjectivism when you cannot handle objective facts. At least you seem to have tacitly admitted thees facts by abandoning your previous charge of calumny. To wit, your JP2 "the great:"

• started the practice of altar girls (after promising Mother Theresa he would not do so)
• along with Paul6, appointed an unprecedented number of homosexuals and homo-abuse enablers to the episcopacy (JP2's number was
• equal to or greater than that of Paul6)
• favored pagan, homo-erotic dancers at his trademark, traveling-show masses
• extolled and protected the homo-abusing head of Legionaries of Christ for decades after numerous, reliable allegations of abuse from former seminarians
• promoted the admitted, intentional homo-abuse enabler Cardinal Law to the position where Law fittingly presided over one of JP2's funeral masses
• apologized profusely for the reigns of popes whose shoes he was not fit to tie while never apologizing for his own unprecedented crimes
• kissed the Koran
• received the third eye of Shiva upon his forehead
• ...and much more

The rampant and on-going homo abuse is a huge problem, but it is only one symptom of the much larger modernist heresy. Regarding your questions about the legitimacy of papal elections, that will have to be decided upon by a council after the chastisement and triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as foretold at Fatima. I am not fully convinced by the sedevacantist argument, therefore I must assume the recent popes are popes until it is proven otherwise.

[steve86]

Morning/afternoon, mas cerveza por favor. It’s been a pleasure this morning to read everything you’ve written.

[BlackElk]

Have you guys thought about recruiting Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit or that recently deposed Australian bishop from Tooowomba? They hate the papacy too. And each was lawfully (though foolishly) consecrated as a bishop.

Get them to consecrate Pope Michael of North Dakota.

There are plenty more moonbats out there and there is no reason why they should hot be part of SSPX.

I'm betting you are not looking forward to the canonization of John Paul the Great like all actual Catholics are.

[mas cerveza por favor]

First Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me

[Zionist Conspirator]

1)There's no such thing as "deicide." G-d can't be killed. The word itself is nonsense, like "square circle."

2)That being said, why do Jewish leaders care what another religion teaches? And for that matter, why run from the accusation when Jsus was a Jew answerable to Jewish authority and was guilty of a capital offense (blasphemy)?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Karl Marx having himself baptized Catholic as a young teenager before becoming a Satanist in college

Got a source for that amazing statement?

Marx never "had himself baptized Catholic." When he was a boy his father had himself and his entire family (including young Karl) baptized into the Lutheran church simply so he could practice law in Lutheran Prussia. The elder Marx took neither religion seriously, even though he was descended from generations of pious Jews. He became a victim of the "enlightenment."

The younger Marx (Karl) was apparently quite pious at one time (in Lutheranism), but was seduced by the Doktor Klub and the Young Hegelians, who have long been rumored to have practiced "satanic" rituals. This included misspelling the holy name "'Eloqim" into "Oulanem" . . . which served as title to a poem Marx wrote later.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Re your post #51:

One of the greatest things I have ever read! Thank you!!

Some people aren't going to like it, I'm afraid (particularly Jews who don't like being Jewish and who want to pretend that the Jewish mission was started by Thomas Jefferson). And considering some of the things Foxman as said over the years, I don't think he would like it either.

Good!

[BlackElk]

I am going with Malachi Martin on this one.

Additionally, Malachi Martin claimed that Oulanem was a specific demon in the Vatican's demonology and one whom Marx worshiped in his Doktor Klub days and that he wrote a play as to the end of the world in flame and mass annihilation in homage to Oulanem.