Posted on 07/31/2004 3:18:06 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Thanks for the 'right out loud' laugh, but is this the 'co-author' guy?
The headline gets it wrong. It should be: The Pope thinks he's more Catholic than the all POPES and COUNCILS of the preconciliar Church. The quarrel of these writers is not with traditionalists, it's with the Catholic Church itself--and its teaching Magisterium which John Paul II routinely ignores. It is the Catholic Magisterium which warned against the heresies of indifferentism and syncretism, not traditionalist Catholics! And it's the First Commandment which prohibits worshiping false gods--not us. These writers have a quarrel with true Catholicism, not with us.
Their quarrel is with Catholicism, not with traditionalists. JPII would have no critics if he followed the precepts of preconciliar popes and councils. But he doesn't--he ignores or violates these.
Abortionist at his final judgement, "I didn't kill those hundreds of babies, my scapel did."
Non-sequitur.
According to Columbe, Eliphas Levi, the creator of The Sigil of Baphomet, was an "always faithful Catholic.".
Coulombe, The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism, Gnosis Magazine, Summer 1990:
"One cannot tell with complete accuracy what will happen. But we can know what must happen if the Church is to function properly. She must return to the... magical view of life; and the process of baptizing Hermeticism, interrupted by the Reformation, must be completed."
So the co-author, being a satanist, is like the Robert Byrd and/or conscience of his particular sect of Catholics? Jeepers creepers, a previous satanist? A satanist?
So? Paul of Tarsus murdered Christians, before his conversion.
| St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen |  |
That HORRID crucifix of Montini, "the broken Christ", passed down to Wojytla, was the symbol of the necromancer in the Middle Ages, and truly the fitting staff of the antichrist, which has been prophesised by some saints as being a series of false popes.
"The Holy Father has bent over backwards, with olive branch after olive branch offered to the SSPX to regularize them."
False. Every syllable. The Pope falsely accused the SSPX of schism and ignored its arguments out of hand--which were based on a state of emergency in the Church and a desire to protect the ancient Mass from destruction by modernists. He gave no evidence for his motu proprio--and so wrongly and unjustly accused these good priests of something they had not done--denied his papacy. He based this solely on their disobedience--although disobedience per se was not a schismatic act. In other words, he abused his authority.
The disobedience of the SSPX was principled and was based on what the good fathers and their Archbishop believed is always obligatory for Catholics. To have conceded to the Pope's command would have meant having been complicit in the destruction of Catholic Tradition as they had always understood it and as it had been perennially taught by preconciliar popes and councils--in other words, by Tradition itself. It would have inflicted great harm to the Church and to the souls of the faithful.
It is this conflict between Tradition and the papacy which is at the heart of the crisis. If the Pope believes himself to be lord of Catholic Tradition itself, then he must be disobeyed when he commands what is counter to that Tradition. No man, not even the Pope, is superior to that which has been handed-down to us from the apostles. Even the Pope is the servant of Tradition. But the Pope acts as if his novelties have the force and legitimacy of Tradition. They do not. Unless these teachings and actions are in accord with the Magisterium of the Church which he has received, they are not binding--and should be opposed if they conflict with doctrines already clearly defined.
This is the Pope's dilemma. Since he can't legitimately argue his case, he is silent about what he does and simply pushes his agenda through what is called a "philosophy of practice." He establishes facts on the ground--however much they may be in conflict with official doctrines. And since the Pope refuses to even discuss the situation, or any other fundamental principle of disagreement with the SSPX, it is ludicrous to imagine it is the SSPX priests who are at fault. The Society is obliged in conscience to follow the teachings of the Magisterium handed-down by popes and councils for two thousand years--not the teachings or practices of a pope out of sync with his predecessors.
I've read it all before, UR. You're not going to convince me to follow you away from the Pope.
It is not gossip to indicate that bishops are deficient as spiritual shepherds. It is legitimate criticism, sanctioned by canon law. These men should be above reproach--but most are not and need to be called to a higher standard, particularly when they offend against the faith itself.
You're exactly right.
Little Michael Matt had to ratchet up the rhetoric, continually, to keep the readers lathered up.
Like Michael Moore, the integrist press has to get more and more ridiculous and unbelieveable with each and every accusation made against the Church.
It's just a matter of time before the traditionalists who try to remain within the Church just jump off the cliff with the sedevacantists.
Argue the points I have made. They are reasonable. Show where I am wrong. Your refusal indicates you have no argument--except that the Pope, because he is pope, is always right. That is no argument.
When you find your way back to the Church of Peter, UR, I'll welcome you with open arms.
In contrast the number of false shepherds running rampant in their apostasy is LEGION.
But of course they follow their master below, and his vicar usurping the vatican.
Not true, but I suspected you knew that before you posted.
Does Raymond Hunthausen ring a bell?
"Like Michael Moore, the integrist press has to get more and more ridiculous and unbelieveable with each and every accusation made against the Church."
Specifics, please. They were right to object to Assisi I and II. They were right to object to the liturgical abuses at World Youth rallies. What do you find so offensive in what they complain about? They at least forward a point of view and show some anger towards the moneychangers in the Temple who push the modernist agenda in the Vatican and in chanceries around the world. It's the lukewarm, remember, whom the Holy Spirit will vomit out.
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.
