Posted on 11/23/2005 11:01:06 AM PST by NYer
If and when, and may it NEVER be the case, a pope should modify leniently or remove the judgment of schism against SSPX and the excommunication of its adherents (this means YOU),
Quote: "I have never suggested that anyone was excommunicated for merely ATTENDING an SSPX schizzie Mass which is, after all, a Mass." --Black Elk
When the day comes and a Pope declares the truth of the situation. Namely that JPII was wrong, I wonder what you'll do that day when you are confronted with Catholicism and not your utterly ridiculous ideas about the papacy. I wonder what intellectual gyrations you'll attempt to make.
get back to actual Catholics with the news but make sure it was printed in L'Osservatore Romano and not in such schismatic propaganda rags as The Angelus or the Remnant which have no more credibility than does the National antiCatholic Reporter.
Oh but those are merely your opinions. And your opinions don't exist. You can't possibly know a fact unless the Pope has verified for you with his papal impeccability, his irresistibility and his all around perfect charism. A Pope hasn't condemned any of the above publications. And you strange fruit of catholicism doesn't allow you to think for yourself.
You can tell the quality of a person by the enemies the person keeps.
Really? Now can you? By all means explain how this is a fact. Or is this just another lame cliche' you are tossing around?
It is. Don't worry. I know that already.
I am proud to have you and the other schizzies as enemies.
Pride is definitely not lacking. Knowledge however......
Which pope....has reversed Pope John Paul II's judgment of schism and excommunication against you guys?
None yet. But can you admit with a simple "yes" or "no" that a Pope can declare the so-called schism and self-excommunications null?
(that would be someone who has reached the level of Vicar of Christ on Earth
And what does that mean? That he is correct and irresistible in everything he says and does? Because if it does, that means that you will have to assume that any Pope who does nullify JPII's errors is a heretic.
nothing to do with Econe
Are you saying that the Pope is not the superior of Econe? That's a denial of papal jurisdiction.
nothing to do with spitting on the papacy/
You mean like JPII did?
not an excommunicated bishop or archbishop
Real or fake excommunications? There is a difference.
not some Vatican bureaucratic subordinate but an actual pope)
Blasphemy! How dare you question the appointments of the Vicar of Christ on Earth, The Supreme Pontiff, Patriarch of the West, Servant of the Servants of Christ?
That could ONLY have been JP II or B-XVI. Pope/date/document officially promulgated???? Oh, that's right, neither of them. May that continue to be the case until you all submit to being frog-marched through Vatican Square in sackcloth, ashes and utter humiliation as you deserve and weep oceans of tears begging and pleading for mercy from the papacy that you all revile.
You are about 5 years too late. The SSPX has already marched through the Vatican, said Mass in defiance of Modernism, made the Curial officials that have some faith left know just how far the Vatican has fallen and shown the lie that is the Vatican II era for all to see.
It is TRUTH that SSPX adherents were adjudged EXCOMMUNICATED by JP II and that SSPX was declared and adjudged a SCHISM by him.
No. It's not. It's not even accurate. They were judged by JPII to have excommunicated themselves. That is true. The next question is, Was JPII correct in this? Answer: No. Anyone who has a brain can see this.
You do not like your sentence as an "adherent" any more than Scott Peterson liked being sentenced to physical death for the murder of his wife and child, but it is TRUE whether you happen to like it or not.
Another feeble attempt at guilt by association. It's like trying to tar the papacy itself and the reign of St. Pius X with comparing it to JPII's reign.
(Douses Gerard P. in Holy Water/Gerard P. does the Wicked Witch of the West routine from similar circumstances with plain water. He's mellllllting!!!!!).
"Did you hear us Mr. Simpson?" Black Elk answers, "la, la, la.... the land of chocolate.... D'oh!!!"
Can the flying schizzie monkeys of dead Marcel be far behind?
You must be mistaking a papal Mass of JPII or World Youth Day for something else.
Ecclesia Dei. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.
Ah yes. Another out of context cliche' that is somehow supposed to make a point.
For about the four millionth time, I have never suggested that anyone was excommunicated for merely ATTENDING an SSPX schizzie Mass which is, after all, a Mass.
A bit conflicted in your opinions, aren't you?
If it were NOT a Mass the crimes of Marcel et al. would be misdemeanors and no one,
What about the crimes of the Popes? Would you like to go over the list? Malfeasance is a serious crime.
but no one, would bother paying attention to the slime who follow him in schism.
So classy your eminence. But again irrelevant since no schism actually exists.
Since the late and quite thoroughly excommunicated archbishop Marcel took it upon himself in lunacy (ohhhhh, it was an emergency!!!!! Marcel might not get his petulant way in resisting the Church and vindicating his rebellious tastes)
If that isn't evidence of an emergency.....You seriously think there is no crisis in the Church? Eminence, you are insane if you believe that.
or in ecclesiastical criminality to choose and consecrate bishops against the DIRECT ORDERS of John Paul II
Thank God for archbishop Marcel LeFebvre: "Hammer of Heretics, Scourge of destructive Popes."
AND since Marcel, as a duly consecrated bishop, had the power but not the right to consecrate his co-conspirators as bishops
The salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church. So, because of the malfeasance of the Popes, he did have the right. You want to arrest a man and punish him for trespassing when he pulled the firehouse out and dragged it across the lawn of the burning house.
to the infernal delight of their aiders, abettors and adherents, those consecrated co-conspirators are bishops,
And to the horror of the demonically inspired enemies of the Church that breathe in the smoke of Satan in the "highest" levels of the Church.
though illicitly so, and they have the power to ordain other rebellious nuisances as priests, though illicitly so.
Yes. Priests. Real priests who have always been the targets of those who are trying to destroy the Church.
This coterie of the excommunicated then become the near occasion of schismatic sin
Listen to these word inventions. We've got a regular Tielhard de Chardin here.
for the dupes whose tastes have been offended or who have been wounded in some way by the liberal enthusiasms that are found in AmChurch,
Another word invention. "Liberal enthusiasms" (not attacks on the Church) that have been approved by the local ordinaries who are supposedly "in communion" with the Vicar of Christ in Rome who is equally guilty of "liberal enthusiasms."
whereupon they all get together in their phonebooth chapels
Better to be in a phonebooth and give God his due than to worship the false idol of Man in a Cathedral which promotes ecumenical indifferentism.
and have a mutual sniffles party over those nasty Catholics who just REFUSE TO SYMPATHIZE
No. It's more like pity and prayers for the blind.
with the errors of St. Marcel the Excommunicated.
St. Marcel. God willing, I'll see the cause in my lifetime.
Does the Remnant offer aid and comfort to the schism????? Of course, it does.
Truth can indeed be comforting.
The Matt family is dissolving in incoherent SSPXism on the part of the Remnant publisher.
"51 Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. 52 For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51-53
Citing the Remnant as authority, is like saying: SSPX is not schismatic just because some pope said so.
Eminence, when did I cite the Remnant as an authority? "just because some pope said so?" But that's your source of the newest and most hip edition of this week's "truth". How can you use that as a comparison?
After all, Marcel the Malignant denied being a schismatic before death and what reason would he have to lie???? Ummmm, every reason!
That is not a reasonable assumption.
There are diocesan priests who commit many sins, including comforting the schismatic.
Are there Popes and Cardinals who do the same with Protestants? The Orthodox? The Jews? The Muslims?
That does not make their sins virtues or your sins virtues either.
Why don't you apply that criteria to the recent Popes? You seem to love their sins and think them virtuous.
This is quite likely the result of a sort of perverted cherry-picking to find the worst windtunnel diocesan priests who will accept you (I'm OK/You're OK/you know the type and you can find them.)
Actually, it's quite a variety. One was a modernist heretic from a Maronite Church, another very orthodox, another modern-minded but doctrinally obedient, another conservative. (Fr. K was concerned when I told him about the SSPX that I might be going to a schismatic Mass and after answering questions that he posed, he said it was better than most of the local parishes.)
No pope has ruled the sun a cube whatever your schism leaders may be telling you.
No, but they have ruled on things about which were equally untrue.
If one did, it would be no more significant or infallible than a papal prediction of tomorrow's weather.
Just like JPII's false allegations against the saintly archbishop Marcle LeFebvre.
It is not a matter of faith and morals like, well, excommunicating schismatics and declaring their movement in schism.
That is not a matter of faith and morals, that is a matter of Church discipline, which he can abuse. He cannot be infallible on this. The Pope Stephen vs. Pope Formosus trial is evidence enough of that.
If you are going to spit upon the doctrine of infallibility, at least get a clue as to what it means.
Would you care to go over the doctrine with me Eminence? I'm sure I'll learn quite a lot as you skip over the word "true" in Vatican I when it refers to obedience.
The mere fact that your cult lacks a pope does not justify your ignorance of doctrine.
No. My "cult" has a Pope. But we know him and his recent predecessors for the conflicted weaklings that they are/were. What exactly am I ignorant of eminence? It would be really fascinating a test to see if you really could put your "money where your mouth" is on these issues. You've chickened out numerous times before. I fully expect you to make up some weakling's excuse for not backing up your statements again.
Marshmallow:
You also subscribe to this theory, strangely enough. In your case, however, it applies only to certain Pope's. The popes of your choosing. Or else archbishops and bishops of uncertain pedigree.
Care to back that one up?
How about that deranged piece you've just written?
How about that deranged piece you've just written?
Nah. That won't cut it. You see, you'd have to actually back up that what I'd just written was deranged. But you simply aren't capable of doing that. All you do is waste everyone's time. Go make your Christmas wish list and let others that are more capable do the posting. Okay?
Great stuff. I love this game.
You put on your tiara, pretend you're the Pope and wag your finger at us.
It's enormously entertaining when you puff yourself up.
Keep trying Marshy,
You think a person can't add two and two and state it without having to wear the tiara.
And I'm actually stunned that it's so obvious you can't make a reasonable argument at all. You simply are incapable of it. You can only bloviate and exaggerate and engage in histrionics. You must be a post Vatican II bishop along with your "brother bishop". Only that would explain this level of ignorance.
Haven't you got a Pope somewhere that needs your advice?
Your stay at Angel-whatsit doesn't appear to have improved your stability.
Yeah we're all so hopeless, aren't we?
Nope. But that doesn't mean that you make any well-reasoned arguments.
Haven't you got a Pope somewhere that needs your advice?
Not a bad idea. My advice in these days would be far better than your fawning and sycophantic behavior. Not because of any greatness on my part, but only because it would be for him to imitate his greatest predecessors. St. Pius X, St. Pius V, Boniface VIII. Nicholas the Great etc.
Your stay at Angel-whatsit doesn't appear to have improved your stability.
Again, another essentially worthless statement that shows you are incapable of relying on a solid argument.
"I'll wipe the floor with you" seems to be your motto.
This is WWE smack-talk, not reasoned debate.
Here's some more smack-talk. Prove me wrong. That shouldn't be hard for you, right?
Here's how:
All you have to do is quote from your own posts what I'm supposed to reasonably debate with.
Post something worthwhile and I'll debate you.
Post something worthless and you'll get the smackdown talk.
You've long ago drowned yourself in your own self-aggrandizing rhetoric.
How would you know what "fair" and "reasonable" even means?
Show me some of your "fair" and "reasonable" posts.
You say I've drowned myself in my own self-aggrandizing rhetoric? Well once again, I'll simply ask you to prove it. Post some examples.
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.