Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk
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?

71 posted on 11/05/2011 4:15:30 PM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: mas cerveza por favor
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.

72 posted on 11/05/2011 11:10:49 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson