Replies

St.Chuck and sinkspur, I notice neither of you, or others of your ilk, EVER attempt to refute the FACTS - BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

I refuted the claim that Chris Ferrara is a reporter. He described the events at the canonization as "insane", which is a subjective comment, worthy of an editorialist. He is not, nor ever been objective, so to describe him as some kind of journalist with any legitmacy is erroneous, and needed to be pointed out.I suspect you would do the same thing had you noticed.

More generally, facts don't necessarily need to be disputed. What is more pressing is the (in)significance, (lack of)meaning, and (mis)application of facts by some people. Take this fact from Ecclesia Dei:

" In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

I don't need to refute it. It is crystal clear to me what it means. But for some, it means that the authority and primacy of the Vicar of Christ is illegitimate. For others it means the French bishops are really in control. These are the things that need to be refuted.

Instead like your father, the Father of Lies, you attempt to divert attention from the facts, ignore the truth, chip away slowly like all heretical liberals at the Deposit of the Faith, and basically gnash your teeth, rent your garments and generally foam at the mouth in indignation whenever the light of day reveals your nefarious actions.

You don't like my posts.

You've been given a free pass by the real Catholics on this list for much too long. Your tactics with them in every posting are to pressure them to concede as much territory to the right as possible or to separate themselves from brother Catholics. As Pope Pius XI said, there are no enemies on the right.

The political spectrum is circular. The far right, let's say libertarians, can have leftist or liberal tendencies.Drug legalization is one example where leftists and the far right come together. As well, leftists can have fascist qualities. Socialism and communism are leftist philosophies with large doses of totalitarianism. In the case of right wing schismatics in the church, they have moved around the circle to join the Call to Action and We are Church crowd. They all share the same elements of cafeteria Catholicism that puts them in a precarious position. They all reject certain elements of the Magesterium. Yes, the pope is once again right. There are no enemies on the right.

You hold on to Ecclesia Dei as though it were Sacred Scripture. But it cannot undo, and did not undo, Canon Law, which is also the Pope's word. And these canons provide that a State of Necessity can void an excommunication. These were clearly the canons Archbishop Lefebvre knew exonerated him. But even if they did not exist, the Doctors of the Church themselves have taught that a command to harm the Church is unlawful and must not be obeyed, even if the command were given by a pope.

SSPX is virtually the memory of the Catholic Church. It is Catholicism as it had always been practiced before the post-conciliar debacle. Its Masses and devotions and teachings are what the Church has always prayed and taught. Nor does it reject this Pope. In fact, it prays for him at every Mass, though it would openly deny he has any authority to oppose traditional Catholicism. This is because his authority exists only to GUARD the traditional faith, not to undermine or destroy it.

There are some on this thread who believe the Pope himself decides what is tradition. Such a notion is an absurdity and would deny tradition its own objective content. Tradition is what is passed on, not what is invented. It is what guarantees the validity of the deposit of faith. It is precisely because such truths are handed down UNCHANGED from apostolic times to our own that we affirm them. If they may be altered, then the whole of the deposit would be placed in doubt. Yet tradition itself is what this modernist Pope and his appointees are now actively dismantling.

Here is what the papal oath of office says:

I VOW TO CHANGE NOTHING OF THE RECEIVED TRADITION, AND NOTHING THEREOF I HAVE FOUND BEFORE ME GUARDED BY MY GOD-PLEASING PREDECESSORS, TO ENCROACH UPON, TO ALTER, OR TO PERMIT ANY INNOVATION THEREIN.

And the oath closes with this powerful avowal:

ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT EXCLUSION, WE SUBJECT TO SEVEREST EXCOMMUNICATION ANYONE--BE IT OURSELVES OR BE IT ANOTHER--WHO WOULD DARE TO UNDERTAKE ANYTHING NEW IN CONTRADICTION TO THIS CONSTITUTED EVANGELIC TRADITION AND THE PURITY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, OR WOULD SEEK TO CHANGE ANYTHING BY HIS OPPOSING EFFORTS, OR WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE SUCH A BLASPHEMOUS VENTURE.

If the Pope himself had the power to determine what tradition is, would he be obliged to take such an oath? Yet this Pope acts as if he may violate it at whim--as he did most flagrantly at Assisi--and he does nothing to check those who continue to attack the very traditions he is obliged under pain of excommunication to protect. In fact, these ecclesiastical forces are imposing upon the people what is tantamount to a totally new religion, replete with its own new Mass, its protestantized culture and its own set of newly-minted doctrines.

The recent declaration of the American bishops on our relations with the Jews is only the latest test for this papacy. If Rome either ignores or supports this heretical declaration, it will make utterly clear that John Paul II does not intend to reject apostasy or oppose the forces which oppose the Catholic Faith, as he is bound by the papal oath to do.