In addition to being a champion defender of all things newchurch, Karl Keating should add “fiction novelist” to his curriculum vitae. In a recent FaceBook post, he states:
It was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s intransigence–his backing out of an agreement he had signed with the Vatican regarding the naming of his successor, followed by Lefebvre’s consecration, without papal approval, of four bishops–that put a shadow over those who wanted to see a revivification of the old Mass.
Either Karl is getting loopy from his treks at high altitude, or he sincerely believes that precious few shadows were cast upon those who desired the ancient rite, until, of course, that fateful day in 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre put an end to the longstanding post-conciliar love affair between traditional Catholics and affectionate bishops. For his sake, I hope it is the former.
Keating’s choice of words here is rather curious.
Why would a rite that was never abrogated be in need of revivification? The rite itself was, is, and shall remain one of Holy Church’s fullest expressions of life. In truth, it would be more accurate to speak of those who wished to see the sensus catholicos of the sacred hierarchy revivified, not the traditional Mass itself.
Keating continues:
Once Lefebvre performed his schismatic act (so termed by John Paul II) and got himself excommunicated (not by papal decree but automatically, under canon law), the old Mass was associated in the public mind with a prideful old cleric and the often belligerent and rude people who wrote in his defense. People who wanted the old Mass but didn’t share the views of the SSPX with respect to the new Mass and to Vatican II found themselves sidelined. They hardly could get a hearing from anyone. It was downhill for the old Mass for about a decade and a half.
This is simply revisionist history after the manner of those liberals who have been pretending that Catholic life before the Council was some sort of vast arid wasteland.
Here, Keating tweaks the strategy to serve his own ends; leading gullible readers to believe that in the years between Pope Paul VI’s promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae and 1988, those Catholics who maintained an appropriate love and longing for the traditional Mass were somehow graced with an honest “hearing” from solicitous bishops the world over.
While this little bedtime story might help neo-cons and their uneducated followers sleep better at night, it’s pure fantasy.
What began to turn the situation around wasn’t anything done by Lefebvre or the bishops he ordained but by two popes the SSPX has never ceased castigating: John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is how it really was, but Lefebvre’s fans won’t admit it and probably can’t get their minds around the notion that their hero did more to put their cause in jeopardy than did anyone else.
The dung grows deeper.
John Paul II treated the traditional Mass like a diaperless kid at a pool party, granting access to it only via a strictly confining indult. The Ecclesia Dei commission was a direct result of the 1988 consecrations, and it’s doubtful at best that Summorum Pontificum would have seen the light of day apart from Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions.
Moving on from the work of revising history, Keating turns his attention to current events.
Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to Fisher More College. Bishop Michael Olson of the Diocese of Forth Worth informed the school’s president, Michael King, that the school no longer had permission to celebrate the old Mass in its chapel. This was conveyed in a short letter to King following a meeting between the two men. The letter, apparently leaked by King, contained no details about the substance of the meeting.
It’s amusing to see how the newchurch goon squad tries to leverage the “leaked letter” as if to suggest that a bishop forbidding the Usus Antiquior to an entire college, one that is founded upon the celebration of the traditional liturgy, was otherwise going to be kept private.
We don’t know precisely what prompted Bp. Olson to issue his directive, but we can assume it wasn’t something trivial. He must have seen some ongoing and serious problem at the school, a problem that in some way was tied to the old Mass.
Yes, with so much “we don’t know” attached to this story, let’s talk about what we do know.
The bishop’s authority to restrict the celebration of the traditional Mass is limited to the conditions addressed in the Instruction Universae Ecclesia as follows:
The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church. (Article 19)
Not even the harshest critics of Fisher More, including their former Chancellor, Taylor Marshall, have come close to demonstrating that this is the case.
It’s likely that the school “politicized” the old Mass in some way–perhaps (like Lefebvre and the SSPX) by telling the students that the new Mass is inferior to the old Mass or even is invalid or that it doesn’t confer the same graces as does the old Mass.
Oh, yes, it must have been the cardinal sin of newchurch, “crypto-lefebvreanism,” that led to the bishop’s severe action! Only Keating can say how he determined that this is “likely” the case, but it sounds to me like more fantasizing.
What does it mean to say “the school is telling the students” this or that anyway?
“The school” is ordered on nurturing a devotion to the ever-venerable traditional rites of the Catholic Church. That’s no secret. If there is any evidence of a college-wide policy that violates the conditions set forth in Universae Ecclesia, Keating should, and surely would, make it known, but alas, there isn’t any.
In any event, anyone who has ever made a sincere effort to enter deeply into the traditional Mass – something that requires more than just “I tried it a few times” – knows perfectly well that the new Mass is by far its inferior.
Even the neo-cons recognize that clown Masses are inferior to, say… Papal Masses, even if both are valid celebrations of the Novus Ordo. The suggestion that one must maintain that the protestantized Mass of Paul VI is in every way the equal to the traditional Mass or else deservedly face some sort of censure is simply ludicrous.
Then again, making logical sense has never been the neo-con’s strong suit.
RIGHTEOUS
THUNDER
Five times banished
Exiled seventeen
Excommunicated champions
God puts at each scene.
Saint Athanasius,
Feast day of worth
On the second of May
The month of great mirth.
Out in the deserts –
As history has charted –
You preserved the true Mass
Great lion-hearted.
Now Lefebvre
And the sixties egalitarians
Like Athanasius,
His time his Arians.
For He who abolished
Death by death
Sent him to absolve
Sin width and breadth.
And yes the same moon
The same sun we’re all under
We venal rain – but Lefebvre…
Righteous thunder!!
Karl Keating is wrong. The TLM hasn’t been sidelined because of a “prideful old cleric.” It’s sidelined because it represents what the Church taught before the Vll Council. For the conciliarists, like Keating (and likewise Mark Shea) they don’t like being reminded of the Church before the Council, and it’s supremely annoying to them that the trads won’t shut up about it. They believe that it’s okay to have the TLM as long as trads are quiet about the Council and its attending problems. That’s why they (Keating, Shea, et al) see the need to chastise, or support the chastisement of anyone who dares to do what they don’t like, since they feel themselves to be the true keepers and watchdogs of the Catholic Faith. But they only believe in a wishy-washy watered down version of the faith. Traditionalists (those who believe in the fullness of the faith) aren’t going to go away, because Truth will always assert itself among those refuse to believe that the Catholic Church started in 1968.
Here we have it in full. One cannot even propose that the new Mass is inferior. This is the cardinal sin in New Catholicism. Which is ironic considering the amount of clerics, even novus ordo ones, have written books and articles on the thesis that something is wrong with the novus ordo. What’s worse though and offensive to logic is this: surely one only updates something if it’s inferior. The very existence of the new Mass shows that implicitly the new Mass is better. So Keating breaks his own rules. Double standards run high though in New Church Catholicism though, you only need to look at traditional persecution and compare it to how many liberal heretics get hammered.
Its Shakespearean tragedy and irony.
Speaking of Catholic apologists, guess who’s back online and on the traditionalist scene?
Vin Lewis of All Roads Ministry!
Veterans trads everywhere can now rejoice! Newbie trads everywhere are in for one heck of an experience! We have been saved from the mediocre apologetics of Louie, Mundabor, Rorate, Michael Matt, Vennnari and the rest of that crowd.
Welcome back Vinnie.
Us ‘old guard’ traddies missed you!
http://www.allroadsministry.com/
Torqy boy, is that like Arm & Hammer toothpaste, gets all the stains out of your teeth?
Well, Mr., V,
Keating has always been quite hilarious–thank you for magnifying same. Over the top comedy it is— Keating talking about pride! Seriously!
dear Denise,
what a superbly worded comment !
thank you Long-Skirts–beautiful, as ever.
Archbishop Lefebvre, humble and obscure missionary servant, sound shepherd , pray for us.
@Pooh Bear
Absolutely! Vinnie is the Traditional Catholic apologist that both James White and Gerry Matatics were too scared to debate.
The neo-cons do the darndest things in order to promote inferior novelties as equal tradition.
Not only in TLM vs NO (to which they give no side by side comparison with, else that would ruin their argument). But also when they try to canonize every Pope since the council, scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to get “miracles” and rushing it along at political speeds.
All the while not ignoring things like this:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/xkt54o.jpg
@TSS
–
Essentially your post is a pithy example of why several long-time trads (including myself) believe Louie and many other R&R trads will embrace some form of sedevacantism when Pope Francis canonizes John Paul II.
>>… and the often belligerent and rude people who wrote in his defense…<<
I never knew that Mark Shea wrote in defense of Archbishop Lefebvre. You learn something new every day!
heh,heh,
very good, dear Charlemagne.
>>Lefebvre’s fans won’t admit it and probably can’t get their minds around the notion that their hero did more to put their cause in jeopardy than did anyone else.<<
And the cause of Karl Keating's Catholic Answers is truly in jeopardy right now. Because, with Pope Francis sending warm messages to anti Catholic "health and wealth" style Pentecostalists, and calling one of their number his "brother bishop", the old style apolegetics work modeled on Frank Sheed and Ronald Knox won't fly anymore. Why does anyone need to convert to Catholicism if the most extreme form of Protestantism(a form detested even by many of the more lucid people who hold to the "Reformed" position) is just fine and dandy with the top man in the Catholic Church?
Mr. Keating and his ilk need to wake up and smell the coffee. The traditionalist movement has been correct about where the reforms of VII have been headed since day one.
A few points:
1 – Archbishop Lefebvre was a latecomer to the traditionalist movement. He did not create it. He slowly muscled into areas where independent traditionalist chapels were already established, forced them to join the SSPX, then centralized the movement.
2 – Both factions of Archbishop Lefebvre’s spiritual descendants (Fellay and Williamson) are now openly questioning his long-term effectiveness. An example of this questioning from the Resistance side can be found here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30268&min=0&num=3
Catholic Answers delenda est. It’s done good work in the past, but it has outlived its usefulness. It ought to be starved to death by lack of donor funding, and new apologetical foundations ought to take its place.
Torqy boy,
–
Wow, that allroadsministry dude is super humble:
“America’s toughest, smartest, best, Catholic Apologist.”
Wow, I didn’t know a mere layman could reach such heights of humility.
Maybe he is taking his cue and example from Humbleness-in-Chief Francis?
–
Thanks for sharing that awesome website with the other readers on this site, I bet they’ll very much appreciate it.
–
Just wondering – why are some sedes so jealous of Arch. Lefebvres apostolate and the work he accomplished? Perchance because some people covet his successful apostolate and his brave stance in fighting against the forces of modernism?
–
Thanks for your useful and positive contribution on this blog bro.
I tried the link to Keating’s Facebook page, but rather than the comments that are posted here, I only saw a few nice photos of Scotland. I don’t belong to Facebook, though, so maybe the original comments are not accessible to non-members, or the comments have been removed.
Thanks for the reminder of why I pay absolutely no attention to Karl Keating, and haven’t for quite some time now. Ugh.
Denise, absolutely spot on. Particularly newchurch do not like the rigor that generally comes with trads, for example taking Matthew 7:13-14 at face value. At least the Bologna School are honest and admit there was a rupture, neo-cons tell us nothing has changed post VII which is analagous to saying apples and oranges are the same.
I find it interesting that Pope John Paul II who to me seemed to enjoy the adulation from the masses (man centredness) and tolerating almost anything as evidenced by the Assisi debacles didn’t want his photo taken whilst practising ad orientem on the odd occasion when the altar arrangement demanded nor wanted the freeing up of the old Mass. Pope Benedict XVI as much as he was infected by modernism was a man who wasn’t interested in himself – such as the occasion at youth day when the crowd was going wild when he appeared, he put a finger to his mouth asking for silence and then pointed to the blessed sacrament. Benedict had no problem with people wanting the old Mass because he had no problem with the priest and people facing God although sadly he never did so himself in public to my knowledge.
@Edu
–
Not surprisingly, despite calling yourself a traditionalist you have absolutely no idea who Vin Lewis is.
–
Prior to his long hiatus, Vin was widely recognized all around as the best Catholic apologist of any Traditional Catholic apologist in America. Twenty years ago All Roads Ministry was the largest Traditional Catholic apologetics apostolate out there.
–
His W-10 tape in which he debates the (protestant fundamentalist) president of the Anti-Catholic League of America was classic. Or when he called out James White on character during their debate.
–
Twenty-five years later I still us many Vin’s arguments when ambushed by JW’s, Mormons, fundamentalists, liberals, etc. Twenty-five years later most of Vin’s arguments against these groups still stand un-refuted. In contrast, I cannot recall ever reading a single useful argument or debating technique from so-called traditionalist Catholic Answers knock-off Faithful Answers.
–
As for alleged jealousy of Archbishop Lefebvre, these are not sedes pointing out Lefebvre’s weaknesses but his own SSPX spiritual descendants. The Lefebvre “Recognize & Resist” compromise that centralized and then crippled the Traditionalist movement has died. In its place Bishop Fellay is leading the Recognize faction while Bishop Williamson is leading the Resist faction. Both lay claim to be Archbishop Lefebvre’s legitimate successor despite each faction’s ideological contradiction of the other.
–
This is because Lefebvre himself was inconsistent, constantly bouncing between the two positions. Those of us who have been around a while have known this for years. R&R was never intended by the Archbishop as a permanent doctrinal position. It was a temporary compromise within the traditionalist movement to try and force a deal from Rome.
@Edu – heheh.
–
Thanks for the post, Louie. Revisionism is the new norm and ‘getting loopy’, seems to be catching for people who are terrified of Frankie’s phonecall (or maybe they can’t wait?)
–
Still waiting for news of CMTV’s apology for their public scandal. Still waiting for news of Francis’ public apology for his public scandals.
oh, silly me, i forgot. In the new church we only do public apologies for the old Church – in fact hundreds of years of Her when JPII went all out.
public apologies but no apologetics.
Jamey,
I believe he did on several occasions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGzExgJRfiA
“The Lefebvre “Recognize & Resist” compromise that centralized and then crippled the Traditionalist movement has died.”
No it didn’t. No it hasn’t.
A minuscule fraction of Traditional Catholics associate with Williamson and his ‘Resistance’, mostly Americans, and mostly have odd opinions about various things. You are trying to paint some kind of pretended crisis within the society when there isn’t one.
Torq tiq sits around all day and picks fights on blogs.
Hey tt. Your mom wants you off the internet. Its time for dinner
The “R&R” movement have had plenty of reasons to become Sedevacantist over the years. Thus far, the Franciscan pontificate has presented no original problems for the SSPX. If we aren’t SV by now, it will require something titanic to compel most of us …
The canonisations of JP II and John XXIII wouldn’t qualify. I will not have to resort to Sedevacantism if they go ahead. The society has offered perfectly coherent, legitimate reasons why the canonisations will not be infallible. If they are not infallible, why resort to Sedevacantism?
@salvelinus:
At least I know who my mom is.
Unrepentant Neo-Pelagian:
Miniscule? Mostly American? That’s a perfect description of Louie’s blog audience. What we are talking about, however, is the Williamson-inspired Resistance faction of the SSPX.
thanks for the link, Unrepentant Neo-Pelagian: I had heard that he had never celebrated ad orientem publically as well. I wonder why people would want that believed?
–
@Edu – since Frankie Humblestone does drive by phone calls with all that spare time he has, maybe he has time to do drive-bys in comment boxes too?
Torquemada Tequila,
You have confused me. I don’t understand why you have written what you have written.
I was fully conscious that it was the ‘resistance faction’ I was writing about when I wrote about the ‘resistance faction’. No need to remind me of what I myself wrote.
The size and nationality of this blog’s readership is completely irrelevant. I don’t know why you mentioned that.
Torquemada: Vin Lewis vs. “Brother” Dimond, who won?
Torqemada Tequila-
Why do you post here? Is it just because you enjoy taunting others? Are you trying to convince other of a certain position? Or are you just a troll?
Whatever of these it is, your snark isn’t working.
@James the Lesser:
If you are that curious as to who won, then perhaps you should listen to the debate.
Torquemada: I have listened to the debate. I’m asking your opinion, because you’re championing a man that stands on the opposing side of yourself. Apparently, he’s not that great.
@James the Lesser
Well if you listened to the debate then you ought to know who won.
This would have more credibility if Louie spelled Lefebvre
correctly.
Torquemada: Vin Lewis won. I see why you like him. 😉
this just in on the ecclesiastical porn front:
–
The 68-page Il Mio Papa (My Pope) will hit Italian newsstands on Ash Wednesday, offering a glossy medley of papal pronouncements and photographs, along with peeks into his personal life. Each weekly issue will also include a pullout centerfold of the pope, accompanied by a quote.
–
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/a-new-magazine-for-fans-of-the-vaticans-biggest-star.html?hp&_r=3
–
‘my blood runs cold, whooo, my memory has just been sold, mio papa is a centerfold, mio papa is a centerfold!’ Whoooo!
–
Ya gotta laugh:
–
meanwhile, on the dignified side of pontifical:
–
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/03/video-sermon-for-archbishop-samples-1st-pontifical-mass-must-see/
“”People who wanted the old Mass but didn’t share the views of the SSPX with respect to the new Mass and to Vatican II found themselves sidelined. They hardly could get a hearing from anyone. It was downhill for the old Mass for about a decade and a half.”
This is simply revisionist history after the manner of those liberals who have been pretending that Catholic life before the Council was some sort of vast arid wasteland.”
## I think Keating overstates his case a bit, but he has a point. The association of the Old Mass with Mgr Lefebvre did not exactly encourage those who knew little or nothing of the affaire Lefebvre to favour the Old Mass. His suspension a divinis did not help – & neither did the 1988 Consecrations. There is not a simple division between “Traditionalists” (good) & “liberals” (bad) – the division is between several groups.
@James the Lesser:
–
Very good. If you recognize that Vinny won, then with a little logic you should be able to recognize why even today he is still the best (and among traditional Catholics today the ONLY EFFECTIVE) traditional Catholic apologist out there.
–
Seriously. If thirty years ago my only other exposure to Catholic Tradition had been Louie or Venarri or Faithful [sic] Answers or Geocentrist Salza or the Remnant, I would have stayed Protestant. Or embraced hardcore sedevacantism and forgotten about the rest of the trad movement. On second thought, I probably would have remained Protestant on the strength of Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust denial and Rorate’s anti-Tolkien hit piece.
–
Thankfully our generation had some quality apologists and Traditional Catholic thinkers such as Michael Davies, Dr Bill Marra, Gary Potter, John Cotter, Charles Coulombe, John Rao and of course Vincent P Lewis. These were not neo-jansenists or American puritans hiding behind a sprinkling of Latin as we so often are cursed with today. These were traditional Catholic men, meaning they were traditional, they were Catholic, and they were men.
P.S. Jimmy
–
Karl Keating, Mark Shea, and the whole Catholic Answers/ EWTN universe are nothing more than a smokescreen that today’s traditional Catholic activists point to and blame when they need to distract attention away from their own failings, and more specifically, how they squandered everything our generation of traditional Catholic activist handed to them.
–
In that respect, they remind me of Islamists in the Middle East. Rather than engage in introspection and examine their own motives and practices, they prefer to blame the Jews for all their problems.
P.P.S. – Louie spent how many years as a conservative making his money and building his reputation as the expert on how to promote Vatican II among the laity? (Which is probably why I had never heard of him until very recently, but other newer trads at our chapel seem to have known who he was. But I digress.)
–
If Louie honestly and truly believed the R&R position he now allows his audience to believe he embraces, why are these materials promoting Vatican II that he developed still for sale on this website?
–
https://akacatholic.com/store/the-constitutions-of-the-second-vatican-council/
re John Rao:
” We possess our own vast Records of the Grand Historian in the documentation provided by the fullnessof the Catholic Tradition. These Records come down to us in a myriad of forms: Sacred Scripture; the decrees of all the Councils and the whole teaching of the Papacy, with due distinction made between their unchanging doctrinal claims and their passing and potentially erroneous comments on contemporary matters, ecclesiastical and secular; the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors that aid us mightily in making such a distinction properly; and, finally, the conglomerate of lessons offered by the successes and failures of men and women throughout the entirety of Church History. We have no right willfully to abbreviate or to shred this record entirely to fit our own pet passions—which are themselves generally pathetic reflections of the dominant, passing fashions of our own time and place. Truncating the past is an insult to Christ in His Mystical Body, as well as to the intrinsic value of each and every human person with a distinct role of eternal significance to play in the service of God.”
revisionists are assasins of the past:
http://jcrao.freeshell.org/Why_Catholics_Cannot_Defend_Themselves.html
I have a couple of Louie’s books, and as it says in the blurb in the banner, ‘sorting the fruits from the nuts’ is the aim. I had never heard Fr Coutney-Murray until I came across Louie’s apostolate. VII, like it or not is now part the Grand Historian of the Church. I guess we could become assasins of the VII part of that history.
I truly believe that Archbishop Lefebfre is a saint in heaven. He does not need to be canonized by the Novus Ordo Church to validate this!
ATTENTION BLOGGERS:
TT loves the attention he/she is getting. Why don’t we just ignore TT??
Catholic Militant: I agree about Archbishop Lefebvre. How long do we think Archbishop Lefebvre would have suffered his self-appointed inquisitors?
–
still waiting for Francis to publicly redress his wwwrongs. still waiting for cmtv to redress their www wrong.
–
p.s. I really recommend J. Rao’s article. it’s a wonderful antidote to the Il Supremoites of the F-effect.
BRAVO
Catholic Militant,
–
Yes, you are entirely right, we should all ignore this pest known as TT. I was thinking exactly the same myself before reading your own comment. But a rebuke of this person was in order before I decided to ignore him completely.
–
Pests come and go on this blog, and as all things in life, “this too will pass”. We had “IAmNotSpartacus” remember and all his wonderful ramblings and endless monologues? These people LOVE attention (because of their self-centered and prideful nature), it is their oxygen. Take that away and they die off as surely as a plant withers away without being watered.
–
As an example of the despicable negative attitude of the TT pest take a close look at this: “These were traditional Catholic men [Michael Davies etc etc], meaning they were traditional, they were Catholic, and they were men.” HUH??? Anybody else is not, “traditional, Catholic and a man”??? This man seriously needs to get down to earth… Oh, but what did Our Blessed Lord say regarding the sin of pride?
–
“And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.”
~ Luke 10:18
Catholic Militant & Saluto: Have you seen the Archbisop Lefebvre movie? If so, was it good?
@James The Lesser:
–
I am told it goes into some detail how the Archbishop’s father died a martyr in the Nazi death camps. Therefore I imagine it will probably give the SSPX’s Williamson faction conniptions. Good for the Fellay faction!
Catholic Militant:
–
The question of whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint is for the moment moot.
–
In terms of his eternal soul, he died over 20 years ago. Therefore God has long since judge the Archbishop and sent him to his eternal destination.
–
In terms of our spiritual obligation, as Catholics we ought to be praying for him anyway since the saints tell us priests and religious spend a lot more time in Purgatory. First, because they are held more accountable during their particular judgement. Second, because everyone assumes their sanctity during life, so people are much more likely to forget to pray for them in the afterlife.
–
In terms of whether the Catholic Church will canonize him a saint, not until a deal is struck between Rome and Econe.
–
The SSPX Fellay faction (Recognize) will not canonize Archbishop Lefebvre because they would be considered an act of schism.
–
The SSPX Williamson faction (Resist) will not canonize Archbishop Lefebvre because they have recently taken a much more critical look at the Archbishop’s many weaknesses.
–
Today’s younger generation of R&R traditionalist are too spiritually slothful to continue pushing the cause of Mrs Gabrielle Lefebvre, the Archbishop’s mother.
Catholic Militant writes:
“TT loves the attention he/she is getting. Why don’t we just ignore TT??”
S.Armaticus answers:
“TT …. neeeeeever heard of him/her” 😉
Torquemada Tequila = Troll
@ saluto: Great link.
Bishop Sample is the future of the church.
Note the comment about the “all the young people at the proper mass”.
The next generation of bishops, will drop the “attachment” to the hippie church of VII altogether.
The other money line: the Pontifical Proper Mass is the basis of ALL masses.
Worth the effort to listen to this one!
TT
Bishop Williamson was NEVER an holocaust denier and the Tolkien sermon was hosted by Rorate but was the work of Audio Sancto from the FSSP. Get you facts straight.
Bishop Williamson was a denier of the outrageous numbers put out there…and rightfully so. The 6 million number has been debunked for some time.
Also (off topic)….cannot wait to see what Ferrara comes up with when these “canonizations” go through. He is already on record as saying that Benedict might have resigned because he could not go through with them (apparently Ferrara never considered the fact that his successor would).
Now there is supposedly some suggestion…coming from the spin-doctors of course…that canonizations may no longer be infallible due to the new process of becoming a saint. Yet another excuse to keep believing that the Vatican 2 sect and its “popes” are in any way legitimate. I have a feeling that when these “canonizations” do eventually take place, there will be many holders-on to the great lie who finally see the truth.
@Paul
–
Um, whatever Rich says Bishop Williamson said about the Holocaust. I am not going to count noses. I agree with sedevacantist Bishop Sandborn that: 1) Six million is a reasonable approximation held by real historians and those who have studied the issue; and 2) a Catholic bishop – much less a traditionalist one – has no business commenting publicly on this issue, much less linking it to the cause of Catholic Tradition.
–
Bishop Williamson’s actions re the Holocaust are even more disgraceful given that Archbishop Lefebvre’s father Rene was one of the Holocaust’s many victims.
–
@Rich
–
You and Williamson and other Holocaust deniers/ minimalists are way off. Especially given that one of the sources of the numbers were the Nazis themselves. Remember these were Germans. They kept impeccable records.
–
I too am looking forward to reading some “unique” interpretations of theological and canonical Tradition among the R&R crowd when John Paul II is canonized. I too am guessing many R&R trads will ignore these “unique” interpretations and embrace some form of sedevacantism. Others will tire of the debate and exit to either the indult, Eastern Catholicism or the Novus Ordo. This is a trend that seems to happen approximately every ten years.
TT
So apologise for what you said Bishop Williamson said. So just drop in minimalist when you know that you are wrong. Happy to quote sede bishop to support your case when it suits. You are happy to hang your hat on others opinions which betokens laziness and hubris of thought. Are you happy to take the ramblings of the Bishop of Rome when it suits? The Red Cross said that the numbers were about 300 thousand and that is what was written in the early text books of US schools in the early 50s. The figure only came into the public discourse in the late 70s. Paul Eisen is a jew who actually denies the holocaust and on his blog. He actually carries Priebke’s last interview. Read it, and learn.
Oh and the argument that real historians hold to the holocaust narrative means it must be true. Who are you to say what views a bishop of the church should hold. It is ok for BXVI and Francis to hold the view that the jews have their own covenant for salvation and barely get
TT
So apologise for what you said Bishop Williamson said. So just drop in minimalist when you know that you are wrong. Happy to quote sede bishop to support your case when it suits. You are happy to hang your hat on others opinions which betokens laziness and hubris of thought. Are you happy to take the ramblings of the Bishop of Rome when it suits? The Red Cross said that the numbers were about 300 thousand and that is what was written in the early text books of US schools in the early 50s. The figure only came into the public discourse in the late 70s. Paul Eisen is a jew who actually denies the holocaust and on his blog. He actually carries Priebke’s last interview. Read it, and learn.
Oh and the argument that real historians hold to the holocaust narrative means it must be true. Lazy reasoning again. Who are you to say what views a bishop of the church should hold. It is ok for BXVI and Francis to hold the view that the jews have their own covenant for salvation contrary to 2000 years of Catholic teaching and barely get mentioned, but when a bishop questions the 6 million figure he is hounded by the world and the church for something that is not catholic teaching and liable to lose your soul but is only a dogma of faith for the Jewish religion. Do some serious study and stop pontificating!
TT
As a person of German Descent, I am very well aware of their impeccable record keeping. The 6 mill figure is a joke and I’ll just leave it at that. This isn’t the forum for the debate, but I do contend that Bp Williamson has been unjustly raked over the coals on the matter.
@Paul:
–
I am not going to debate with you whether Bishop Williamson is a Holocaust denier vs Holocaust minimaliser. Here is the video interview with the Bishop on the topic. People can watch and make up their own mind which category of reprehensible the Bishop’s views fall under:
–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3ObrgaWnc
–
Regardless, Bishop Sandborn is correct. A Catholic bishop – much less a Traditional Catholic one – has absolutely no business speculating on this topic or linking it to Catholic Tradition.
Paul
Nice post. The Zionists are our strongest enemies, and yet some of us still feel the need to support their nonsensical propaganda…I don’t get it either.
TT
Ive seen the video before, but I watched it again anyway. I don’t see how he links his view to Catholic Tradition. The bad thing is that although he knows the truth, he is not well enough versed in it to offer a rock-solid refutation of the lies that we’ve been fed for going on 70 years. Any Catholic has a total obligation to speak out against lies, as he has a total obligation to speak out against any sin.
@Rich & Paul:
–
Okay, you guys win. I have no intention of counting noses, debating those who do, or trying to explain why Holocaust denial and/ or minimization is reprehensible and has no place being linked to the battle for Catholic Tradition.
–
Like many longtime traditionalist friends among the indult, sedevacantism and Fellay faction of the SSPX, I want nothing to do with those who deny or minimize the Holocaust while claiming to be traditional Catholics.
–
Therefore I’m out of here.
Tequilla, you have been having too much fun, finally, we know where you are coming from, we know what hurts you……well, well, well too bad for you. You hate Catholics, who minimize the Holocaust?……….the true Holocaust is the “holocaust of Catholics’ for centuries………by none other then those who hate Jesus Christ and His Church. Do you want to start counting…….1st century, 2nd century, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 century………’they still have blood on their hands”……you would get lost in 00000’s, but God Almighty is the greatest mathematician…..He does not miss even ‘one’…..Deo Gratias!
Like I said, you are a mystery to me, but no mystery to God.
E Michael Jones at http://www.culturewars.com “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History.”
Halina,
You are an astute observer.
My my…Torquemada is sounding more and more like a Zionist shill.
Torquemada tequila trolling the comboxes again?
TT. You need to get out more… seriously… just run it by your parole officer, and sex offender registry administrator
@James the Lesser – yes I have watched the documentary – a couple of times. Archbishop Lefebvre was a true Catholic Missionary – a true son of the Apostles. The missionary spirit is alive and well in the SSPX – keeping fast to that which Christ demanded – go and baptize all nations, ‘if you love Me you will keep My commandments.’
@S.Armaticus – I agree about Bishop Sample – prelates who are willing to see passed the dazed and confused rubbish that descended on the dear Bride of Christ with John XXIII and post are the only way forward, everything else is sideways, sideways, sideways, and. ‘hmmm, now how did the smoke of satan get in?’ Except these days everyone is so high on the smoke of satan they and seemingly lovin’ it.
as Louie wrote, ‘the dung grows deeper’.
TT
What are you on about?
I am not a holocaust denier. LV is not a holocaust denier. And almost nobody who reads this blog is a holocaust denier. And I don’t personally know anybody who is. Apart from one person that is, who is a diocesan priest in good standing with Rome.
If anybody is causing offence to the people who died in the Holocaust it is you… With your obnoxious politicising of it for the sake of your own ego.
weird. This whole scenario has happened before on another Catholic blog, where someone who seems to have little affinity with the Faith, only ever disagrees with the posts, the comments, and on and on, and then starts on the Bishop Williamson interview and then starts pointing ‘that’ finger. Problem, reaction, solution. Don’t like Catholics fighting for their faith – just point ‘that’ finger. Maybe TT was from the southern poverty whatsit. All I know is the Bride of Christ didn’t do it, and the Bride of Christ didn’t deny what was done.
@saluto
A succinct summation of the occurrence. The Bride of Christ, as you so well put it, in no way fomented it, in every way sensed it, and in all ways acted to try to draw it out and reveal it.
And saluto,
I must add that you led the first charge and the second and the third… against whatever that was. Commendations and thanks.
borromeo, I’m blushing (not really – I think it’s the wine). I also don’t really believe that anyone (really, even tt) would think that anyone on this comment box, or, indeed, even most people on the planet, unless they invest themselves in the nastier aspects of a particular late comer to the ‘monothiestic dialogue’, is anti-semitic.
I agree, and possibly the ultimate goal of all the ploys.
I kept racking my brain to figure out what position tt could possibly hold; he/she had destroyed any I could think of along the Catholic spectrum. Oh well. TT could be back or another agitator or TT could actually be several; he/she was on a long time and had comments for just about everybody. Just to be disruptive, to try to plant doubts, to get people to be uncharitable towards others, to tamper with morale, if you will.
Watch and pray.
@borromeo: I suppose the friction sharpen’s one’s defense of the Faith. On the Archbishop Lefebvre documentary a friend from his seminary days recalled how part of formation was engaging in ‘disputations’ (what we might call debates).
–
The ‘assasination’ of the past, which is what most nominal Catholics seem hell-bent on, seems to be the internalization of the standard revolutionary ideology which must wipe out the past so no one can ‘dispute’ the ridiculous fabrications. – basically what Marxism is.
@saluto: well put. And if TT was contriving to supply us with a similar means of formation…then a toast to Torquemada Tequila – and definitely one to our Catholic past.
Gotta sleep now.
may God and His Saints and Angels watch over you; over us all.
While one of the usual adversaries is doing his diabolical best to wind us up about anti-antisemitism in the church. I bring you the REAL DEAL: http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/cardinal-maradiaga-jews-blame-catholic-sex-abuse-scandals
——
And here is the money quote:
“Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, Catholic Archbishop of Honduras, says more about himself than the recent paedophilia scandals plaguing the Vatican and Catholic Church – the potential papal candidate, who may well stand a good chance of replacing Pope Benedict in the future, blames the Jews, and uses all-to-familiar antisemitic language to do so. He’s been blaming the Jews since at least 2002.”
—-
And it’s the vice-pope no less. 😉
—-
Glass house… meet… stone 🙂
Torquemada wrote:
“Essentially your post is a pithy example of why several long-time trads (including myself) believe Louie and many other R&R trads will embrace some form of sedevacantism when Pope Francis canonizes John Paul II.”
I agree, except we don’t know what Louie will do for sure.
There are several possible positions differing Trads will take:
1. Sedevacantism as you mentioned (or sedeprivationism)
2. Declaring no part of canonization to be infallible, thus giving them breathing room to simply ignore it.
3. Somehow declaring the canonization invalid (either by looking at the words of canonization or by claiming the new process is defunct even with a valid Pope)
4. The minimization route. This is a position where it states the infallibility of canonization rests on that the person is in heaven and possibly that they have some heroic virtue. However, with the removal of the Devil’s Advocate we will see people canonized who normally would not have. Further these people now may be canonized with serious problems in their history (e.g. John Paul II’s Assisi meetings or asking St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, etc). These problems of the individuals are not explicitly heretical but they pose major problems towards the faith. The modern canonization process is thus minimized to the bare necessities ignoring external actions and writings that have issues, save for explicit heresy itself.
@TSS,
I’m afraid you’re out of luck with point #4. The sad truth is that “St” JP II “The Great” did preach explicit heresy. Perhaps the most notorious heresy he taught was the notion that the Old Covenant was never revoked:
“The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, FOR THE OLD COVENANT HAS NEVER BEEN REVOKED.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 121
And here you get two heresies for the price of one:
“It is not just a question of correcting a false religious view of the Jewish people, which, in the course of history, was one of the causes that contributed to misunderstanding and persecution, but above all of the dialogue between THE TWO RELIGIONS, WHICH – WITH ISLAM [!!!!!!!] – GAVE THE WORLD FAITH IN THE ONE [!!!!!!], INEFFABLE GOD who speaks to us, and which desire to serve him on behalf of the whole world.
The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of THE OLD COVENANT, NEVER REVOKED BY GOD [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible.”
JP II address to Jews in Mainz, West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980
The following is from J Vennari’s classic article “The secret of JP II’s success”
http://www.cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm
–
“This statement of the Pope [the above quote from Mainz, 1980], in fact, is now quoted in modern Church documents to reinforce the new, post-Conciliar teaching against “supersessionism”.
In 1985, the Vatican issued its Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church.[40] The document’s introduction bids the reader to take “special note” of Paragraph 3 “which speaks about Judaism as a present reality and not only as a historical (and thus superseded) reality.” When we turn to Paragraph 3, we see that the Notes quotes the above speech where John Paul speaks of “the people of God of the Old Covenant” which has “not been revoked.”[41]
Far from claiming that the Notes misinterpreted his words, John Paul spoke of his unqualified support of the document. On October 28, 1985, John Paul II said “[The] Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church” is “proof of the Holy See’s continued interest in and commitment to this renewed relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people,” and that the Notes “will greatly help toward freeing our catechetical and religious teaching of a negative or inaccurate presentation of Jews and Judaism in the context of the Catholic Faith”.[42]
Thus it is demonstrable that what the Jews say of John Paul II is true; the words they quote from John Paul II are found in Vatican documents with John Paul II’s approval.”
–
How do JP II’s statements in this matter (in addition to the other scandalous actions such as visits to synagogues etc) compare to previous papal pronouncements?
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 59), March 1, 1756:
“However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began… All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”
To add insult to injury, here is JP II’s teaching that Infidels and Catholics worship the same God:
“St” John Paul II “The Great”, General Audience, May 5, 1999:
“Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God…”
…..from “Peter, Lovest Thou Me?” by Abbe Daniel Le Roux
…..’The victory of the revolution at the Council was but the result of modern philosophy propagated among a large number of bishops. During the first session, Bishop Wojtyła composed a poem which captivated the spirit of that philosophy :
“Our feet meet the earth in this place,
There are too many walls, so many colonnades.
We are not lost if we find meaning and oneness
It is the floor that guides us, that joins the spaces of this great edifice
And joins the spaces within us who walk,
aware of our weakness and defeat
Peter, you are the floor,
That others may walk over you (not knowing where they go)
and you guide their steps
So that spaces can be one in their eyes,
From them thought is born.
You want to serve their feet that pass,
As rock serves the hooves of sheep
The rock is a gigantic temple floor,
The Cross – a pasture.
The commentary which Buttiglione gives on it, deserves to be quoted in full: ‘It seems that for Wojtyła, the unity of the Church is not born from a unifying of energies and human tensions, coordinated by a unique authority, holding itself above them and guiding them. That unity rather results from Peter being the territory in which alone men and nations can move around freely in the direction of the peculiar destiny proper to each one.’
What a strange notion of unity and authority!
The conciliar period seems to hold an important place in the spiritual itinerary of the Pope, since he confided to Andre Frossard: “it was the Council that helped me to make a synthesis of my personal faith.”
Edu, as much as I am not a fan of JPII, I don’t believe he is referring to the Mosaic covenant but the covenant of Abraham. St. Paul says in Romans that God did not reject his people and that he is living proof of it. The Abrahamic covenant is valid to all, as long as the individual accepts Jesus at some point before death. It may have been a weak attempt at an invitation, in very vague terms, to introduce non-Catholics to Jesus by attempting to open a dialogue about the new covenant, as it pertains to the old. Can we be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?
Nostra Aetate has a footnote [5] to a quote by Gregory VII.
Quote:
“This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, “He is our peace who hath made both one.”
Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)
It seems JPII was following past bad examples.
I’m not sure what to make of this issue any more.
““The Lefebvre “Recognize & Resist” compromise that centralized and then crippled the Traditionalist movement has died.”
No it didn’t. No it hasn’t.
A minuscule fraction of Traditional Catholics associate with Williamson and his ‘Resistance’, mostly Americans, and mostly have odd opinions about various things. You are trying to paint some kind of pretended crisis within the society when there isn’t one.”
–
Amen. What is most amazing about these people is that they seem to think they really have clout. They have a heavy online presence (not surprising – as, as far as I can tell, that is about it.
“## I think Keating overstates his case a bit, but he has a point. The association of the Old Mass with Mgr Lefebvre did not exactly encourage those who knew little or nothing of the affaire Lefebvre to favour the Old Mass. His suspension a divinis did not help – & neither did the 1988 Consecrations.”
–
Hmm. There’d have been no suspensions if +Lefebvre hadn’t chosen to obey God over man, and there’d be no (or virtually no) Tridentine Mass anymore either. Same with the consecrations: without them the Society would have died, and with it the Mass, which was indeed The Plan, on both counts.
–
Your understanding of the situation is completely flawed.
“Seriously. If thirty years ago my only other exposure to Catholic Tradition had been Louie or Venarri or Faithful [sic] Answers or Geocentrist Salza or the Remnant, I would have stayed Protestant.”
–
Probably nobody here will be too shocked to read that. Really – we believe you.
“Karl Keating, Mark Shea, and the whole Catholic Answers/ EWTN universe are nothing more than a smokescreen that today’s traditional Catholic activists point to and blame when they need to distract attention away from their own failings, and more specifically, how they squandered everything our generation of traditional Catholic activist handed to them.”
–
It sounds to me like you believe the Holy Spirit has no plan at all. This crisis has no St. Athanasius, apparently. Interesting.
“The SSPX Williamson faction (Resist) will not canonize Archbishop Lefebvre because they have recently taken a much more critical look at the Archbishop’s many weaknesses.”
–
Yes, that is their specialty, isn’t it? It is their calling: bitterness, subjective judgement, and obfuscation.
@Torquemada Tequila – your a heliocentrist and say your a traditional Catholic? LOL
James the Lesser,
–
“It may have been a weak attempt at an invitation, in very vague terms, to introduce non-Catholics to Jesus by attempting to open a dialogue about the new covenant, as it pertains to the old”
–
SERIOUSLY??? You seriously believe “St” JP II “The religious indifferentist/universal salvationist” even WEAKLY attempted to convert the Jews to Christianity? And I suppose his multiple visits to synagogues and other such egregious actions or statements (eg Assisi I & II) proves that point??
–
“Can we be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?”
NO WAY!I live on planet earth, not some parallel universe of my own whims and imagining. Remember we should always look at the CONTEXT when evaluating a statement. The context we are talking about here is of a man who preaches by word and example religious indifferentism.
–
Regarding the letter by St Gregory VII to the King of Mauritania I would differ by mentioning the following:
–
Your translation is flawed I believe. Bp Sanborn (and I have no reason to believe he would be willing to put himself in deep water by providing flawed information) states that the Latin original says “unum Deum” (“ONE GOD”) i.e. very clearly and unequivocally meaning we worship ONE GOD, i.e. MONOTHEISM, not that we worship the SAME GOD.
@James the Lesser,
–
PS
The conciliar writers had to dig PRETTY deep in the TWO THOUSAND year history of the church to find ONE piece of evidence from a PRIVATE letter that links Christians and Muslims as having ONE God heh ; ) ? This is the BEST evidence the conciliarists could muster as to why the Church regards the infidels with “esteem” (Nostra Aetate)???
–
I wonder why they decided to IGNORE the MANY, MANY other statements that clearly condemn the Mohameddan sect and don’t provide the polished picture of infidels that the conciliarists intended to sell to the unwitting catholics of the time? Perhaps because it (inconveniently) didn’t fit in with their conciliarist revolutionary agenda of trying to elevate other false religions on a closer plane to the true Church of Christ?
–
So, I repeat: according to “Nostra Aetate”, ONE single document from a PRIVATE LETTER speaking about infidels and Christians both sharing monotheism is supposed to REPRESENT THE MIND of the church as regards Mohameddans, and is supposed to make us believe that in this world of their own making:
“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.”
They just forgot to include “CONCILIAR” before “Church”, that’s all. A minor mistake on the writer’s part.
–
Oh, and they forgot to drop leaflets from the air to the poor persecuted Christians throughout the world who have the misfortune of living among infidels that says in big bold letters:
“THE CHURCH REGARDS WITH ESTEEM THE MOSLEMS. They value the MORAL life and WORSHIP GOD especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” (Nostra Aetate)
exactly which Church are they talking about? the Church that makes Christians of those born to the wretchedness of falsehood? probably not. a new prayer intention for Lent, that the novusordochurch who are intent giving everyone stones instead of bread convert to the One, True, Faith.
–
they have no fear of the True God – Christ did not make it the mission of His Church to preach or ‘esteem’ false faiths.
–
the sons of Judas Iscariot – a modernist – go on, unrepentant.
dear Saluto and dear brethren,
in the Archbishop Lefebvre documentary,
if I may suggest ,
even to those non-French speakers—to at least one time– choose the French for viewing. Doing so enables one to hear the real voice of the Archbishop’s sister, some of those interviewed and also the real voice, along of course, with his intonation and modulation –of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais–gives an even more deeply moving experience.
God love you.
Edu, thanks for the wise reply. I’m trying not to harbor hate in my heart for the man JPII. I can longer comment on this subject. Please pray for this sinner.
I can *no* longer comment on this subject. In fact, during this Lenten season it is probably best that I refrain from any blog comments. God bless. Peace.
We have an obligation to always call out wrong, no matter the time of year. Staying quiet at any given time can lead to an additional soul, or souls, going down the wrong road.
Also, there is a difference between harboring hate for an individual, which is definitely a mortal sin, and hate for what they are saying/doing…..if what they are saying/doing is destroying souls. I speak out every day against the words and actions of these men who have been called pope for the last 55 years….I have no choice in the matter to do anything else. Praying for the soul of JP2 is important…..steering people away from his errors is even more important; JP 2 is gone and his fate is already sealed….people on earth still have a chance to reject his heresies and accept the truth before they wind up being lost.
Rich, I’ve seen many hate filled words against JPII (not saying on this blog) of so-called Traditionalists. Most of the sede variety. Anyone can pay lip service that they don’t hate the man when motivated by the fear of damnation in doing so. But is this really the case? The vitriol I’ve seen against the man is astounding. What is in the heart comes out the mouth. Since when are we allowed to presume wicked intent on his part? Yeah His actions are scandalous! But many seem to forget that we don’t fight against flesh and bone but evil spirits. Most criticisms don’t seem come from love for a brother (JPII) but seem to suggest he himself was a demon. This is the last I will post on this.
Edu,
With regard to Islam and Christiantiy having the same God, doesn’t the Catechism of Pope Pius X in effect affirm this when it makes a distinction between non-Christian idolaters and non-Christians who have some semblence of belief in God?
Rodj,
–
I don’t have a copy of the catechism of St Pius X with me but I bet it doesn’t state, “we worship the SAME God”. Pius XII mentioned something similar to what you stated above, basically that all believers in a single God should work for the common good. But again, that is intrinsically different from saying that we worship the SAME God. Yes, I think belief in a higher power/God can be a sign of humility on a soul that is searching for the truth and could serve as a stepping stone for an eventual conversión to the true faith, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, we have to look at the context in which JP II’s words were said. The context is one of religious indifferentism culminating in the apostasy of the Asissi meetings. We act as we believe. I don’t think any pope of the past 2000 years could have imagined possible a putative successor of St Peter holding such an abominable meeting.
So what if the Muslims believe in one God? Basic natural faith brings us to that point. So did other cultures over the years…and their gods had many names…Baal, Mollech etc. But Scripture notes they were all demons. So any attempt at calling what the Muslims do as other than demon worship is a disservice to them, to truth and is uncharitable. It reeks of emotionalism. I too struggle with JPII…the man who sat atop worldwide destruction and did virtually nothing…who denied me the heritage of my Catholic culture and truth…bringing me up in a world of chaos, emotionalism, and evil. But I forgive him b/c God forgave me…and I don’t want to suffer anymore from his actions. God bless~
Hey, how about those crazy ladies over at the LCWR….
We forgot to mention what they are up to lately. 😉
And while we are all beating ourselves to a pulp over resistance and antisemitism and the resistance to anti antisemitism, and anti antisemitism…. we find out that all in the post conciliar church is fine. Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/03/hans-kung-is-overjoyed-about-pope.html.
Would never have guessed that the post conciliar church is going to h*ll in a hand-basket.
All is well… really. :/
PS. It’s all those hallucinogen in the ’60.
Of all the modernist post conciliar church hierarchy’s, the Portuguese (and Maltese) are by far the worst. But progress is being made: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/event-pilgrimage-to-portugal-with.html
It’s just a question of time until the Bride of Christ is restored to here natural glory. 🙂
In the infamous words of Rush: “Don’t doubt me on this.”
St. Michael Archangel, ora pro nobis,
Bishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.
Whoever JPII the man was and is, what is his legacy to Christ’s Church? The new ecumenism is destroying good Catholic Sense.
–
1jn.5.10 He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son. 5.11 And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. 5.12 He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life……We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness 5.20 And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal. 5.21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
–
we cannot judge the man, but we simply aren’t Catholics if we refuse to judge the actions and more especially the fruits.
–
@Linda, will have to check out the documentary that way. The voice over sounds a little like she’s just smoked too much pot!
@s.armaticus: I read the piece about kung-kong. what’s weird is kung approves of this popes ‘way’, and cmtv won’t disapprove of this popes ‘way’. does that mean the left hand and the right hand are giving the brotherhood shake?
–
‘and Fatima, a place chosen by heaven.’
We are called to judge throughout the Bible. The current pope, like all sinners looking for an excuse to their immoral ways, has taken a partial verse out of context and bastardized it. To claim that we cant tell a known rapist that if he doesn’t cease from doing what he’s doing and fully repent he is certainly on his way to hell, because we aren’t supposed to judge, is beyond asinine. Francis has already done irreparable harm to countless souls…..and he’s done it in just over a year. Imagine this guy actually lives to be 85 or so?
@Rich said: “Francis has already done irreparable harm to countless souls…..and he’s done it in just over a year.”
–
well, that’s the thing. much, much, damage has been done, but already people who should know better are wrapping themselves in the mist of modernist-slimey-obfuscation which (quite FRankly, if one is not Francis) the average Catholic over the age of 40 should know good and damn well is WRONG – Wrong = wwwrong.
–
people are starving for Truth, but Francis and his ‘cajones (read…unthinking anti-catholic indoctrinationists) won’t touch it with a barge poll. why? who can say?
If not for Christ? and His faithful….who can say?
–
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=if+not+for+you+olivia+newton+john&docid=4797780396149116&mid=12A036B4A3CDE1CB19C712A036B4A3CDE1CB19C7&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=12A036B4A3CDE1CB19C712A036B4A3CDE1CB19C7
Saluto wrote: I read the piece about kung-kong. what’s weird is kung approves of this popes ‘way’, and cmtv won’t disapprove of this popes ‘way’. does that mean the left hand and the right hand are giving the brotherhood shake?”
Looks like Francis has “achieved peace in our lifetime”.
Now if we could just get those darned universal Unitarians to play along:)
Put this in the “modernist tries his hand at logic… hilarity ensues”.
—–
The link is in Polish, but I will take a stab at translation of the money quote (with my trusty internet translator): But link here:
http://news.fsspx.pl/2014/03/niemcy-chorwacki-kaplan-przystepuje-do-fsspx/
——-
“Fr. Tilošanec, born in 1986 in a village lying on the border with Hungary named Kotoriba ; whose formation seminars and studies took place at the seminary in Zagreb , and was ordained a priest in June last year at the hands of Bishop Joseph Mrzljak – In the Ordinary Formed in 1997, in the diocese Waraždinskiej (among his immediate family , Fr. Tilosanec is the latest in line, in which in each of the last four generations produced a Catholic priest ) first Mass celebrated in the new rite , and then – despite the reluctance of the authorities clergy and larger difficulties – made efforts to have the opportunity to celebrate Mass in the Tridentine rite , which he did finally did on 30 August in a small church church . St . Martin in Zagreb. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Mrzljak told the newly ordained priest that since he celebrates the so-called . the old rite , must have doubt about the novus ordo Mass, issues and opposes giving Holy Communionn on hand , then he should look for another community. Ks . Tilošanec acted in accordance with the suggestion and reported to Fr . Firmin Udressy’ego , declaring a desire to join the SSPX .”
—–
You can’t make this stuff up.
@s.armaticus…the world peace thaing. Hmmmm. If only the Unitarians would accept that God is Trinity?
–
St Patrick; ora pro nobis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cwKCU8Z5c
00ps’ wrong link\\-
http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/isabelle-1992\-
right link
–
but whoamitojudge
Saluto,
That is the problem. The Unitarians will accept anything you want them to accept.
Come to think of it, just like Francis.
But as we know full well, they all can’t be right. 🙂
How can a mass be said to have been protestantised if protestants can’t say it owing to its sacrificial nature?