Prodino, I saw in my "Raoul76 vs Una cuм" thread that you want me to "apologize" for saying that the anti-Popes are idolators.  

Actually I do have some apologies to make.  The mistakes I have made on this site so far are to try and prophesize when I am not a prophet, and to have judged the internal intentions of Abp. Lefebvre. These are the mistakes that I will acknowledge and apologize for.

But as time goes by I am more and more against SSPX and am now prepared to the go on the warpath.  As I wrote to my sedevacantist friend, "This uneasy truce must end, and each parishioner must be forced to choose a side."  

No more wishy-washy language.  The SSPX calls the Popes THAT IT ACCEPTS "ecuмenical."  By sugarcoating their language they try to make that sound like a mild fault.  It is IDOLATRY.  Ecuмenism is to blend the religions or accept other religions as possible routes to salvation and this is nothing else but to bring Baal into the Temple.

Here are the results.  This is a Jєω speaking about the New Church:

"JOHN LEVI: The Catholic Church has been amazing in the last 20 years. I'm old enough to remember when Catholics couldn't go to friend's funerals. They had to stand outside if the funeral was held at a ѕуηαgσgυє. Those days are long gone."

SSPX supporters, do you think that a true Pope could Judaize the Church to this extent?  Because if you do, you are denying everything that the Catholic Church ever was and still is, under the form of sedevacantism.  

Ecuмenism is idolatry.  Paul VI taught idolatry in Lumen Gentium and it was never rescinded by his successors, who were also idolators.  Just because they managed to make people idol-worshippers in a clever and underhanded way does not mean that they avoided idolatry.

And all those in SSPX who accept this man Ratzinger as Pope, you are also accepting that the Vatican II Church is the real Catholic Church which it is not.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say Ratzinger is the Pope and then "refuse communion" with conciliarism, as Father Schmidberger tried to do.  Ratzinger IS conciliarism, he is the head of the conciliar, false Church.  He has made it perfectly clear time and time again that he stands behind the Vatican II "changes."

It is not the "una cuм" that is the source of SSPX's potentially deadly error but the "Papa nostro Benedicto."  EVERYTHING hinges on whether this man is Pope.  By saying that he is the Pope, you are saying that the VII Church is the Catholic Church -- by saying the VII Church is the Catholic Church, you are saying that the Catholic Church can teach fatal sins against the First Commandment, denying the very Passion of Christ, who died to forgive our sins through ONE Church and ONE road to salvation.

It is just more hypocrisy from the SSPX when they deny that Benedict sins against the First Commandment or is an idolator, yet they blab on and on about "ecuмenism."  The only difference between "ecuмenism" and "idolatry" is that the word "idolatry" makes sane people get up and RUN, while "ecuмenism" confuses them and makes them passive.  That is because SSPX tries to keep its parishioners in a hypnotic state where they don't see the full gravity of the situation, or what the abomination of VII really is, a false Church where God has been warped beyond all recognition.  

Pope Leo II, Third Council of Constantinople, AD 681: "So now that these points have been formulated by us with all precision in every respect and with all care, we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk THEY ARE EXCOMMUNICATED."

A former Neo-Pagan , once he has abjured his errors as in the case of Raoul would see pagansim for clearly. This being as far as it has infiltrated New Church. Two good books on that are "A Unicorn in the Sanctuary" and Moira Noonans book on leaving the New-age.

"You were a neo-pagan in the not too distant past, maybe the problem here is that you haven't entirely vanquished the idolatry of your own intellect and the hedonistic satisfaction of your own will. "

I wasn't a "neo-pagan."   I didn't dance around a maypole and play the Pan flute.  I scorned hippies and the new version "hipsters."  I was in two long monogamous relationships and never had a one-night stand.  I just grew up in a non-religious household and thought I was good, moral and spiritual.  People like this don't call themselves pagans even if they are.  
 
I was part of a wider attitude of "selective morality," which is where we are all good because we are better than someone else.  I don't do drugs so I am better than Lindsay Lohan -- I have never been accused of child molestation so I am better than Michael Jackson -- I am not mean and impatient so I am better than my father -- I don't cheat on my girlfriend so I am better than my girlfriend who cheats on me ( yet we were both having relations out of wedlock ) -- and so on and so on.  People like this see others' faults but not their own.  They are unaware of being sinners and for them the chickens never come home to roost.  They're always the victims.

My mom was married for over twenty years, and had been with my father since high school.  She was naturally monogamous, but my dad cheated on her repeatedly and divorced her.  This got her trapped in this mindset where she was a "good person" even though she denied Christ.  She got through the days by telling herself she was "martyred" in a way by my father, undeservedly, and that he was bad and she was good.  I think this victimized attitude became addictive for her.  These days, it's as if "not cheating" means you are good!

This is the kind of "pagan" that once existed in our family.  The "moral," self-righteous pagan.  This kind of pagan is perhaps more in danger than an overt sinner like Mary Magdalene because they feel cleaner, it's less obvious that they are need of a change and in need of God.  

This by way of clearing up that I wasn't exactly a "pagan" in the usual sense of the term.

That being said, I recognize the justice of your criticism.  Just as a drunkard can never say that he has "vanquished" alcohol but must constantly be on his guard, I will never be able to say that I have conquered my chief vice, which unfortunately for me is the worst one possible and the vice of Lucifer -- intellectual pride.  You don't just emerge from 32 years of error and become perfect overnight.  I haven't yet learned to guard my tongue as much as I should but luckily God is still in contact with me and He's revealing my faults and sins to me as they happen, so I haven't been abandoned yet -- Deo Gratias!  

Dawn is correct.  When I first began looking into Catholicism I saw almost no difference between my quasi-spiritual mindset and the mindset of Vatican II.  It was like half-a-dozen of one and six of the other.  My mom -- who occasionally taught sex ed before becoming converted -- even taught sex ed at a Vatican II Church five or six years ago and was lavishly praised by the "priest"!  Becoming Catholic after being pagan should be a transformative experience, the Church should be like a refuge from the world, it should make you into a new man.  This anti-Church keeps you pretty much as you are, besides filling your head with wrong information about the world situation and the Jєωs ( making it a sin to be against the "Shoah" for instance and bolstering the Jєωs in their complete world domination ).  

At first it just "felt wrong."  I could no more walk into a Vatican II Church than I could voluntarily launch myself into a pit full of spikes.  But the more I looked into it, the more I realized that their apostasy was even bolder than it first appeared.  I never believed that they could just run a counterfeit Church that we would have to submit to because they didn't use the Extraordinary Magisterium, as if they could continue to avoid teaching in perpetuity when teaching is the very job of the Pope.  How silly is that?  But luckily, I don't even have to worry about that because they DID use the Extraordinary Magisterium in Lumen Gentium and said "Together with us, Muslims worship the one God."  God be praised for this dogmatic pronouncement from apostates!  It certainly cuts through the thick fog of the usual attitude of the more "conservative" VII defenders:  "We know they're heretics but maybe they've cleverly avoided being branded as such through legal loopholes."

As for SSPX, I only had one meeting with the priest there.  Right from the jump it never made sense to me that I could reject Vatican Council II but somehow hold onto the Popes who created it and continue to defend it tooth-and-nail.  It will never make sense to me that this makes sense to anyone.  That is because it doesn't make sense.

Vatican II is as watery and vague as the "selective morality" mindset I talked about earlier, and SSPX is not much better.  But the sedevacantist Church -- the Catholic Church -- is firm and crystal-clear and without imposing contradictions.   It's kind of a Goldilocks and the Three Bears situation.  After too hot and too cold, I have found the porridge that is just right.

People like this don't call themselves pagans even if they are.

 

You were a neo-pagan pure and simple.  
 

This is the kind of "pagan" that once existed in our family.  The "moral," self-righteous pagan.  This kind of pagan is perhaps more in danger than an overt sinner like Mary Magdalene because they feel cleaner, it's less obvious that they are need of a change and in need of God.

Right.

This by way of clearing up that I wasn't exactly a "pagan" in the usual sense of the term.

A "pagan" is one that doesn't profess any religion in particular.

I will never be able to say that I have conquered my chief vice, which unfortunately for me is the worst one possible and the vice of Lucifer -- intellectual pride.

Sure you can, if you cooperate with God's graces.

You don't just emerge from 32 years of error and become perfect overnight.  I haven't yet learned to guard my tongue as much as I should but luckily God is still in contact with me and He's revealing my faults and sins to me as they happen, so I haven't been abandoned yet -- Deo Gratias!

Right, which is why I urge you to use great restraint and caution with regard to judging ecclesiastical matters.  And in fact, if you continue to committ mortal sins of injustice, you remain objectively alienated from God.  It is through these very sins that you are abandoning God.  If you are not careful, the next mortal sin could be your last, having filled up the cup of your unrighteousness.  Then it will be that you were predestined to Grace, but not to Glory and your condemnation will be just and according to the universal glory of God.

Dawn is correct.  When I first began looking into Catholicism I saw almost no difference between my quasi-spiritual mindset and the mindset of Vatican II.  It was like half-a-dozen of one and six of the other.  My mom -- who occasionally taught sex ed before becoming converted -- even taught sex ed at a Vatican II Church five or six years ago and was lavishly praised by the "priest"!

Right, but don't confuse sinners with the Church itself.  The fact that they fill the ranks of the Church and have obscured her marks, doesn't justify you creating another "perfect church."  

Becoming Catholic after being pagan should be a transformative experience, the Church should be like a refuge from the world, it should make you into a new man.

 

Well it should and it does.  The problem today is that through error and decay, those portions of the Church wherein this is effected has been greatly reduced.  

This anti-Church keeps you pretty much as you are, besides filling your head with wrong information about the world situation and the Jєωs ( making it a sin to be against the "Shoah" for instance and bolstering the Jєωs in their complete world domination ).

And herein lies your grevious error.  If by "anti-Church" you mean that the enemies within the Church form a kind of "anti-Church" in the poetical sense, then I can agree.  But if you mean to jurdically divorce the Church, tearing it asunder, fabricating in your mind a "sect" in the place of the juridical foundation and existence of the Church, then you will be in grave error.  Relentless and pervasive are their errors and public crimes, but that fact does not justify your creation of another Church.  

At first it just "felt wrong."  I could no more walk into a Vatican II Church than I could voluntarily launch myself into a pit full of spikes.  But the more I looked into it, the more I realized that their apostasy was even bolder than it first appeared.

 

There may in fact be many heretics and apostates in the Church.  There may in fact be bishops who have cast themselves out of their office before God.  There are a myriad of other errors that can cause just as much damage.  But again, to create in your mind a "new Church" is to go by the way of schism.  What will it profit you to recognize truth and error if in the end you lose your soul for all eternity?  

I never believed that they could just run a counterfeit Church that we would have to submit to because they didn't use the Extraordinary Magisterium, as if they could continue to avoid teaching in perpetuity when teaching is the very job of the Pope.  How silly is that?

 

Raoul, you are woefully, even sinfully ignorant of the nature of the magisterium and this has resulted in the creation of a "true church" outside of the identifiable Catholic Church.  There is no such thing as a "counterfeit Church" in the proper theological and juridical sense.  This "church" exists only in your mind.  You have greviously erred and have let the images in your head govern your decisions.  

But luckily, I don't even have to worry about that because they DID use the Extraordinary Magisterium in Lumen Gentium and said "Together with us, Muslims worship the one God."  God be praised for this dogmatic pronouncement from apostates!  It certainly cuts through the thick fog of the usual attitude of the more "conservative" VII defenders:  "We know they're heretics but maybe they've cleverly avoided being branded as such through legal loopholes."

Again, that text is in no way an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.  EVERYONE SEES THIS EXCEPT YOU.  Why do you cling to your erroneous opinions?  Why do you cling to your clearly erroneous understanding of the text itself, forcing it to say something absolutely ridiculous?  Your innocence ends here.  Either stop the intellectual idolatry and listen to reason or harden your will in the evil of schism.  

As for SSPX, I only had one meeting with the priest there.  Right from the jump it never made sense to me that I could reject Vatican Council II but somehow hold onto the Popes who created it and continue to defend it tooth-and-nail.  It will never make sense to me that this makes sense to anyone.  That is because it doesn't make sense.

It "never made sense" to you because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE.  You can't even grasp BASIC COMMON SENSE.  YOU VIOLATE WITH IMPUGNITY THE CANONS OF CHARITY AND JUSTICE.  You have made a shipwreck of an already terrible disaster.  

But the sedevacantist Church -- the Catholic Church -- is firm and crystal-clear and without imposing contradictions.

   

This is pure delusion in many respects.  I haven't met a sedevacantist yet who didn't contradict another sedevacantist on some "crucial" point.  The Church of the Sede Vacante will go down in history as yet another schismatical sect in the face of legitimate ecclesiastical problems.  

Suppose a good holy and traditional bishop is elected as Roman Pontiff by means of the current hierarchy.  Your "solution" will force you to remain outside of the Church and resist her restoration all because you belong to another "sedevacantist" church.  The irony of it all is that all this talk of "anti-church" in reality points to your own position within an anti-church, albeit very traditional looking.  Just because the face of Holy Mother Church is marred by error, corruption, sin, wicked prelates and foolish faithful, doesn't change the fact that she is still Holy Mother Church.  

So, that means that St. Augustine was never able to fully overcome his pagan lifestyle. Wow.
Caminus, I am intested. Since you are able to judge Raoul what religious training you have received?
As far as Vatican II and its popes, it is either Catholic or it is not. Did Vatican II and its docuмents contain heretical teaching? If it did it is not Catholic. There is only good and evil, Catholic or not Catholic. Lumen Gentium in particular? Catholic or not? Good or Evil? There is no in between or shades of gray.
When the modern popes praise the United Nations, recognize ѕуηαgσgυєs and Mosques, throw in a few witch doctors for good measure. Is that Catholic or Not? If it is Catholic it is Good and if there is even the slightest bit of evil or wrong thinking it is not Catholic and therefore must be avoided.
It is only our blindness and refusal to ask God what He wants us to do and how He wants us to do it that allows us to be blinded and unable to see sin for what it really is.
If it is not Catholic thought it is evil. Period.

How can you judge someone through a computer screen? Again I ask, where did you get your formation in theology and philosophy?

How can you judge someone through a computer screen?

 :good-shot: :applause: I take it you've met the Pope in person and spoke with him at length?  Get real.