Author Topic: For those who recognize the Pope (Read 5325 times)

Cletus · « **Reply #15 on:** September 17, 2008, 05:56:53 PM »

"How can you, being evil, speak to good effect?"

- Christ to the Pharisees

Cletus · « **Reply #16 on:** September 17, 2008, 05:58:40 PM »

"In the mouth of a fool, even a proverb is folly."

- Proverbs

roscoe · « **Reply #17 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:14:21 PM »

Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad--Meat Loaf

Chas Manson has never been convicted of killing anyone. The poor guy is a poster child for Multiple Personality
Disorder and legally speaking he is not guilty.

Ratzinger shows up in Mrs Martinez book.

Cletus · « **Reply #18 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:26:34 PM »

No undue disrespect meant to Mr Manson.

I was just using his name as a byword. That much I think he has coming.

Cletus · « **Reply #19 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:28:38 PM »

And I do believe that Mr Manson was found guilty of seven counts of first degree murder.

No one ever said that he personally cut up anyone.

roscoe · « **Reply #20 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:31:53 PM »

I actually can't remember specifically what Manson has been convicted of but it's not murder.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #21 on:** September 17, 2008, 08:06:10 PM »

Quote from: trent13

Because I am traditional Catholic and sedevacantist I tend to be extremely suspect of what Ratzinger does and am more inclined to think that apparent good things are only done with some more evil ulterior motive in mind. This is not to say that he is incapable of goodness...

Very well said. As for potentially excessive thoroughness, "everything", sans qualification, is a very thorough word. As clarified in your words above, I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps I was in some strange, nit-picking mood. We all have our days, eh? God speed.

Cletus, I concur with your points as well. Cheers.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #22 on:** September 17, 2008, 09:06:45 PM »

:argue:

:sign-surrender:

roscoe · « **Reply #23 on:** September 17, 2008, 10:32:18 PM »

Acc to wiki, Manson was found guitly of conspiracy to commit murder and under the joint responsiblity rule of Conspiracy was therefore convicted of the murders themselves.

trent13 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 18, 2008, 06:54:57 PM »

To Dulcamara: I mean no offence to you but everytime I see that little picture of the "pope" on your thingy it makes me angry! (Not angry at you - angry at him.)

Cletus · « **Reply #25 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:42:37 PM »

Let's assume that the mainstream Traditionalist view is correct.

Ratzinger is the pope. He's arsenic, but he's only one bum pill in the Catholic bottle, and the antidote to him is one's own hold on Tradition.

I don't get the point of showing special honor to a pope who teaches only some of the Faith and denies the rest. Who destroys the True Mass and disowns Christ before the Jews and supports the Revolution and all the rest of it.

It is very wrong to use the blessed words of the Teacher of Truth as soundbites in an insincere party line campaign ad. What EVERYONE here agrees on is that Benedict XVI cannot be trusted to teach Catholic Truth all across the board. Everyone here has not "heard" this, that, and the other thing coming from this man's mouth.

If you insist on upholding Ratzinger as Christ's Vicar, knowing that he is dangerously in error on many points, you should at least apply to the words, "He who hears you hears Me" with an asterisk and then the caveat "But only when you're not contradicting Tradition and destroying the True Mass and saying that I, Personally, am not such Hot Stuff after all."

Ratzinger holds that Christ is not all that, to use some late 90s vernacular.

Funny how some mainline Traditionalists, in order to stick it to the Seddies, stoop to the same in-your-face pope-on-the-brain gambits of the Novus Ordo conservatives whom they despise.

No one who writes on this board can honestly start shilling for this Benedict character. Everyone who posts here frequently has written of him in one way or another as a false teacher and a menace to souls and at least a potential murderer of souls.

Why posit Uncreated Wisdom as Ratzinger's unqualified cheerleader when you in your own wisdom have called him a confused Modernist with a diseased mind and an antichrist?

Dulcamara · « **Reply #26 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:11:54 AM »

Quote

Why posit Uncreated Wisdom as Ratzinger's unqualified cheerleader when you in your own wisdom have called him a confused Modernist with a diseased mind and an antichrist?

I have never called him an antichrist, nor would I. Moreover errors accepted on good faith do not carry the same guilt as those maliciously accepted and touted. Those who have actually been rubbing elbows with the men in Rome have more or less strongly hinted that the pope is virtually hog-tied by those men around him. In fact, someone went so far as to say of the former pope, "the pope is no longer in control," and that he didn't know the reasons for decisions he supposedly made himself. So... it's easy to condemn from the outside, but... we're not the one sitting in the chair surrounded by "the enemies within".

But anyhow, I leave God to judge the pope and the pope's sins. My duty is to listen to and obey him in whatever he does adhere to God's true Faith. I should hope that were I ever in error and gravely mistaken, God would show me as much mercy as to spare me for my ignorance if I were in good will. So I would show the same kindness to the pope.

Cletus · « **Reply #27 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:50:42 AM »

We're also not the ones who are slapping Jesus in the Holy Face by quaffing nice cold brewskies with the blaspheming apostate likes of Hans Kung.

Hog-tied? Please.

"Someone said..."

That is hardly convincing.

We should never resort to sacristy gossip when we attempt to justify our ecclesiological positions. Josef Ratzinger seems very strong-willed and domineering to me. He was a neo-Modernist bully in the 1960s. He hasn't changed.

"Errors touted in good faith..."

Why would anyone say that the monsters who created and now sustain the Satanic Vatican II sect are in good faith?

How often does Josef Ratzinger adhere to "God's true Faith"? Half the time? Once a decade?

It is horribly dishonest and unjust to demand that others hear and obey a Vatican II cult leader as God's Vicar when you generally do not do so yourself and you are unwilling (or unable) to give even a ballpark figure as to how often you do so. Once a year? Once a decade? Once a New Pentecost?

Traditionalists who adhere to the SSPX are in a CHRONIC state of not hearing and not obeying the Vatican II popes and their faithful henchmen.

It is not our place to deign to "show kindness" to a Roman Pontiff whom we have accused of having a diseased error-addled mind.

You ARE gravely mistaken.

Just don't say you're the pope and all will be well.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #28 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:59:34 AM »

That someone, actually, was "someone" right up at the top in Rome... not a parish priest or some lay busybody. Unfortunately, I have not got a very good memory when it comes to names and all those modern, ten mile long new tags pasted on the various positions in the church today.

And either the same "someone" or a very similar one who was right up there at the top, who definitely should have known what was going on at the very top of the chain, said, pointing to the pope's apartments, "Even I do not know what is going on up there."

But I prefer to leave it at "someone" and "near the top" than say, "cardinal so and so" and turn out to be totally wrong. I only remember that it was someone WAY at the top, who should have known everything going on, and who would certainly have known the atmosphere there because he was actually IN it.

Oh, and it was a bishop who related this, who among his other remarks before that said, (words to the effect of) "There are lots of interesting things going on... I will tell you SOME of them, but not ALL..." because he wanted only to tell the things he was absolutely, positively certain of the truth of. In fact, he wouldn't even tell one fact because he was only 99% certain of it's accuracy.

Of course I shouldn't be too surprised. If you're not willing to give the pope the benefit of the doubt, I should hardly expect you to give it to a mere puny lay person.

Cletus · « **Reply #29 on:** September 19, 2008, 09:30:26 AM »

There is no "doubt" about the Antichristian nature of Vatican II Rome and its top bananas.