CathInfo.com

The problem with Pius XII's doctrine has nothing to do with the doctrine itself, but the worldly men who took it out of context.  If anything, it was a question of emphasis coupled with bad timing, I think he just assumed the good will of his audience, which is a normal and charitable disposition.  The fact that a man may err in this question of fact neither impugns his doctrine or the goodness of his own will.    

I would have you know that you will one day be a very holy and wise priest.

 Amen
I hope the same thing for him.
May God make you a priest forever. According to the order of Melchizedeck.

But Raoul is not moved by examples of authority, unless of course they fit into his preconceived agenda (note his strange referencing to a book written by a liberal).  Raoul is simply trying to pick a fight and stir up problems where none exist, namely with regard to the old teaching of the theologians and not with the causes of the abuse of this doctrine among certain Catholics.  So extremely unreasonable has he become, so rash and thoughtless, that he has literally deprived himself of the soul saving Sacraments even prior to removing his ignorance on the doctrinal issues.  That is, he refuses communion with other Catholics based upon chimera and mere suspicion!  Can you imagine the degree of pride and ignorance that goes into making such judgments?  This is the classic definition of schism.  The very sad thing obviously is that Raoul will end up in hell alongside the very men he despises, hating them with an even more intense hatred, and cursing the God he now claims to worship and honor.  

Now if he truly believes that the "novus ordo" Church is absolutely speaking a false sect, then why does he pay so much attention to it?  It would be like your or I spending hours studying doctrinal controversies in the Lutheran sect.  

Raoul DOES have a good intellect, even though I disagree with him on some things.

As I said before, posts like his are what I'd like to see on CathInfo. I read them, and can see that he makes many good points. He is using his reason -- if only more people did that.

The whole issue of pride I'm not sure about, since I don't know him very well. I just wanted to point out that certain red flags went off on my end --

For one thing, I know there's a temptation for someone who has read a few books (or been in the seminary for a few months) to want to run out and start teaching people. Especially for someone well-endowed in the zeal department. Raoul is nothing if not zealous. So am I; therefore I can relate to that. But, obviously, it's best for someone in that position to be patient and just keep reading, praying, listening and learning.

But to be "pontificating" (which is a good word for it -- his posts read like a cross between a Papal encyclical and St. Thomas Aquinas) when he hasn't been Catholic for very long (how long, by the way? Someone said he was a convert...) seems like it could be problematic.

And recall that many Protestant "reformers" sounded VERY convincing to the ignorant masses -- who saw countless problems in their own day -- they had their very own Crisis in the Church with priests living with concubines, fathering children, being ignorant of basic dogmas, etc.

In fact, virtually ALL heresiarchs (founders of heretical sects) will simplify a doctrine, making it "more understandable" to the average man -- which, of course, takes all the truth out of it, but that doesn't matter to the heresiarch. For example, Mohammad took all the mystery out of heaven, describing it as a place of carnal pleasure -- and he went on to delineate the pleasures one could expect there.

So we should ALL be careful, and watch, because our adversary the devil goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Wherefore resist him, steadfast in faith.
(See my sig line, below, for the Latin version)

Matthew