Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Raoul76 on June 25, 2009, 01:18:37 AM
-
This is from a letter I just wrote to the relative of a well-known sedevacantist, edited for clarity and length. I hope he will forgive me for reprinting part of a private letter here but I'll probably never be able to describe my feelings about the "una cuм" Mass so well again.
---
I am now about to say something nice about SSPX, so prepare for the shock. Since it would seem to be an objective fact -- or at least you and I think so -- that these Popes are not Popes ( not just anti-Popes with invalid elections but non-Popes and non-Catholics ), then the clergy of SSPX are not really in schism when they sift and pick-and-choose. Sadly, it is those who remain in VII who bear the full brunt of schism.
Many sedevacantists say the SSPX is in schism against the "man they think is Pope." But who cares what those in SSPX think? They think wrong. How can you be in schism against a figment of your own imagination? Because if JPII was Pope, or Ratzinger is Pope, than I'm here typing this to you with Minnie Mouse on my lap, feeding me wine and cheese.
I see it a bit differently than most. Those in SSPX are not schismatics, even if they rebel against "the man they think is Pope," because he is NOT Pope. However, they may be heretics, because of their offense against the dogmas of infallibility and indefectibility.
What a terrible and blasphemous assumption they make about the Catholic Church, that it could give us Popes who say the Old Covenant is still valid and that Jєωs can convert people to the "light." Do you know what that means? It means Christ may as well never have come down to earth to have had the flesh torn piece by piece from His body. Here is where, if I were in SSPX, I'd be getting scared. Their offense is directly aimed at God Himself, with an implicit denial of His mission.
I know this may sound hysterical or like exaggeration, but I believe that with every "una cuм" that is offered, the crown of thorns is pushed deeper down into Christ's skull.
Being una-cuм with idol-worshippers is an implicit denial of the Church and thus an implicit denial of the Passion itself. The consequences of that, to put it mildly, could be serious.
The question is, how many people have a mind subtle enough to put together the syllogism I just did? I know God's mind is subtle enough ( ha ha ). But does He really expect Joe Schmo to be able to figure it out? Well, why not? God reveals his secrets to the humble. What excuse would Mr. Schmo have when SSPX itself gripes about Vatican II and its leaders with the much softer-sounding term "ecuмenism," which is really a euphemism for "idolatry"?
If the Popes are "ecuмenical" -- idolaters, Judaizers -- then how can they be Popes? SSPX make it sound as if worshipping strange gods is a minor fault, when it is really BLANKET APOSTASY. And the fact that so few see this can only be attributed to the shell-shock, the hypnotism, the vivid confusion spread not only by Vatican II but by SSPX.
The sedevacantist position, on the other hand, is like having smelling salts thrust under your nose.
-
If the Popes are "ecuмenical" -- idolaters, Judaizers -- then how can they be Popes?
Where is your proof that Benedict XVI literally worships idols?
-
That stems from an imaginative poetry devoid of rational foundation. He argues from a grand "thematic" perspective and judges in light of a story he has created in his mind. When we descend to the level of proposition and sound philosophical examination it all falls to pieces. I call it the "Hollywood solution" since their imaginative interpretation makes for a good movie script. Gerry Matatics has the same intellectual problem. But for those interested in rational concepts like "proposition," "evidence" and "reason" this kind of talk is nothing but hot air. I think this tendency is a direct result of watching too many movies. This is the "television's generation" of apologetics which takes sensation in the place of well-reasoned discourse.
-
Here is just one instance of Benedict acquiesing to a false religion.
During his stay in Sydney for the WYD-2008, Benedict XVI received a kind of "blessing" from one of the many Aborigine witch doctors he met. Even though we don't know for sure the date this picture was taken, it was probably on the day of the final Mass where he allowed tribal customs to be part of the sacred liturgy.
The Australian Indians enjoyed such broad liberty that it almost changed the tone of the WYD. Perhaps tribalism is a new component that Pope Ratzinger wants to introduce in the WYDs as part of his growing ecological concerns. Let's wait and see.
Anyway, it seems quite difficult to believe that a true Vicar of Christ should be "blessed" by a pagan witch doctor, whose gods, according to the Gospel, are devils - Omnia dii gentium sunt daemonia [All the gods of the Gentiles are devils] (Psalm 95: 5).
There are so many times and photos (modern popes do love cameras) of them lending credence to false religions.
-
The French press is reporting that Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who many think is the most traditional of the four living bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has announced in a letter dated February 28, 2009, that "there exists a 'legitimate doubt' on the 'validity of a pope such as Benedict XVI." Tissier noted in his letter that the SSPX's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also had this doubt. -From a letter by the good Bishop dated 2/28/09.
-
Now you'll have to demonstrate how "lending credence to false religions" actually amounts to or is in fact "worshipping idols." I've noticed that "sedes" assume an identity when in fact there is none. It's a problem yes, but it is not worshipping idols. You have to get at the true nature of the problem. Overstating your case doesn't help.
-
It is one thing (and quite awful enough) to lend credence to a false religion; it is something else altogether to become an adherent to a false religion. The latter is to become an idolater, which is precisely what Raoul76 has accused Benedict XVI of being.
So, Raul76 and Dawn, can either of you provide a single shred of evidence to prove that Benedict XVI actually worships idols?
It's a simple question, really.
-
The French press is reporting that Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who many think is the most traditional of the four living bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has announced in a letter dated February 28, 2009, that "there exists a 'legitimate doubt' on the 'validity of a pope such as Benedict XVI." Tissier noted in his letter that the SSPX's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also had this doubt. -From a letter by the good Bishop dated 2/28/09.
Source, please? A link would be helpful.
-
The French press is reporting that Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who many think is the most traditional of the four living bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has announced in a letter dated February 28, 2009, that "there exists a 'legitimate doubt' on the 'validity of a pope such as Benedict XVI." Tissier noted in his letter that the SSPX's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also had this doubt. -From a letter by the good Bishop dated 2/28/09.
Firstly, quote the entire text. Secondly, what does he mean by "legitimate doubt" in terms of moral theology? Does he mean that such a doubt is equivalent to militantly declaring he is an "anti-pope" and denouncing other Catholics who do not share this opinion? Does he mean that such a doubt amounts to the pretended "absolute certainty" that "sedes" claim to possess? I'm sorry to be such a nag, but if you are going to make claims, then at least have the willingness and ability to analyse them. At least have the decency to quote things in the proper contexts and adhere to the intention of the author. This a virtual plague among "sedes."
-
It is one thing (and quite awful enough) to lend credence to a false religion; it is something else altogether to become an adherent to a false religion. The latter is to become an idolater, which is precisely what Raoul76 has accused Benedict XVI of being.
So, Raul76 and Dawn, can either of you provide a single shred of evidence to prove that Benedict XVI actually worships idols?
It's a simple question, really.
They don't want to take him according to his stated intentions because their hatred has blinded them to giving a fair treatement of the matter. Suppose he understood such an act to be nothing but a cultural phenomenon? They don't see the real problem and attack a straw man. Consequently, they can't offer any rational solution or critique. Its like asserting that a man is guilty of some great crime when in fact he is guilty of another crime altogether.
-
I do not hate Benedict. You are quite wrong on that. It is the whole quote from Bishop Tissier, who has said much the same before. So has Archbishop Lefebvre. Those two along will Bishop Williamson are men that I admire greatly. I have read the biography on Lefebvre.
If there is hate on this thread, it is hatred of truth by people who perform Hegelian double minded back flips to excuse the most scanalous behavior of the "modern Popes." that in and of itself says much. God is the same yesterday, today, and always. He does not change and His Mass and Sacraments do not change.
Now, for further example of Alinsky's rule number five I shall hit reply and let you both have at it.
-
Dawn, why are you evading my questions?
-
If there is hate on this thread, it is hatred of truth by people who perform Hegelian double minded back flips to excuse the most scanalous behavior of the "modern Popes." that in and of itself says much.
You've got to be kidding. Do you even read what you write before you post it? My dear, we're not talking about BEHAVIOR, we're talking about APOSTASY FROM THE FAITH (which concerns explicit denial of doctrine or explicit adherence to false doctrine). By no stretch of the imagination do either Caminus or I excuse the utterly scandalous behavior of Benedict XVI.
Will you please for once ANSWER THE QUESTION:
Can you produce a single shred of evidence that Benedict XVI literally worships idols???
-
By the way, I read and re-read Lumen Gentium 16 yesterday, and it really gives me pause. However, I don't want to discuss that just yet. For the moment, I simply want to address Raoul76's assertion that Benedict XVI is an idolater.
If you folks cannot produce evidence to back up that assertion, then you need to retract it. Otherwise, you are indeed guilty of bearing false witness.
-
By the way, I read and re-read Lumen Gentium 16 yesterday, and it really gives me pause. However, I don't want to discuss that just yet. For the moment, I simply want to address Raoul76's assertion that Benedict XVI is an idolater.
If you folks cannot produce evidence to back up that assertion, then you need to retract it. Otherwise, you are indeed guilty of bearing false witness.
-
Sorry for the double-post ... thus increasing my ridiculously high per-day output.
-
http://www.traditioninaction.org/
This site for one has much docuмentation on the modern popes bowing to false religions. And before you jump at them, the are resist them to the facers not sedes.
So, you will read the articles, look at the pictures and what does that do? Nothing.
Hmm, sad indeed that an encyclical should make one pause, I hope it is in wonder and not confusion?
-
Dawn, you've got a serious definition/language problem. You're actually the one mired in confusion about even basic concepts. If you cannot cite an explicit example where he is literally worshipping idols then you need to retract it. And before you accuse people of being "Hegelians" I would strongly suggest you A.) Understand what Hegelianism is and B.) make darn sure that you are applying it appropriately to those with whom you disagree. I'm starting to lose my patience with you and Raoul. You are bound to exercise caution and restraint; you are bound by the laws of reason, charity and justice.
Its okay to just say "I don't know" with regard to the Pope. Its okay to admit that you are in WAY over your head. It is better that you mind your own business and sanctify your own soul and tend to your duties of state. The same goes for Raoul and any other person that feels he needs to venture an opinion. Heck, Raoul just admitted that he was a neo-pagan in the not too distant past, yet he feels he can jump in with both feet and start making bold pronouncements regarding the Catholic faith. Rashness, pure rashness.
-
Caminus.I did give a link, to Tradition in Action, and they have docuмented many photos/instances of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I do not have time to link each on. Go there and see.They are not sede, they are Resist to the Facers.
Worship and idol like fall down in front of a golden calf? Not exactly, but still recognizing false religions.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/ChurchRevIndex.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_000_Index.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/hottopics.html The last link has some lovely pictures including the now famous one of John Paul kissing the Quaran.
Here is a link where they are docuмenting the dreadful treatment of the underground Church in China
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f000TradIssuesIndex.html#trad
as I said, I picked this site because they are NOT sede.
And, I do know what hegelian double-minded thinking is. It is what John Paul and Benedict practice.
-
-
I looked at Dawn's link for less than 10 minutes and found all sorts of apostasy. You really have to be bad willed not to see the reality that these men are antipopes.
By the way- Benedict XV was the first in the line, don't you know?
-
I looked at Dawn's link for less than 10 minutes and found all sorts of apostasy.
I asked Dawn to supply a specific point of evidence, she sends a whole article filled with all kinds of assertions. That's not what I call supplying evidence. If you've read the article, why don't you give us five examples of literal apostasy.
Direct quotes from Benedict XVI, please, not interpretations by Dr. Droleskey.
Remember, the point of this discussion is to identify real evidence that Benedict XVI himself worships false idols. That's what being an idolater means, you know.
Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you.
-
I looked at Dawn's link for less than 10 minutes and found all sorts of apostasy.
I asked Dawn to supply a specific point of evidence, she sends a whole article filled with all kinds of assertions. That's not what I call supplying evidence. If you've read the article, why don't you give us five examples of literal apostasy.
Direct quotes from Benedict XVI, please, not interpretations by Dr. Droleskey.
Remember, the point of this discussion is to identify real evidence that Benedict XVI himself worships false idols. That's what being an idolater means, you know.
Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you.
Maybe he doesn't worship idols. Maybe Dawn mispoke. But the fact is, if I was a outsider looking in, Benedict XVI praying towards Mecca alongside Mohammedans, inside a mosque, facing towards Mecca, in the same position as the Muslims, I think it would be safe to say "He's a Muslim".
-
I looked at Dawn's link for less than 10 minutes and found all sorts of apostasy.
I asked Dawn to supply a specific point of evidence, she sends a whole article filled with all kinds of assertions. That's not what I call supplying evidence. If you've read the article, why don't you give us five examples of literal apostasy.
Direct quotes from Benedict XVI, please, not interpretations by Dr. Droleskey.
Remember, the point of this discussion is to identify real evidence that Benedict XVI himself worships false idols. That's what being an idolater means, you know.
Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you.
Maybe he doesn't worship idols. Maybe Dawn mispoke. But the fact is, if I was a outsider looking in, Benedict XVI praying towards Mecca alongside Mohammedans, inside a mosque, facing towards Mecca, in the same position as the Muslims, I think it would be safe to say "He's a Muslim".
You're right. That's why that behavior is a scandal, not apostasy.
The fact is that Dawn and Raoul76 are not outsiders looking in.
"Maybe he doesn't worship idols." That's generous. How about admitting that there is not a shred of real evidence anywhere that Benedict XVI worships idols. Earlier in this thread, Raoul76 referred to Benedict XVI as an "idolator". It's not the first time. Raoul76 needs to retract that calumny and Dawn needs to apologize for her support of it.
-
While we're at it, Raoul76 also referred to Benedict XVI (including him by implication in the term "the Popes") as a Judaizer. That's not quite as serious a calumny as calling Benedict XVI an idolator, yet it is still not quite accurate. A "Judaizer" (in the scriptural and historical sense) is someone who says that Catholics must adopt Jєωιѕн practices and follow Temple regulations in order to be saved. Benedict XVI doesn't really do that. He comes very close to it, though, by expecting Catholics to adhere to the Shoah dogma.
-
I looked at Dawn's link for less than 10 minutes and found all sorts of apostasy.
I asked Dawn to supply a specific point of evidence, she sends a whole article filled with all kinds of assertions. That's not what I call supplying evidence. If you've read the article, why don't you give us five examples of literal apostasy.
Direct quotes from Benedict XVI, please, not interpretations by Dr. Droleskey.
Remember, the point of this discussion is to identify real evidence that Benedict XVI himself worships false idols. That's what being an idolater means, you know.
Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you.
Maybe he doesn't worship idols. Maybe Dawn mispoke. But the fact is, if I was a outsider looking in, Benedict XVI praying towards Mecca alongside Mohammedans, inside a mosque, facing towards Mecca, in the same position as the Muslims, I think it would be safe to say "He's a Muslim".
You're right. That's why that behavior is a scandal, not apostasy.
The fact is that Dawn and Raoul76 are not outsiders looking in.
"Maybe he doesn't worship idols." That's generous. How about admitting that there is not a shred of real evidence anywhere that Benedict XVI worships idols. Earlier in this thread, Raoul76 referred to Benedict XVI as an "idolator". It's not the first time. Raoul76 needs to retract that calumny and Dawn needs to apologize for her support of it.
No, I think that Assisi amounts to apostasy.
-
Of course.
-
I looked at Dawn's link for less than 10 minutes and found all sorts of apostasy.
I asked Dawn to supply a specific point of evidence, she sends a whole article filled with all kinds of assertions. That's not what I call supplying evidence. If you've read the article, why don't you give us five examples of literal apostasy.
Direct quotes from Benedict XVI, please, not interpretations by Dr. Droleskey.
Remember, the point of this discussion is to identify real evidence that Benedict XVI himself worships false idols. That's what being an idolater means, you know.
Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you.
Maybe he doesn't worship idols. Maybe Dawn mispoke. But the fact is, if I was a outsider looking in, Benedict XVI praying towards Mecca alongside Mohammedans, inside a mosque, facing towards Mecca, in the same position as the Muslims, I think it would be safe to say "He's a Muslim".
You're right. That's why that behavior is a scandal, not apostasy.
The fact is that Dawn and Raoul76 are not outsiders looking in.
"Maybe he doesn't worship idols." That's generous. How about admitting that there is not a shred of real evidence anywhere that Benedict XVI worships idols. Earlier in this thread, Raoul76 referred to Benedict XVI as an "idolator". It's not the first time. Raoul76 needs to retract that calumny and Dawn needs to apologize for her support of it.
No, I think that Assisi amounts to apostasy.
It amounts to something, but not apostasy. Now if John Paul actually adopted one of those religions and practiced it as a profession of faith, then yes, that would be apostasy. Your "interpretive apostasy" amounts to a false accusation. Drolesky begs us to indulge his conclusions without providing hard evidence by way of reasoned discourse. Sorry, but I won't "fill in the gaps" with my imagination. If "sedes" want support, they're gonna have to start raising their intellectual standards.
-
I invite any sedevacantist on here to engage these topics. Pick your best and brightest and send them my way. I'd be glad to discuss the matter. Gerry Matatics? Silence. Fr. Cekada? Silence. Who will step up and defend their positions?
-
No, I think that Assisi amounts to apostasy.
It amounts to something, but not apostasy. Now if John Paul actually adopted one of those religions and practiced it as a profession of faith, then yes, that would be apostasy. Your "interpretive apostasy" amounts to a false accusation. Drolesky begs us to indulge his conclusions without providing hard evidence by way of reasoned discourse. Sorry, but I won't "fill in the gaps" with my imagination. If "sedes" want support, they're gonna have to start raising their intellectual standards.
Exactly right. These folks don't even understand the meaning of the terms that they so carelessly throw around.
Bearing false witness is a mortal sin.
Enough is enough. This debate has become a total waste of time.