[Stephen Francis]

1. A "Catholic" so-called "Answers" host referring to traditional Catholics as "high-church Protestants". Protestants broke with Tradition, so it's Newchurch and its cronies who are the "high-church Protestants".

2. A banner ad on THIS forum advertising a theological seminary run by "evangelicals" where the school is said to be "holding firm the faithful [sic] Word". When I think of all the ways these so-called "evangelicals" have departed from Scripture's plain reading, let alone from the teachings of Holy Church, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

What irony do you see out there?

[Stubborn]

1. A "Catholic" so-called "Answers" host referring to traditional Catholics as "high-church Protestants". Protestants broke with Tradition, so it's Newchurch and its cronies who are the "high-church Protestants".

That's the whole thing - - the modernist NOers are not simply not Catholic, they are anti-Catholic.

Modernism is such a horrendous heresy that they cannot even fathom that they welcome and support every other condemned sect, but when it comes to the true faith, they spit on it - with a happy face - as they have always done.

The real truth of the matter is, if we were "high-church Protestants", they'd be falling all over themselves to ecuмinate with us, have nice dialogues and talk about the differences so we could all agree to disagree. That is what the NO is all about.

Wait till Our Lord gets ahold of them - all we can do is pray they wake up before then!

[Neil Obstat]

.


I'm not so gentle, sorry.  

The irony that gets my goat is listening to +Fellay give one of his speeches.
At least half of what he says is right out of the playbook of the Conciliar
wreckovation tactics of Vat.II.  He purports to be "Catholic" and he acts
just like the anti-Catholics about whom you guys are talking.  

Like Fr. Pfeiffer says,
"You know it's doctrinal because it comes with punishments."
But +F says it's not doctrinal.  

They said during Vat.II "This is a pastoral Council, so don't worry about
any doctrinal definition, because there won't be any."  
Then no sooner the so-called council is over, and the same cork-heads
bob to the top of troubled post-Conciliar waters and say, "Oh! Look!  This
says 'Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,' so it must be 'DOGMATIC'!"

And now +Fellay is doing the same thing.
On April 15th, National Extortion Day (USA) 2012, he sent his abominable
AFD to Rome which declares what he says the SSPX 'believes' and
modernist Rome rejected it (+TdM says it was a miraculous intervention
from Our Lady that made that happen).
A)  It is a lie that the SSPX believes it, because it does not believe it.
B)  It is a list of articles of faith - make that BAD faith, and so it's doctrinal.
C)  Even after modernist Rome rejected it, +F tried to cover it up and keep
       it secret, and then on August 28th, over FOUR MONTHS LATER, he now
       claims he told Msgr. di Noia that he is 'taking back' his AFD.
D)  How can you promise that you believe something in April and then in
       August claim that you do not promise to believe it?
E)  This is HIGHLY IRONIC that a bishop who claims to be Catholic is
       acting like a heretic while he goes about accusing faithful Catholics
       of being "disobedient" and "prideful."