Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Augstine Baker on August 06, 2012, 12:05:36 PM
-
Sacrilege in Melbourne: 'Inclusive Catholics' give communion to a dog
There is an appalling story in The Age today, on a group of heretical ex-Catholics, led by Fr Greg Reynolds, when the 'inclusiveness' of this clearly protestant group was tested by a visitor giving his dog communion.
Sacrilege?
Given the description of the service, and the heretical views of the priest concerned, there seems a good chance that the consecration was not in fact valid. The problem is that the priest concerned is still a catholic priest, albeit one with his faculties suspended for his public support inter alia of the ordination of women, so there is a genuine risk that sacrilege did in fact occur.
Steel yourself before you read what the article said about the service:
"A first-time visitor arrived late at the Inclusive Catholics service in South Yarra with a large and well-trained German shepherd. When the consecrated bread and wine were passed around, the visitor took some bread and fed it to his dog.
http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/08/sacrilege-in-melbourne-inclusive.html
-
if the man was truly ordained and made a valid consecration, then this host would truly be BBSD of Christ and a sacriledge......anyone have any info this was not a true host to begin with?
Oh do I miss the days of the Inquistion and the Catholic state :heretic: :dwarf:
-
At least 50% of Australian Catholics believe in real presence, so whatever your objective appraisal of the validity of the sacrament could be, the damage has been done.
-
true enough......that percent is higher then the USA, amazing as liberalism is high there too.
But agree, even IF the host was unconsecrated, scandal has been greviously done........need to act as if it was adn punish the priest with excommunication if not already done (might have missed that point)
-
Actually, it may be less sacrilegious than the other human communions at this travesty of a Mass. At least the dog didn't know any better. Jeez, what idiots. :facepalm:
-
This makes me ill. It also requires reparation for the sacrilege
-
This is a good example of what happens when there are abuses piled on top of
abuses, and the local bishops let it go or worse, even support the abuses.
In this "service" the consecrated hosts and "cup" of wine were "passed around" to
the people in attendance, and this one guy with a "well-trained German Shepherd"
who had come in late to the "service" took one of the hosts from the bowl he was
handed and gave the host to his dog.
~ The guy with the dog showed up "late" to the "service." How late? Was it a
Sunday Mass? If he arrived during the consecration, for example, and was
late for no good reason, he had already missed Mass on Sunday and shouldn't be
receiving communion anyway, so why was he given the container of hosts? Was
the man even Catholic? What was his dog doing there? "Well trained" is probably
not a seeing-eye dog. No mention of the man being blind, either, so he probably
wasn't.
So what does the local bishop have to say about the whole affair?
He only criticized the news, accusing the journalist of using the wrong words to
describe the Blessed Sacrament, that instead of "consecrated bread and wine,"
he should have said "body and blood of Jesus Christ."
***Update:Archbishop Hart responds
Archbishop Hart has written a [letter] to the editor and put out a press release complaining about the way this story was reported in The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html):
"Archbishop Denis Hart of the Archdiocese of Melbourne said today that Melbourne’s The Age newspaper (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html) was holding Catholicism up for ridicule in an article published in The Age this morning.
The article ‘Every flock needs a shepherd’ (The Age, 6/8), reports that at a Mass conducted by a group called Inclusive Catholics, the Blessed Sacrament was given to a dog.
The Archbishop said “that anyone would feed the Eucharist to a dog is an abomination.”
Writing to the Editor of The Age today, the Archbishop said “Your article ‘Every flock needs a shepherd’ is in bad faith. It is the most fundamental and defining belief of Catholics that what you call ‘the consecrated bread and wine’ is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”
“That you should choose to report the matter in the way that you did can only be understood as an attempt to hold Catholicism up to ridicule.
“Your integrity in this matter can be judged by asking whether, if something sacred to Judaism or Islam had similarly been desecrated, you would have treated the matter with such flippancy.”
No word however on what action is being taken against priest and congregation...
Has Archbishop Hart considered that
~ It's an abomination that anyone would bring a dog into Mass in the first place?
~ It's an abomination that they pass around a bowl with consecrated hosts?
~ It's an abomination that someone arriving "late" to the "service" is handed the bowl?
~ It's an abomination that they are desecrating the Mass with the abominable Novus Ordo liturgy in the first place?
~ It's an abomination to pass around the Chalice too?
~ It's an abomination that the Archbishop continues to support innovations and novelty of all kinds?
~ It's an abomination that their "service" is in the vernacular language and not Latin?
~ It's an abomination that this Archbishop encourages "inclusiveness" and "ecuмenism" and "religious liberty" against all Sacred Tradition?
~ It's an abomination that with all these abuses, the Archbishop has the temerity to complain about how The Age reported the story????
-
From the source article in The Age:
...He is still a priest, though now on the dole. Mary Fenelon, who usually worships in Abbotsford, comes to this Mass because ''these people are forward-thinkers, and the church is going backwards. This is inclusive and welcoming.''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html#ixzz22rKv3fre
Fenelon is expressing the same spirit as +Fellay when he promotes dialogue with
apostate Rome. She travels far from home to worship with forward-thinkers, when
the Church is going backwards. So does +Fellay. He travels far from home to
worship with forward-thinkers, and hopes to drag the Society into worshiping with
forward-thinkers too, while the other 3 Society bishops are going backwards, in
his perception.
The other 3 bishops are not going backwards, at all. It just appears that way
to +Fellay as he drifts off into conciliarism, because from his perspective, the
other 3 bishops look like they are "moving backwards" but that's because it is
+Fellay who is moving away from Tradition.
-
At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue. :facepalm:
Lord, have mercy on us!
-
At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue. :facepalm:
Lord, have mercy on us!
in that narrow sense, then, he is better then most NO that herd up to altar like cattle and man handle host.......even the dogs believe and tremble?
-
Don't get fooled by the neo-conservative Catholics and their Newchurch excess stories.
For decades they name and shame the most excessive Newchurch priests and bishops and actions, and since some years the Neo-SSPX does so, too. But their scary excess stories don't change a thing because they don't present any solution whatsoever.
In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.
Short of a miracle in the form of a complete conversion of the Newpope, nothing will change. So we traditional Catholics have to hold out and wait and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. Interestingly the neo-conservatives in and around the SSPX don't say that. But the good Bishop does. That's why they're planing to expel him.
Eleison Comments CCLVI (9 June 2012): Archbishop Speaks (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2012/06/ec-256-der-erzbischof-spricht.html)
(..) As an example of [Archbishop Lefebvre's] clear mind, here is a letter that he wrote on August 18, 1988, to Dom Thomas Aquinas, the young Prior of the monastery in Brazil which had been founded from the Traditional Benedictine monastery in the south of France, le Barroux, under Dom Gérard. Alas, within days of the consecrations in Écône, Dom Gérard had broken with the SSPX in order to integrate his monastery into the Conciliar Church. Here is what the Archbishop wrote to Dom Thomas:–
(..)
In [Dom Gérard’s] declaration he lays out what has been granted to him, and he accepts to put himself under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional. That is what made me keep my distance. At the same time he wished to retain the friendship and support of Traditionalists, which is inconceivable. He accuses us of resisting for the sake of resisting. I did warn him, but his decision had already long been taken, and he did not want to heed our advice.
The consequences are now inevitable. But we will have no further relations with le Barroux, and we are advising our faithful to give no more support to an operation which is henceforth in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Universal Kingship. The Benedictine Sisters (attached to le Barroux) are in great distress. They came to see me. I gave to them the advice that I give to you: remain free, and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. (..)
Such was the Archbishop’s clear mind and will from the Episcopal consecrations onwards. One wonders how some of his sons can now be wanting to put themselves “under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional”, or, under a subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition. Such is the power of seduction, increasing all the time, of the subjectivist world around us. The madness of subjectivism has become so normal, so widespread, that few people notice it any longer. “Our help is in the name of the Lord.”
Kyrie eleison.
Bishop Richard Williamson
-
Don't get fooled by the neo-conservative Catholics and their Newchurch excess stories.
For decades they name and shame the most excessive Newchurch priests and bishops and actions, and since some years the Neo-SSPX does so, too. But their scary excess stories don't change a thing because they don't present any solution whatsoever.
In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.
Short of a miracle in the form of a complete conversion of the Newpope, nothing will change. So we traditional Catholics have to hold out and wait and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. Interestingly the neo-conservatives in and around the SSPX don't say that. But the good Bishop does. That's why they're planing to expel him.
Eleison Comments CCLVI (9 June 2012): Archbishop Speaks (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2012/06/ec-256-der-erzbischof-spricht.html)
(..) As an example of [Archbishop Lefebvre's] clear mind, here is a letter that he wrote on August 18, 1988, to Dom Thomas Aquinas, the young Prior of the monastery in Brazil which had been founded from the Traditional Benedictine monastery in the south of France, le Barroux, under Dom Gérard. Alas, within days of the consecrations in Écône, Dom Gérard had broken with the SSPX in order to integrate his monastery into the Conciliar Church. Here is what the Archbishop wrote to Dom Thomas:–
(..)
In [Dom Gérard’s] declaration he lays out what has been granted to him, and he accepts to put himself under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional. That is what made me keep my distance. At the same time he wished to retain the friendship and support of Traditionalists, which is inconceivable. He accuses us of resisting for the sake of resisting. I did warn him, but his decision had already long been taken, and he did not want to heed our advice.
The consequences are now inevitable. But we will have no further relations with le Barroux, and we are advising our faithful to give no more support to an operation which is henceforth in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of his Universal Kingship. The Benedictine Sisters (attached to le Barroux) are in great distress. They came to see me. I gave to them the advice that I give to you: remain free, and reject any tie with this modernist Rome. (..)
Such was the Archbishop’s clear mind and will from the Episcopal consecrations onwards. One wonders how some of his sons can now be wanting to put themselves “under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional”, or, under a subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition. Such is the power of seduction, increasing all the time, of the subjectivist world around us. The madness of subjectivism has become so normal, so widespread, that few people notice it any longer. “Our help is in the name of the Lord.”
Kyrie eleison.
Bishop Richard Williamson
Yes, I understand, Catholics who don't seem Catholic to your judgement have no standing, need be of no interest and the Church as you see it is a mostly spiritualized entity.
Assuming you're not a home aloner, I'd imagine that whatever chapel you go to can be just as challenging to deal with as the Church at large, what with all the Modernists and other types roaming around.
What would we do without stalwart guardians of doctrine like yourself?
-
In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.
Yes I think it is almost a way to desensitize Catholics when the fundamental issues are much more serious. I read US News and World Report as a kid, which is a neocon rag. They'd always have an editorialist (IIRC John Leo) who would trot out shocking stories to keep conservative readers inflamed and entertained. But the simple fact is that US News and World Report was not truly conservative in any respect, but is in fact a Jєωιѕн magazine with Jєωιѕн interests at heart. In fact an editorialist there had the gall to demand that Bishop Williamson be re-excommunicated.
The SSPX with Krah in such a position becomes in fact a pro-ѕуηαgσgυє anti-Christian organization. You cannot have the friend of your enemy managing your money and legal affairs. Unless you've sold out.
Just as you can't claim to really be serving the Archbishop when you say the things Bishop Fellay has said about the errors of the Council not being of the Council, about Vatican II being part of the "great tradition" of the Church.
The Church is going to be wrecked by these "conservatives" - and what they always do is to use the very tactics of the Left - to try to marginalize, insult and ridicule those who point out the truth about who the traitors are.
-
This makes me ill. It also requires reparation for the sacrilege
TRUE
-
In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.
Yes I think it is almost a way to desensitize Catholics when the fundamental issues are much more serious. I read US News and World Report as a kid, which is a neocon rag. They'd always have an editorialist (IIRC John Leo) who would trot out shocking stories to keep conservative readers inflamed and entertained. But the simple fact is that US News and World Report was not truly conservative in any respect, but is in fact a Jєωιѕн magazine with Jєωιѕн interests at heart. In fact an editorialist there had the gall to demand that Bishop Williamson be re-excommunicated.
The SSPX with Krah in such a position becomes in fact a pro-ѕуηαgσgυє anti-Christian organization. You cannot have the friend of your enemy managing your money and legal affairs. Unless you've sold out.
Just as you can't claim to really be serving the Archbishop when you say the things Bishop Fellay has said about the errors of the Council not being of the Council, about Vatican II being part of the "great tradition" of the Church.
The Church is going to be wrecked by these "conservatives" - and what they always do is to use the very tactics of the Left - to try to marginalize, insult and ridicule those who point out the truth about who the traitors are.
Conservatives exist only to stay perpetually angry and blaming, same for many on the "other side" of the aisle....
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
politically and in context of UK/USA, conservatives do NOT hold to unchanging value at all.....Catholics, true ones, do.....how else can we explain the giving in of conservatives to abortion ,gαy "rights",etc-whre they either support or remain increasingly silent.....no true Catholic really should use the "c" word, I do NOT want to be id with Limbaugh,et al......and the useless people like him....
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
Catholics believe in preserving the Deposit of Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre told us what to think about the "conservatives" in Rome.
http://gloria.tv/?media=142663
Bishop Fellay says something entirely different, and he hires a Zionist for a top position because his values are totally different.
And his defenders, if they know this, and continue to defend him, prove to have totally different values as well.
-
politically and in context of UK/USA, conservatives do NOT hold to unchanging value at all.....
Amen, and the same thing holds for Bishop Fellay and Marine LePen who changed the position of the Front Nationale on abortion.
These people have ZERO interest in standing on Catholic principle.
-
politically and in context of UK/USA, conservatives do NOT hold to unchanging value at all.....
Amen, and the same thing holds for Bishop Fellay and Marine LePen who changed the position of the Front Nationale on abortion.
These people have ZERO interest in standing on Catholic principle.
saw that, yes....
Catholics should stick to the big "C" and stop looking toward secular salvation in a man or Party outside.....some things, I am old school Democrat, some things neither.....etc.....
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
Catholics believe in preserving the Deposit of Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre told us what to think about the "conservatives" in Rome.
http://gloria.tv/?media=142663
Bishop Fellay says something entirely different, and he hires a Zionist for a top position because his values are totally different.
And his defenders, if they know this, and continue to defend him, prove to have totally different values as well.
Really, what values has Bishop Fellay violated?
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
politically and in context of UK/USA, conservatives do NOT hold to unchanging value at all.....Catholics, true ones, do.....how else can we explain the giving in of conservatives to abortion ,gαy "rights",etc-whre they either support or remain increasingly silent.....no true Catholic really should use the "c" word, I do NOT want to be id with Limbaugh,et al......and the useless people like him....
There are almost as many gradations of "conservative" as there are of sedevacantist. The definition of the term also varies depending on the discussion one is having too, and the person using the term.
If we're going to agree on anything, we might as well agree on the definition of terms before we continue.
I submit that the conservative is naturally someone who believes in preserving the "good" in family, society, politics and most importantly, religion.
Your definition appears to be something else, which I don't think I agree.
But the good is something unchanging, whatever happens with individuals or institutions.
-
Really, what values has Bishop Fellay violated?
Are Jews your elder brothers?
Is Vatican II part of the great tradition of the Catholic Church?
Were the errors of the Council really of the Council or of an interpretation of it?
Is it suitable to have a pro-Zionist managing the money and handling the legal affairs of Archbishop Lefebvre's order?
That's just for starters. There's thread after thread about this. Don't pretend ignorance.
I'm really sick of the conciliar bait and switch followed by a "prove it" - "prove" that their double-talk isn't double-talk, and then take them at their word when they switch back and forth as though lying and hypocrisy were the most natural things in the world for them.
-
There are almost as many gradations of conservative as there are of sedevacantist.
He's right about the "conservative movement" - it's constantly shifting leftward.
-
In reality these neo-conservatives just distract from the heart of the matter which is the subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition and the destruction of the SSPX by putting themselves under obedience to modernist Rome which remains fundamentally anti-Traditional.
Yes I think it is almost a way to desensitize Catholics when the fundamental issues are much more serious. I read US News and World Report as a kid, which is a neocon rag. They'd always have an editorialist (IIRC John Leo) who would trot out shocking stories to keep conservative readers inflamed and entertained. But the simple fact is that US News and World Report was not truly conservative in any respect, but is in fact a Jєωιѕн magazine with Jєωιѕн interests at heart. In fact an editorialist there had the gall to demand that Bishop Williamson be re-excommunicated.
The SSPX with Krah in such a position becomes in fact a pro-ѕуηαgσgυє anti-Christian organization. You cannot have the friend of your enemy managing your money and legal affairs. Unless you've sold out.
Just as you can't claim to really be serving the Archbishop when you say the things Bishop Fellay has said about the errors of the Council not being of the Council, about Vatican II being part of the "great tradition" of the Church.
The Church is going to be wrecked by these "conservatives" - and what they always do is to use the very tactics of the Left - to try to marginalize, insult and ridicule those who point out the truth about who the traitors are.
Agreed with Ethelred and Telesphorus, these sorts of shocking stories are really just a distraction from the fundamental issue facing the Church today, namely, the vice grip of world Jewry on the visible Church.
-
The Church is going to be wrecked by these "conservatives" - and what they always do is to use the very tactics of the Left - to try to marginalize, insult and ridicule those who point out the truth about who the traitors are.
Agreed with Ethelred and Telesphorus, these sorts of shocking stories are really just a distraction from the fundamental issue facing the Church today, namely, the vice grip of world Jewry on the visible Church.
Recently Father Rostand is reported to have responded to someone that "Bishop Williamson has changed."
This is arrant knavery, we know who is changing, how Bishop Wiliamson was removed from Winona and how most of the seminarians who were there ended up not being ordained.
We can tell very well what Bishop Fellay has been saying and where's he's headed. We know whose positions have publicly changed. We're not blind cultists.
-
Really, what values has Bishop Fellay violated?
Are Jews your elder brothers?
That kind of harmless dipolmatic language was used before the Vatican Council, anyway.
Is Vatican II part of the great tradition of the Catholic Church?
It is insofar as it confirms the teachings of the Church as they have been believed, always, everywhere and by everyone.
Were the errors of the Council really of the Council or of an interpretation of it?
Since the Vatican Council was a merely Pastoral Council, I think it's pretty clear that a frank discussion of these problems is acceptable.
Is it suitable to have a pro-Zionist managing the money and handling the legal affairs of Archbishop Lefebvre's order?
How do you think it has impacted the Society for him to have done so?
That's just for starters. There's thread after thread about this. Don't pretend ignorance.
I'm not impressed so far, and your assumption that I'm not in earnest is offensive.
I'm really sick of the conciliar bait and switch followed by a "prove it" - "prove" that their double-talk isn't double-talk, and then take them at their word when they switch back and forth as though lying and hypocrisy were the most natural things in the world for them.
You're too easily scandalized and jump to unwarranted conclusions, I'll admit.
-
There are almost as many gradations of conservative as there are of sedevacantist.
He's right about the "conservative movement" - it's constantly shifting leftward.
We clearly don't agree on the definition of a conservative, so don't continue on as if we did.
-
You're too easily scandalized and jump to unwarranted conclusions, I'll admit.
You're pretty light on ever making a substantive post. You're too busy admiring the Emperor's clothes.
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
In the modern world, "Conservative" = Zionist.
It's time to wake up to reality, Mr. Baker. Heck, my brother isn't even Catholic, he isn't even religious, and yet HE knows the truth about international Jewry. So what excuse do you, as a traditional Catholic, who knows what Our Lord said about "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who call themselves Jews but do lie," for not recognizing the truth about the "conservative" movement?
-
Conservatives exist because there are people who are decent enough to understand that the unchanging values bequeathed to us by God almighty are to be cherished, and not ignored or disparaged by revolutionaries of all kinds, whatever name they choose for themselves.
In the modern world, "Conservative" = Zionist.
It's time to wake up to reality, Mr. Baker. Heck, my brother isn't even Catholic, he isn't even religious, and yet HE knows the truth about international Jewry. So what excuse do you, as a traditional Catholic, who knows what Our Lord said about "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who call themselves Jews but do lie," for not recognizing the truth about the "conservative" movement?
We're not talking about international Jewry, we're talking about the definition of a word which you don't seem willing to discuss.
-
In the modern world, "Conservative" = Zionist.
It's time to wake up to reality, Mr. Baker. Heck, my brother isn't even Catholic, he isn't even religious, and yet HE knows the truth about international Jewry. So what excuse do you, as a traditional Catholic, who knows what Our Lord said about "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who call themselves Jews but do lie," for not recognizing the truth about the "conservative" movement?
He knows the truth about it. But he has his priorities, and having clerics who speak out against those people the way the apostles did doesn't seem to be critical for him.
-
In the modern world, "Conservative" = Zionist.
It's time to wake up to reality, Mr. Baker. Heck, my brother isn't even Catholic, he isn't even religious, and yet HE knows the truth about international Jewry. So what excuse do you, as a traditional Catholic, who knows what Our Lord said about "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who call themselves Jews but do lie," for not recognizing the truth about the "conservative" movement?
He knows the truth about it. But he has his priorities, and having clerics who speak out against those people the way the apostles did doesn't seem to be critical for him.
Excuse you, we don't even have a common definition for conservative and you accuse me of things we haven't even discussed.
Are you a mind reader, or a fortune teller?
-
Tele: a conservative is someone who is willing to go along with the evil plots of International Jewry!
Me: No it's not.
Tele: Don't deny it!! You're a conservative and an agent of International Jewry!
And so it goes.
-
Tele: a conservative is someone who is willing to go along with the evil plots of International Jewry!
Me: No it's not.
Tele: Don't deny it!! You're a conservative and an agent of International Jewry!
And so it goes.
Then please tell us your definition of "conservative".
To me,
True conservative = traditional Catholic.
Modern (false) conservative = Zionist.
From what you've written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay, Krah, et al.) who fall into the latter category, which would seem to make you the latter definition of a "conservative".
-
Tele: a conservative is someone who is willing to go along with the evil plots of International Jewry!
Me: No it's not.
Tele: Don't deny it!! You're a conservative and an agent of International Jewry!
And so it goes.
Then please tell us your definition of "conservative".
To me,
True conservative = traditional Catholic.
Modern (false) conservative = Zionist.
From what you've written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay, Krah, et al.) who fall into the latter category, which would seem to make you the latter definition of a "conservative".
I already did. A conservative is a person who cherishes, defends and lives out interminable virtues and goods.
-
Then please tell us your definition of "conservative".
To me,
True conservative = traditional Catholic.
Modern (false) conservative = Zionist.
From what you've written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay, Krah, et al.) who fall into the latter category, which would seem to make you the latter definition of a "conservative".
I already did. A conservative is a person who cherishes, defends and lives out interminable virtues and goods.
Fair enough. I must have missed that somehow. Very well then, I guess the next question becomes: what is the 'good'? Does the 'good,' in your view, include the control of the Church by the forces of international Jewry?
-
Tele: a conservative is someone who is willing to go along with the evil plots of International Jewry!
Me: No it's not.
Tele: Don't deny it!! You're a conservative and an agent of International Jewry!
And so it goes.
Then please tell us your definition of "conservative".
To me,
True conservative = traditional Catholic.
Modern (false) conservative = Zionist.
From what you've written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay, Krah, et al.) who fall into the latter category, which would seem to make you the latter definition of a "conservative".
I already did. A conservative is a person who cherishes, defends and lives out interminable virtues and goods.
I like how Limbaugh cherishes are virtues, like the virtue of marriage........or just War Doctrine.....or economics, he certainly values his toys and connections that he seems to brag about on his show, a show I used to listen to daily until 2004.........not since, the man revoltes me :barf:
I like how the compassionate GW raised govt spending 43%, cut taxes and made up by borrowing even more from the Fed......cherished values....
Conservatives value life, that is why no change in Roe,etc during those 8 yrs of GW, or Reagan, or 4 of Bush the I.......oh, lets not forget, preventive war in Middle East, but tough tots for the ill in Pinellas park, FL........
cherished values........to conservatives, water under bridge, nothing to see, lets move on now to blaming all problems on Obummer......
-
In the modern world, "Conservative" = Zionist.
It's time to wake up to reality, Mr. Baker. Heck, my brother isn't even Catholic, he isn't even religious, and yet HE knows the truth about international Jewry. So what excuse do you, as a traditional Catholic, who knows what Our Lord said about "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who call themselves Jews but do lie," for not recognizing the truth about the "conservative" movement?
He knows the truth about it. But he has his priorities, and having clerics who speak out against those people the way the apostles did doesn't seem to be critical for him.
Excuse you, we don't even have a common definition for conservative and you accuse me of things we haven't even discussed.
Are you a mind reader, or a fortune teller?
Conservatives themselves do not have a definition!!! some are conservative in economics, liberal on morals,etc.
John Lofton, a arrogant calvinist, none the less has the creds in his past to deal with this and did a great radio show, I posted link some yrs ago here, on the Failure of Conservatism and How Rush Limbaugh Typifies this Failure........google around, might could find it....repeatedly, Conservative Mouth Piece in Chief Limbaugh failed to define it, though he tried.
With its roots in Protestant/liberalism of the 17th and 18th C, often very anti-Catholic, I never,ever would consider using the "c" word.....my views on any topic are Catholic, however feebly I explain them and know the facts......
-
In the modern world, "Conservative" = Zionist.
It's time to wake up to reality, Mr. Baker. Heck, my brother isn't even Catholic, he isn't even religious, and yet HE knows the truth about international Jewry. So what excuse do you, as a traditional Catholic, who knows what Our Lord said about "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, those who call themselves Jews but do lie," for not recognizing the truth about the "conservative" movement?
He knows the truth about it. But he has his priorities, and having clerics who speak out against those people the way the apostles did doesn't seem to be critical for him.
The question is-what does a Conservative wish to conserve? and further more, in line with Catholic Action, what does the "c" advance?
The "c" never really has a coherent agenda and never advnaces, its is always a slash/burn retreat and give-in. What they want to conserve is often not Catholic, esp in economics and war, though other things too. As I noted in my last haunting here some yrs ago, in debates w/Myrna and others, lsitening to these unCatholic sources, however seemingly innocous, leads to brain rot and dumbing down......
-
oops, found another cherished value, the worship of the.....silence please.....FOUNDERS.(please see my old, long Americanist thread)..........it is a mortal sin to disparage in any way the.....sign of the, well, whatever.....FOUNDERS....
Cherished values, like elevating the USA to a New Jerusalem, god-like status.....
Never mind, almost to a man, they were anti-Catholic in though and in actions
-
geehs, found another cherished value.....the head of Social Securty, appointed by conservative Bush, has a office set up to deal directly with and for, gαys........Cheney's daughter a mover/shaker and Rove was know to possibly be qa closet queer.
Well, they were not imposing govt on us, so a cherished value.....silence on queers......
-
definition of "conservative"
This is Bishop Williamson's definition (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2012/04/ec-248-konziliare-doppeldeutigkeit.html):
“Conservative” Catholics: who conserve little but their faith in faithless churchmen.
And the most faithless of all churchmen is the Newpope B16.
In contrast to the "conservative" wishy-washy word which means nothing or everything, a traditional Catholic is a Catholic who stands behind the entire tradition of the Church, i.e. who stands behind the entire doctrine of the Church including all the anti-modernistic encyclicals of the pre-Vatican Popes and in particular those of Pius IX (Quanta Cura & Syllabus) and Pius X (Pascendi) which the Archbishop mainly used to fight against the Newpopes' and Newrome's new religion of man.
A traditional Catholic naturally opposes the Newchurch and its (current) Newpope, too, because B16 is an anti-traditional and "subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition" (quotation from Bishop Williamson).
From what you [Augstine] have written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay,
Well, of course Augstine is a Bp Fellay supporter. Just read his articles, he supports the sellout to Newrome and hence the betrayal of the Faith of the Church, and he attacks with bad words us who resist such a betrayal. All the supporters of the modernistic Newpope B16/Ratzinger do support this betrayal because they belong together.
Augstine is just another accordista from the Bp Fellay gang who destroys Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX and who doesn't belong to this last English-speaking anti-accordista forum but just damages it.
The administrator Matthew said more than once that the Bp Fellay accordistas have no place here because we're experiencing the death struggle of the Archbishop's traditional SSPX and can't always re-start the "good reasons not to sellout to Newrome" discussion.
-
“Conservative” Catholics: who conserve little but their faith in faithless churchmen.
well put, could apply to secular politic, faith in a faithless system....interesting, how many are CFR, Trilats,etc....
love that quote, gotta use that seomtime, soon..muy bueno!!!!! :applause:
-
Belloc said:
cherished values........to conservatives, water under bridge, nothing to see, lets move on now to blaming all problems on Obummer......
Awesome, good to see you back, Belloc! I like how you defeat "conservative" ideas in these pithy, hilarious sound bites.
This pathetic excuse for "conservatism" is nothing but greedy economic liberalism taken to the nth degree. You mentioned the other day that you take some ideas from Democrats. That would be ANATHEMA to many trads, but in reality, Catholics were always Democrats before the abortion issue, because that party is more in line with Catholic social justice ( and here I am not offering an opinion but a fact, read Quadragesimo Anno by Pius XI where he directly criticizes the neo-con attitude of today, with people thinking that the state should never help anyone ).
At least the Democrats pay some lip-service to charity for the poor; because Catholics follow Republicans, you now have the spectacle of Catholics who support the absolute rape of the poor with the rationale that rich people who make six billion times more than their workers create jobs... Never in history before has there been such a ludicrous disparity of wealth.
And they hold onto this idea even when it has been proven that these CEOs are not regulated by anything and farm out the jobs to India and China, and that the entire infrastructure of the nation, and the world, is being eaten away by them. But no, they blame it on welfare... Oh, and these companies aren't bailed out, along with the banks, by the government?! Why is that kind of welfare okay?
Yeah, it's all Protestant, the whole attitude. It's all about "I got mine, forget everybody else." The American dream. I WORKED to get where I am, even if it was just luck or I'm a sellout or a bastard, or the government bailed me out, these other lazy bums should have become Masons too, then they can be like me instead of the losers they are! It's a game of musical chairs, that's all it is. I wonder if these people thank God for whatever money they have, or if they think they are entitled to it. Do they really work harder than medieval peasants who lived in grinding poverty? Something tells me no. Yet oh, how proud they are of their hard work. No matter how hard you work, it is not inevitable that you should be rich, that is another American fallacy, where is the humility here?
It is unbelievable. How did Catholics get to the point where they are more sympathetic towards someone like Mitt Romney than towards the poor who are being raped and raped and raped every single second of the day, and it's getting worse and worse? Then if Obama throws the poor a bone to keep them from rioting, they flip out. They still think that elbow grease and gumption is going to make everyone employed, when industries are collapsing every day, and the entire housing market is only propped up by various shenanigans. And yet these same people, who voluntarily support a system that is slowly making us all slaves, are terrified to death of prison camps and so on... Here in CA., almost no one can afford a house even with these whopping FHA loans, so it is investors who are buying up properties to rent them out... So that is slowly disappearing from America, being able to own our own homes, and it isn't because of welfare, it's because of unregulated crony capitalism.
The funny/sad thing is that trads think they have to go along with the entire Jєωιѕн and destructive and greedy and raping "conservative" program, just because of the abortion issue, yet they never really do a thing to stop abortion! So they have accepted all these errors, perhaps lost charity, and gotten nothing in return... That is not very clear-sighted.
-
What do the posts on this page have to do with inclusive Catholics giving a
communion host to a dog, in Australia or anywhere else?
-
At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue. :facepalm:
Lord, have mercy on us!
As His English Excellency has said in the past:
"... there will be a chastisement and blood will flow".
-
The host is the body blood soul and divinity and should be treated as such. This is a tragedy, fueled by the lack of solemnity of the actual eucharist in this setting.
-
The host is the body blood soul and divinity and should be treated as such. This is a tragedy, fueled by the lack of solemnity of the actual eucharist in this setting.
Agreed, but I suppose there's not much sense in getting too worked up about it. As St. Paul said, those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment unto themselves. The Lord may suffer to be blasphemed for now, but rest assured that He will have His holy vengeance upon those who treat his BBSD sacrilegiously, not discerning the Body of the Lord. If anyone wishes to make an act of reparation for this blasphemy, by all means do so! I'm sure it will console the Sacred Heart of Our Lord to no end. But overall, it's probably best to not worry oneself greatly over blasphemies like this, especially since, temporally speaking, there is nothing you or I can do to stop them.
-
Belloc said:
cherished values........to conservatives, water under bridge, nothing to see, lets move on now to blaming all problems on Obummer......
Awesome, good to see you back, Belloc! I like how you defeat "conservative" ideas in these pithy, hilarious sound bites.
This pathetic excuse for "conservatism" is nothing but greedy economic liberalism taken to the nth degree. You mentioned the other day that you take some ideas from Democrats. That would be ANATHEMA to many trads, but in reality, Catholics were always Democrats before the abortion issue, because that party is more in line with Catholic social justice ( and here I am not offering an opinion but a fact, read Quadragesimo Anno by Pius XI where he directly criticizes the neo-con attitude of today, with people thinking that the state should never help anyone ).
At least the Democrats pay some lip-service to charity for the poor; because Catholics follow Republicans, you now have the spectacle of Catholics who support the absolute rape of the poor with the rationale that rich people who make six billion times more than their workers create jobs... Never in history before has there been such a ludicrous disparity of wealth.
And they hold onto this idea even when it has been proven that these CEOs are not regulated by anything and farm out the jobs to India and China, and that the entire infrastructure of the nation, and the world, is being eaten away by them. But no, they blame it on welfare... Oh, and these companies aren't bailed out, along with the banks, by the government?! Why is that kind of welfare okay?
Yeah, it's all Protestant, the whole attitude. It's all about "I got mine, forget everybody else." The American dream. I WORKED to get where I am, even if it was just luck or I'm a sellout or a bastard, or the government bailed me out, these other lazy bums should have become Masons too, then they can be like me instead of the losers they are! It's a game of musical chairs, that's all it is. I wonder if these people thank God for whatever money they have, or if they think they are entitled to it. Do they really work harder than medieval peasants who lived in grinding poverty? Something tells me no. Yet oh, how proud they are of their hard work. No matter how hard you work, it is not inevitable that you should be rich, that is another American fallacy, where is the humility here?
It is unbelievable. How did Catholics get to the point where they are more sympathetic towards someone like Mitt Romney than towards the poor who are being raped and raped and raped every single second of the day, and it's getting worse and worse? Then if Obama throws the poor a bone to keep them from rioting, they flip out. They still think that elbow grease and gumption is going to make everyone employed, when industries are collapsing every day, and the entire housing market is only propped up by various shenanigans. And yet these same people, who voluntarily support a system that is slowly making us all slaves, are terrified to death of prison camps and so on... Here in CA., almost no one can afford a house even with these whopping FHA loans, so it is investors who are buying up properties to rent them out... So that is slowly disappearing from America, being able to own our own homes, and it isn't because of welfare, it's because of unregulated crony capitalism.
The funny/sad thing is that trads think they have to go along with the entire Jєωιѕн and destructive and greedy and raping "conservative" program, just because of the abortion issue, yet they never really do a thing to stop abortion! So they have accepted all these errors, perhaps lost charity, and gotten nothing in return... That is not very clear-sighted.
trads all too often are tied to the GOP, Limbaugh,etc......my mother thinks she is a trad, told the wife so other night in so many words, yet-cannot bring her self to read a good trad book, nor listen to the multi-many talks I have, even when she wants to know something, does not "have time" for the talks.she has several CD playing devices....miss 3 full hrs of Limbaugh? heavens NO.....quote a Pope? hardly, quote Limbaugh, every time I see her. Will likely, tonight at dinner. Vote 3rd party or refuse to be a part of fraud, nope, will 99.9% likely vote for the Temple-diaper wearing Romney........
I wa a part of this false world, feels good to be out of it, yet, still makes one angry, as we all get draggeddown as a result.....
-
and no, no "unresolved issues", dear forum/internet psych docs,I just lived the lie long enough to see and fight it.......
-
The host is the body blood soul and divinity and should be treated as such. This is a tragedy, fueled by the lack of solemnity of the actual eucharist in this setting.
Agreed, but I suppose there's not much sense in getting too worked up about it. As St. Paul said, those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment unto themselves. The Lord may suffer to be blasphemed for now, but rest assured that He will have His holy vengeance upon those who treat his BBSD sacrilegiously, not discerning the Body of the Lord. If anyone wishes to make an act of reparation for this blasphemy, by all means do so! I'm sure it will console the Sacred Heart of Our Lord to no end. But overall, it's probably best to not worry oneself greatly over blasphemies like this, especially since, temporally speaking, there is nothing you or I can do to stop them.
Sad, but true. The one thing that could help prevent such blasphemies would be to structure the distribution of eucharist to a dignified and solemn occasion--
-
Then please tell us your definition of "conservative".
To me,
True conservative = traditional Catholic.
Modern (false) conservative = Zionist.
From what you've written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay, Krah, et al.) who fall into the latter category, which would seem to make you the latter definition of a "conservative".
I already did. A conservative is a person who cherishes, defends and lives out interminable virtues and goods.
Fair enough. I must have missed that somehow. Very well then, I guess the next question becomes: what is the 'good'? Does the 'good,' in your view, include the control of the Church by the forces of international Jewry?
So what you're saying is that the Church has been so compromised by the Jews that It's defected, correct?
-
oops, found another cherished value, the worship of the.....silence please.....FOUNDERS.(please see my old, long Americanist thread)..........it is a mortal sin to disparage in any way the.....sign of the, well, whatever.....FOUNDERS....
Cherished values, like elevating the USA to a New Jerusalem, god-like status.....
Never mind, almost to a man, they were anti-Catholic in though and in actions
Once again, you hysterical types are accusing me of saying things I've never said.
A value, per philosophic terminology and in terms of the definition I described, "An object with philosophic value may be termed an ethic or philosophic good."
It's sometimes used as an ethic or philosophic good.
Values such as honesty, fairness, courage, courtesy and precision, something I'm not seeing here.
-
definition of "conservative"
This is Bishop Williamson's definition (http://eleisonkommentar.blogspot.com/2012/04/ec-248-konziliare-doppeldeutigkeit.html):
“Conservative” Catholics: who conserve little but their faith in faithless churchmen.
And the most faithless of all churchmen is the Newpope B16.
In contrast to the "conservative" wishy-washy word which means nothing or everything, a traditional Catholic is a Catholic who stands behind the entire tradition of the Church, i.e. who stands behind the entire doctrine of the Church including all the anti-modernistic encyclicals of the pre-Vatican Popes and in particular those of Pius IX (Quanta Cura & Syllabus) and Pius X (Pascendi) which the Archbishop mainly used to fight against the Newpopes' and Newrome's new religion of man.
A traditional Catholic naturally opposes the Newchurch and its (current) Newpope, too, because B16 is an anti-traditional and "subjectivist Pope who has no possible understanding of objective Catholic Tradition" (quotation from Bishop Williamson).
From what you [Augstine] have written (and we can only go by what you've written; we can't read your mind), you seem to be supporting those (+Fellay,
Well, of course Augstine is a Bp Fellay supporter. Just read his articles, he supports the sellout to Newrome and hence the betrayal of the Faith of the Church, and he attacks with bad words us who resist such a betrayal. All the supporters of the modernistic Newpope B16/Ratzinger do support this betrayal because they belong together.
Augstine is just another accordista from the Bp Fellay gang who destroys Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX and who doesn't belong to this last English-speaking anti-accordista forum but just damages it.
The administrator Matthew said more than once that the Bp Fellay accordistas have no place here because we're experiencing the death struggle of the Archbishop's traditional SSPX and can't always re-start the "good reasons not to sellout to Newrome" discussion.
I support the SSPX but they're not the Church. I've supported Bishop Williamson, particularly when many others attacked him with the same kind of intellectual dishonesty I see here. Bishop Williamson also isn't the Pope.
I didn't found the Society, I don't lead it, I'm not even a member, but then I expect, many of you who comment here are not members and merely attend chapel services there for your part.
Whatever happens to the SSPX, the Catholic Church will continue on, She is not dependent upon a society founded, all the same, by a great churchman in the early seventies.
I'm not happy about how Bishop Williamson was marginalized, and I"m not happy about some of the litigious policies of you know who, or the fact that +Fellay seemed to pander to the Jews.
But, one thing you'll have to respect, or not, is that Bishop Fellay was appointed to lead the Society by Archbishop Lefebvre. Also, like it or not, the Society showed a tremendous amount of unity during the General Chapter. So those of you who despise Bishop Fellay and believe he is a turncoat will have to contend with that.
Bishop Williamson may strike out alone, but he is unlikely to leave with very many in my opinion. We'll just have to see.
Many of you also maintain that the Jews control the Church. If I believed that the Jews controlled the Catholic Church to the point where it vitiated its status as the Bride of Christ, I couldn't believe the claims the Catholic Church has always had about Herself. I have no idea how those who do believe this has occurred are able to support their faith with such a contradiction, but if they live with the contradiction, that's their battle, not mine. I can only point out that it exists.
Sometimes things being what they are, you just live with what you can personally live with.
You can pretend all you want to know how Archbishop Lefebvre would have acted with respect to the agreement, but none of you really know. You may feel that Bishop Fellay has betrayed the Society by enterttaining the agrement, but you don't know. You may complain about the "secrecy" in the talks, but you don't have any right to know either.
I was born in a family that was traditionalist before the Vatican Council and was already fighting the battles ongoing today in the early 19th century with respect to Liberal clergy, wolves in sheep's clothing and all of that.
Another thing I believe is that the Catholic Church is going to survive this. The only thing that's unclear to me that's of real importance is my own salvation, which involves many of my actions, here on this board, in the conduct of my personal life and my cultivation of the virtues....
-
oops, found another cherished value, the worship of the.....silence please.....FOUNDERS.(please see my old, long Americanist thread)..........it is a mortal sin to disparage in any way the.....sign of the, well, whatever.....FOUNDERS....
Cherished values, like elevating the USA to a New Jerusalem, god-like status.....
Never mind, almost to a man, they were anti-Catholic in though and in actions
Once again, you hysterical types are accusing me of saying things I've never said.
A value, per philosophic terminology and in terms of the definition I described, "An object with philosophic value may be termed an ethic or philosophic good."
It's sometimes used as an ethic or philosophic good.
Values such as honesty, fairness, courage, courtesy and precision, something I'm not seeing here.
I rarely ever get "hysterical", funny? sure, hysterical, hardly ever........even when I was an active patrol LEO....
"Values such as honesty, fairness, courage, courtesy and precision, something I'm not seeing here."
surely, you mean in general........precision, not sure what that means........courage, I find I have more then most trads (who are even now rolling out Romney stickers and worse, "anyone but Obama" stickers.....I am the 1% that does not surredner every election and vote GOP). Have you served in military, front line? or frontline on the "war on crime"? I have to the second......you put a target on your back as a cop, pull a car at 3AM and possibly, deal with a gang member wanting to make a name for gunning down a cop for no other reason then he is a cop.....did that, been there........
Honesty, that is me-I tell you up front what I think, pull no punches, though reserve often, out of charity, from being as direct as I am often want to be....
-
does anyone else ever say-out loud or to themselves "gosh, I am tired of being the only sane/smart one in the room"?
Prideful, I know, but often I admit to thinking this.......why is it, I am the only intelligent one in the room.......
wrong, yes I know.......
-
At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue. :facepalm:
Lord, have mercy on us!
You sure he didn't take it in paw?
I for one think this "inclusion" is a travesty for not including kitties.
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/mojoblog/funny-cats-a10.jpg)
-
At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue. :facepalm:
Lord, have mercy on us!
You sure he didn't take it in paw?
I for one think this "inclusion" is a travesty for not including kitties.
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/mojoblog/funny-cats-a10.jpg)
Do hope he went to confession prior (yes, humor, no, dogs have no free will).
My dog has a power tongue and rarely does food make it to the floor to be pawed.......
-
From the article;
"Just imagine if a visitor went into a mosque with his dog, and fed a page of the Koran to it..."
Yea, just imagine.
I double-dog dare them to try.
-
At least the dog had the good sense to receive Communion on the tongue. :facepalm:
Lord, have mercy on us!
You sure he didn't take it in paw?
I for one think this "inclusion" is a travesty for not including kitties.
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/mojoblog/funny-cats-a10.jpg)
Do hope he went to confession prior (yes, humor, no, dogs have no free will).
My dog has a power tongue and rarely does food make it to the floor to be pawed.......
Well I don't know, are these N.O. canines and felines we're talking about here? :rolleyes:
Really, the only thing to do at this point is to ridicule and mock idiots like this.
Do not even take this story serious.
That's what they want.
-
wonder, in a trad church, does the female canine have to wear a veil? :confused1: :reading:..........now gosh darn, this opens up waaay too many questions for my feeble mind...... :laugh1: :laugh2:
-
Yes, far superior minds at work here than us simple ol trads Belloc.
I say we let this story die the quick death it deserves.
One more thing before I depart, I guess this story confirms that indeed All Dogs Go to Heaven....... :dancing-banana:
And with that parting shot I'm outta here.
-
I had a surreal experience yesterday regarding this story. I mentioned it to
someone I know, in passing, and she replied, "Where did you hear such a
ridiculous thing?"
I replied, "I read it on the Internet. Why, you don't think it happened? Would you
like to see the photos?"
She said to me, "You can make anything look real with Photoshop."
I replied, "Then why did the local bishop make a public response to the local
newspaper article that described the event? Was the bishop upset about a fictional
story?"
She said, "Okay, what was the name of the city, and who is the bishop, and when
did this happen, as you claim? How do you come up with stuff like this?"
I answered the questions. As for the last one, I said that a lot of abuses go on
every day that you never hear about because the bishops generally pay no
attention to abuse, in fact, they tend to support them. What the bishops DO pay
attention to is too much tradition in practice. They are generally enemies of
tradition, unless, that is, it's their own tradition that they just started recently.
She still didn't believe it. "It must be a hoax." So I read the Archbishop's letter
in the blog, Australia Incognita (http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/08/sacrilege-in-melbourne-inclusive.html), where he criticized the reporter's style of reporting,
by claiming that he was holding the Catholic faith up to "ridicule" by saying "the
consecrated bread and wine," instead of saying "the body and blood of Jesus
Christ." I explained that this archbishop is pompously taking an extreme position
in defense of dogma here, which he never does otherwise, in hopes, perhaps, that
someone may criticize him for being too dogmatic, and then he can use that as
another excuse for not being dogmatic, because "people have been upset when I
defend the faith." This is how Modernists play the game.
She was getting irritated, and tried to defend the archbishop, saying that he is
going by rules, and that there are some things that shouldn't be done, and
apparently these "Inclusive Catholics" were breaking the rules. "Was this at a
parish church?" I read the article in The Age, that described a priest "on the dole."
(http://images.theage.com.au/2012/08/05/3530432/art729-catholic-dissidents-620x349.jpg)
All creatures great and small: Father Greg Reynolds leads Mass at the Inclusive Catholics service in
South Yarra, where one first-time visitor brought his dog along. Photo: Angela Wylie
Dissidents preach a new breed of Catholicism
by Barney Schwatz
FATHER Greg Reynolds wants his church of dissident Catholics to welcome all - ''every man and his dog'', one might say, risking the non-inclusive language he deplores - but even he was taken aback when that was put to the test during Mass yesterday.
A first-time visitor arrived late at the Inclusive Catholics service in South Yarra with a large and well-trained German shepherd. When the consecrated bread and wine were passed around, the visitor took some bread and fed it to his dog.
Apart from one stifled gasp, those present showed admirable presence of mind - but the dog was not offered the cup!
Father Reynolds, a Melbourne priest for 32 years, launched Inclusive Catholics earlier this year. He now ministers to up to 40 people at fortnightly services alternating between two inner-suburban Protestant churches.
Advertisement
The congregation includes gαy men, former priests, abuse victims and many women who feel disenfranchised, but it is optimistic rather than bitter.
Yesterday a woman, Irene Wilson, led the liturgy and another, Emmy Silvius, preached the homily. Two more passed the bread and wine around.
Father Reynolds - his only clerical adornment a green stole around his neck - played as small a role as he could.
Inclusive Catholics is part of a small but growing trend in the West of disaffiliated Catholics forming their own communities and offering ''illicit'' Masses, yet are slightly uncertain of their identities. The question was posed during the service: ''Are we part of the church or are we a breakaway movement?''
Father Reynolds was a thorn in the side of Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart when he preached in 2010 that it was God's will to have women priests. He resigned as Western Port parish priest last August and had his faculties to act as a priest in Melbourne removed.
He is still a priest, though now on the dole. Mary Fenelon, who usually worships in Abbotsford, comes to this Mass because ''these people are forward-thinkers, and the church is going backwards. This is inclusive and welcoming.''
Another member is Michael Kelly, long the public face of the Rainbow Sash movement that sought acceptance for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the church. He finds it a step forward to see a Catholic priest prepared to ''break through the intimidation and threats and oppression of a very frightened institution''. ''People have just had it,'' he says.
''There's a sense of hopelessness and despair when you look at the hierarchy, and nothing one says gets through to these guys. They are wrapped up in their own sense of entitlement.
''Intelligent, educated, adult Catholics have had enough.''
But if there's one thing that unites Inclusive Catholics and the mainstream church, it's their reliance on hard-working women behind the scenes. The volunteer who made the name tags given out yesterday turned 88 during the week.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html#ixzz234GkyrfT
She responded that, "See, these people aren't even Catholic! That wasn't even a
Mass!" I retorted that Archbishop Denis Hart didn't say it wasn't a Mass. He was
only concerned that the reporter didn't use exactly the proper words to describe
the Blessed Sacrament. He didn't say it wasn't a valid consecration.
She was really getting all worked up now. "It was not VALID! He's doesn't have
permission to say Mass!" I tried to explain that he is a priest, and once a priest
always a priest, and if he says Mass then he can make a valid consecration, and
if someone gives one of his consecrated hosts to a dog, the dog receives
communion, but the dog isn't capable of knowing what it has done or what has
happened, and it's a sacrilege to give a dog communion. "But the Archbishop was
only ticked off that the reporter didn't do a good job of journalism. He was not
upset about the abuse that happened in this Protestant chapel. There are abuses
like this happening all over the world. Have you ever heard of the
Neo-Catechumenal Way? They have similar abuses, but so far, no family pets at
communion, as far as I know."
Now she was throwing a fit. "You just look for freaks and then you think you've
got something. These people are just freaks!" I said, "What about Kiko and
Carmen, are they freaks? Benedict XVI just approved their un-liturgy, making a
whole list of things they shouldn't do, but they do those things anyway and he
does nothing about it. Looks pretty freaky to me."
Then she started going off about "this Kiko and Carmen," after I showed her
some websites describing the Neo-Catechumenal Way. It was looking pretty
desperate. Then suddenly she recognized his name, and immediately she
calmed down! "Oh ........... this is Kiko Arguello. I know him. We sing some of
his music at Mass."
Then everything was fine. She was entirely at peace knowing that her familiar
name and composer was the guy, so therefore, he couldn't be a freak. "He's a
philosopher. And look, he's also an artist and a poet."
-
I had a surreal experience yesterday regarding this story. I mentioned it to
someone I know, in passing, and she replied, "Where did you hear such a
ridiculous thing?"
I replied, "I read it on the Internet. Why, you don't think it happened? Would you
like to see the photos?"
She said to me, "You can make anything look real with Photoshop."
I replied, "Then why did the local bishop make a public response to the local
newspaper article that described the event? Was the bishop upset about a fictional
story?"
She said, "Okay, what was the name of the city, and who is the bishop, and when
did this happen, as you claim? How do you come up with stuff like this?"
I answered the questions. As for the last one, I said that a lot of abuses go on
every day that you never hear about because the bishops generally pay no
attention to abuse, in fact, they tend to support them. What the bishops DO pay
attention to is too much tradition in practice. They are generally enemies of
tradition, unless, that is, it's their own tradition that they just started recently.
She still didn't believe it. "It must be a hoax." So I read the Archbishop's letter
in the blog, Australia Incognita (http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/08/sacrilege-in-melbourne-inclusive.html), where he criticized the reporter's style of reporting,
by claiming that he was holding the Catholic faith up to "ridicule" by saying "the
consecrated bread and wine," instead of saying "the body and blood of Jesus
Christ." I explained that this archbishop is pompously taking an extreme position
in defense of dogma here, which he never does otherwise, in hopes, perhaps, that
someone may criticize him for being too dogmatic, and then he can use that as
another excuse for not being dogmatic, because "people have been upset when I
defend the faith." This is how Modernists play the game.
She was getting irritated, and tried to defend the archbishop, saying that he is
going by rules, and that there are some things that shouldn't be done, and
apparently these "Inclusive Catholics" were breaking the rules. "Was this at a
parish church?" I read the article in The Age, that described a priest "on the dole."
(http://images.theage.com.au/2012/08/05/3530432/art729-catholic-dissidents-620x349.jpg)
All creatures great and small: Father Greg Reynolds leads Mass at the Inclusive Catholics service in
South Yarra, where one first-time visitor brought his dog along. Photo: Angela Wylie
Dissidents preach a new breed of Catholicism
by Barney Schwatz
FATHER Greg Reynolds wants his church of dissident Catholics to welcome all - ''every man and his dog'', one might say, risking the non-inclusive language he deplores - but even he was taken aback when that was put to the test during Mass yesterday.
A first-time visitor arrived late at the Inclusive Catholics service in South Yarra with a large and well-trained German shepherd. When the consecrated bread and wine were passed around, the visitor took some bread and fed it to his dog.
Apart from one stifled gasp, those present showed admirable presence of mind - but the dog was not offered the cup!
Father Reynolds, a Melbourne priest for 32 years, launched Inclusive Catholics earlier this year. He now ministers to up to 40 people at fortnightly services alternating between two inner-suburban Protestant churches.
Advertisement
The congregation includes gαy men, former priests, abuse victims and many women who feel disenfranchised, but it is optimistic rather than bitter.
Yesterday a woman, Irene Wilson, led the liturgy and another, Emmy Silvius, preached the homily. Two more passed the bread and wine around.
Father Reynolds - his only clerical adornment a green stole around his neck - played as small a role as he could.
Inclusive Catholics is part of a small but growing trend in the West of disaffiliated Catholics forming their own communities and offering ''illicit'' Masses, yet are slightly uncertain of their identities. The question was posed during the service: ''Are we part of the church or are we a breakaway movement?''
Father Reynolds was a thorn in the side of Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart when he preached in 2010 that it was God's will to have women priests. He resigned as Western Port parish priest last August and had his faculties to act as a priest in Melbourne removed.
He is still a priest, though now on the dole. Mary Fenelon, who usually worships in Abbotsford, comes to this Mass because ''these people are forward-thinkers, and the church is going backwards. This is inclusive and welcoming.''
Another member is Michael Kelly, long the public face of the Rainbow Sash movement that sought acceptance for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the church. He finds it a step forward to see a Catholic priest prepared to ''break through the intimidation and threats and oppression of a very frightened institution''. ''People have just had it,'' he says.
''There's a sense of hopelessness and despair when you look at the hierarchy, and nothing one says gets through to these guys. They are wrapped up in their own sense of entitlement.
''Intelligent, educated, adult Catholics have had enough.''
But if there's one thing that unites Inclusive Catholics and the mainstream church, it's their reliance on hard-working women behind the scenes. The volunteer who made the name tags given out yesterday turned 88 during the week.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html#ixzz234GkyrfT
She responded that, "See, these people aren't even Catholic! That wasn't even a
Mass!" I retorted that Archbishop Denis Hart didn't say it wasn't a Mass. He was
only concerned that the reporter didn't use exactly the proper words to describe
the Blessed Sacrament. He didn't say it wasn't a valid consecration.
She was really getting all worked up now. "It was not VALID! He's doesn't have
permission to say Mass!" I tried to explain that he is a priest, and once a priest
always a priest, and if he says Mass then he can make a valid consecration, and
if someone gives one of his consecrated hosts to a dog, the dog receives
communion, but the dog isn't capable of knowing what it has done or what has
happened, and it's a sacrilege to give a dog communion. "But the Archbishop was
only ticked off that the reporter didn't do a good job of journalism. He was not
upset about the abuse that happened in this Protestant chapel. There are abuses
like this happening all over the world. Have you ever heard of the
Neo-Catechumenal Way? They have similar abuses, but so far, no family pets at
communion, as far as I know."
Now she was throwing a fit. "You just look for freaks and then you think you've
got something. These people are just freaks!" I said, "What about Kiko and
Carmen, are they freaks? Benedict XVI just approved their un-liturgy, making a
whole list of things they shouldn't do, but they do those things anyway and he
does nothing about it. Looks pretty freaky to me."
Then she started going off about "this Kiko and Carmen," after I showed her
some websites describing the Neo-Catechumenal Way. It was looking pretty
desperate. Then suddenly she recognized his name, and immediately she
calmed down! "Oh ........... this is Kiko Arguello. I know him. We sing some of
his music at Mass."
Then everything was fine. She was entirely at peace knowing that her familiar
name and composer was the guy, so therefore, he couldn't be a freak. "He's a
philosopher. And look, he's also an artist and a poet."
The minds of Fr. Reynolds and his congregation have turned to mush.
Its a sign of of the effects of chronic liberalism.
They believe anything and everything.