Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again  (Read 3963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31179
  • Reputation: +27094/-494
  • Gender: Male
Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
« on: October 03, 2017, 02:53:49 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • JPM originally wrote:
    > Dear Matthew,
    >
    >         The Cardinal Burke string would have to get a lot better in order to qualify as drivel.  It's ignorance, prejudice, rash judgment and recklessness as far as the eye can see.
    >
    >         The Jєωιѕн cartoon pretty much epitomizes the spirit of Cathinfo.  This sort of thing can greatly damage the traditional Catholic cause, and nobody cares.
    >
    >         I think the jury is out as to whether you're any better than these guys.  I'd suggest that you settle the issue by leaving Cathinfo, and shutting it down if you can.
    >
    > In Christo Rege et Maria,
    >
    > JAM

    ==================================================
    I responded:

    You and your masters sure would like that, wouldn't you?

    Too bad.

    I intend to continue to be the voice of truth, and a thorn in your collective side at the same time.

    Matthew

    ==================================================
    JPM responded:


    Dear Matthew,

          Do you read books on the spiritual life?  The Imitation, Divine Intimacy, ++Lefebvre's spiritual writings and conferences,etc.?

          They hammer away on love of neighbor, including going to great lengths to avoid alienating your neighbor even when you're in the right.

          So do a great many of the Sunday epistles and gospels, and Dom Gueranger's commentaries on them.

          Can you square what they say with the stuff that you publish?

          Christ sometimes (not always, but sometimes) condemned the Pharisees in very strong terms.  He is the Son of God.  What are your credentials for condemnation?

          Have you ever examined your conscience on rash judgment?  For example, have you ever asked yourself just how standardizing the look of the SSPX's publications was a "rebranding" as part of selling out to Rome?

          Is there anything that you think you know about the SSPX for which you have evidence that would stand up in a court of law?

    JAM

    ==================================================
    To which I responded:


    Just like each of the elements of 9/11 can be "explained away", especially to non-engineers, non-chemists, those who live far from there, the ignorant, etc. but as a whole, the evidence all adds up and it's extremely dubious in the end.

    Those covering up a truth ALWAYS like to "divide and conquer", coming up with excuses for each point that are varying degrees of believable. (From the quite convincing, all the way to the ridiculous).

    This isn't a court of law, Mr. Lawyer. This is about the truth, not American jurisprudence.

    I am well aware that the SSPX hired a branding corporation (no doubt for some serious $$$) to implement the "standardization" as you call it. It is just one small sign (out of many) of how they've lost the spirit of the Apostles and The Divine Word, and are instead adopting the ways of The World.

    Fr. Wegner telling San Antonio's parishioners that Novus Ordo bishops aren't so bad is another example. And such examples pile up to the sky. There is only one PATTERN which emerges: a movement away from +Lefebvre's SSPX, and towards Vatican II and the world.

    The slightest warming up to Vatican II is a huge red flag. The ONLY possible Trad attitude towards Vatican II is: "Vatican II delenda est." or "Vatican II must be destroyed." This should be said at all hours of the day, before meals, upon rising, and right before bed.

    I shouldn't be surprised that you're missing this point, however, because that's exactly how they got away with Vatican II! Each sentence, on its own, can be excused or explained away. But as a whole, the works of Vatican II were the subtlest handiwork of Satan himself and they can't be excoriated enough! But you have to have a "big picture" view to see it: Vatican II *is* a superheresy. It *is* the worst disaster to ever befall the Church in Her long history.

    You rash judge me even as you complain about my rash judgment. Priceless!

    I've read the books you mention. Despite the propaganda your "handlers" have spoon fed you: I haven't given up on my spiritual life, I'm not ignorant of the spiritual life, I'm not a malcontent, I'm not poorly informed, I'm not a sedevacantist, etc.

    Matthew
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31179
    • Reputation: +27094/-494
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #1 on: October 03, 2017, 02:56:51 PM »
  • Thanks!7
  • No Thanks!0
  • To be a Traditional Catholic, deserving of the name, we must repudiate Vatican II completely and completely avoid Vatican II and its modernism. Lest we become infected with it ourselves.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3776
    • Reputation: +1004/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #2 on: October 03, 2017, 03:02:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This must be the "J" whom a few at CI warned us would issue a scathing remark.

    Is he threatening to sue?
    Lord have mercy.

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1024
    • Reputation: +794/-158
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #3 on: October 03, 2017, 03:04:41 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Where do I sudmit my address so that I may recieve such inspiring letters? Quite a "badge of honor," if you ask me... you must be doing something right, keep up the good fight! 
    :boxer:

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3776
    • Reputation: +1004/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #4 on: October 03, 2017, 03:06:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • To be a Traditional Catholic, deserving of the name, we must repudiate Vatican II completely and completely avoid Vatican II and its modernism. Lest we become infected with it ourselves.
    Indeed, even reading the doublespeak in the docuмents of Vatican II in an attempt to counter its modernism is dangerous.
    I would rather read the lives of the catacomb saints so that my own faith is strengthened by their courageous and virtuous examples of heroic faith and love.
    Lord have mercy.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #5 on: October 03, 2017, 08:54:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This fellow is proposing the same apologist pablum that we were treated to in 2012 by the SSPX partisans when they sank Ignis Ardens. They do not approve our manner of speech so like the Jєω, they seek to forbid it.



    Quote
    Edgar. Draw thy sword,
    That, if my speech offend a noble heart,
    Thy arm may do thee justice. Here is mine.
    Behold, it is the privilege of mine honours,
    My oath, and my profession. I protest-
    Maugre thy strength, youth, place, and eminence,
    Despite thy victor sword and fire-new fortune,
    Thy valour and thy heart- thou art a traitor;
    False to thy gods, thy brother, and thy father;
    Conspirant ‘gainst this high illustrious prince;
    And from th’ extremest upward of thy head
    To the descent and dust beneath thy foot,
    A most toad-spotted traitor. Say thou ‘no,’
    This sword, this arm, and my best spirits are bent
    To prove upon thy heart, whereto I speak,
    Thou liest.           —King Lear


    Classic Liberalism lives and breathes in the halls of Menzingen.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #6 on: October 04, 2017, 10:08:54 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • God jousting Matthew!
    His front teeth are loose now.

    In reading the biased criticisms of Cathinfo, by those who have compromised with the enemies of the Church, the Book of Esdras is a good lesson.

    Nehemias, a layman, rallied the King of Persia to allow him to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity.

    The enemies of the Jєωs, the Ammonites, Arabians and Azotonians heard of this and were exceedingly angry.
    They attacked them, trying to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall and burnt gates.

    The Jєωs kept guard by day and night, wearing swords on their belts to defend against attacks as they worked on the walls.



    So too must lay Trads defend against the attacks of: newChurch sycophants, neo-trads, Jєωs and masons.

    Let us rally under Our Lady to defend true Catholic tradition.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Captain Tor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 3
    • Reputation: +2/-33
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #7 on: October 04, 2017, 02:10:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • To be a Traditional Catholic, deserving of the name, we must repudiate Vatican II completely and completely avoid Vatican II and its modernism. Lest we become infected with it ourselves.

    But as I wrote last time, against the truth there is no argument. For the past forty years, the archbishop, bishops, superior generals, and seminary rectors of the SSPX have ALL maintained the same position ... uncomfortable reading:

    Abp. Lefebvre (1976), "I do not reject it [Vatican II] altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition."
    [France-Soir, Aug. 4, 1976]

    Abp. Lefebvre (1980), "I am fully in agreement ... that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church."
    [Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. XLV]

    Abp. Lefebvre (1981), "As to the Council, I reaffirm that I subscribe to what the Holy Father said, asking that it should be received "in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church.""
    [Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper, quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. III, Ch. LII]

    Abp. Lefebvre (1982): "The necessity of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the Church, so as to correct the texts that are either incompatible with Tradition or equivocal."
    [Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in CFN:Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions]

    Abp. Lefebvre (1985), "We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of docuмents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecuмenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion."
    [Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in CFN:The April 15 Deadline]

    Fr. Richard Williamson (1985), "The Archbishop's central position is that the docuмents of Vatican II are acceptable on condition that they are sifted according to Tradition (what text would not be acceptable, on such a condition?)"
    [Letter to Friends and Benefactors #80]

    Fr. Schmidberger (1989), "...opposition to the Novus Ordo Missae, and to certain [parts] of the conciliar docuмents..."
    [God's Ways are not Our Ways, The Angelus, Jan 1989]

    Bp. Fellay (2001), "we go along with about 95% of the Second Vatican Council, ..."
    [DICI no. 6, May 2001]

    Fr. de Cacquerary (2006), "Father Cacquerary’s outline is not his own, but conforms to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre who noted it crucial that doctrinal questions of the Council be resolved according to the traditional teaching of the Church, ..."
    [Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in CFN: The April 15 Deadline]

    Bp. Fellay (2009), "but when speaking of the letter [of the Council], we do not reject it in full as it is ..."
    [Mgr Fellay, de la Fraternité saint Pie X, dit ses réserves sur Vatican II, AFP, 10th Feb 2009]

    Fr. Schmidberger (2009), "The SSPX does not reject the whole Council. Archbishop Lefebvre himself participated in the council, was in the preparatory commissions and approved most of the docuмents."
    [Where Do We Stand, The Angelus, March 2009]

    Fr. Pfluger (2009), "we do not deny the Council as an historical fact, but we ask that ambiguous texts and decrees be explained and revised if necessary."
    [Interview Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, The Angelus, April 2009]

    Bp. de Galarreta (2009), "Therefore to study the Council in the light of Tradition means rejecting everything that is in contradiction to the traditional teaching and Magisterium, and accepting that which is consistent and harmonious with what was believed always, everywhere and by all"
    [An Interview With Bishop de Galarreta, The Angelus, July 2009]

    Bp. Fellay (2010), "The only way to read the Council in a Catholic way is to read with the filter of Tradition"
    [2010 Angelus Press Conference]

    Fr. Laisney (2012), "But Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society do not reject everything in Vatican II; we carefully distinguish between that which is in conformity with the previous teachings of the Church (and we fully accept this)"
    [The Remnant:The New Doctors of the Law, April 2012]

    Fr. Schmidberger (2012), "In this statement of Abp. Lefebvre of his epochal declaration of 21 November 1974 are contained two inseparable fundamental principles: on one hand, the rejection of the spirit of the Council, of some of the declarations of the council and of some of the reforms that arose from the Council ..."
    [Mitteilungsblatt, May 2012]


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2784
    • Reputation: +2885/-512
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #8 on: October 04, 2017, 02:31:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • i think that captain tor's collection  of quotes from abl, williamson and others may have put matthew into a rather awkward position.  that's the problem with the era we live in.  hermetically sealed absolutes are in short supply.

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1024
    • Reputation: +794/-158
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #9 on: October 04, 2017, 05:28:03 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • But as I wrote last time, against the truth there is no argument. For the past forty years, the archbishop, bishops, superior generals, and seminary rectors of the SSPX have ALL maintained the same position ... uncomfortable reading:

    Uncomfortable reading? For whom? 

    Maybe for those who pick and choose certain quotes out of context to seek their own ends...

    Let's balance your litany with some more quotes from the archbishop... (and as you should know, there's many more than one can cite in a single post.)

    Quote
    “It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty years cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the Pope or should cease to be the Pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is it that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration to Figaro, shortly after his suspension by Paul VI, August 27th, 1976)

    “If our priests came to abandon the true liturgy, the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the true Sacraments, then it would no longer be worth while to continue. It would be ѕυιcιdє!

    When Rome asked: “But surely you can adopt the new liturgy and continue your seminaries, that won’t make them disappear,” I answered: “Yes, it will make out seminaries disappear. They would not be able to accept the new liturgy, it would amount to introducing the poison of the conciliar spirit into the community. If others were unable to hold on, it is because they adopted this new liturgy, all of these reforms and this new spirit. As for us, if we accept the same things, we will have the same results.

    This is why we must absolutely maintain our Traditional line, in spite of the appearance of disobedience and the persecutions of those who use their authority in an unjust and often illegal manner.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference given during a priestly retreat Econe, September 1986)

    “We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jєωιѕн Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)

    “Eminence, even if you give us everything–a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries–we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1987)

    “We must not forget also the prophecies of the most holy Virgin Mary. She warned us: without the Conversion of Russia, without conversion of the world, without prayer and penance, communism shall invade the whole world. What does that mean? We know very well that the goal of the secret societies is a world government, with Masonic ideals, i.e the rights of men, equality, fraternity and liberty, understood in an anti-christian sense, against Our Lord. These ideals would be promoted by a world government, which would establish a kind of socialism for all countries and then a congress of religions, encompassing all religions, including the Catholic Religion, in the service of this world government, as the Russian Orthodox are in the service of the soviets. There would be two congresses: a universal political congress, which would control the whole world, and this Congress of religions, which would support this world government, in a mercenary way.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given at Paris on the occasion of the celebration of his 60th anniversary of ordination, November 19th, 1989)

    “The pope stated on many occasions that he was in favor of modernist ideas, in favor of a compromise with the world. In his own words, it was ‘necessary to throw a bridge between the church and the secular world.’

    The pope said that it was necessary to attempt humanist ideas, that it was necessary to discuss such ideas; that it was necessary to have dialogs. At this stage, it is important to state that dialogs are contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Dialogs presuppose the coming together of two equal and opposing sides; therefore, in no way could (dialog) have anything to do with the Catholic faith.

    We believe and accept our faith as the only true faith in the world. All this confusion ends up in compromises, which destroy the Church’s doctrines, for the misfortune of mankind and the church alike.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, interview, 197

    “So by way of conclusion, either we are the heirs of the Catholic Church, i.e., of Quanta Cura, of Pascendi, with all the Popes down to the Council and with the great majority of bishops prior to the Council, for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the salvation of souls; or else we are the heirs of those who strive, even at the price at breaking with the Catholic Church and her doctrine, to acknowledge the principles of the Rights of Man, based on a veritable apostasy, in order to obtain a place as servants in the Revolutionary World Government. That is it. They will manage to get quite a good place as servants in the Revolutionary World Government because, by saying they are in favour of the Rights of Man, religious liberty, democracy and human equality, clearly they are worth being given a position as servants in the World Government.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, address to his priests at Econe, 1990)

    “I do not see how one could found a seminary using the New Mass. I would not find in it the strength, even with the greatest good will. The True, Traditional Latin Mass, is the heart of the seminary, of the priest, of the Church, of the Gospel, of Our Lord. St. Pius V saw this well: the True Ancient Mass is also faith’s barrier against heresy. (Archbishop Lefebvre, November 23rd, 1972)


    “The devil’s greatest victory is to have undertaken the destruction of the Church without making any martyrs.

    But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecuмenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.(Archbishop Lefebvre, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547.)

    “Ecuмenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecuмenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecuмenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church. (Archbishop Lefebvre, April 14th, 1978)

    “Yes, I am a rebel. Yes, I am a dissident. Yes, I am disobedient to people like those Bugninis. For they have infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other explanation.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on the Infiltration of modernism in the Church, Montreal Canada, 1982)

    “. . . .most recently, the Pope has been into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jєωs in Rome. How can the Pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jєωs know and say and believe that they are the successors of the Jєωs that killed Jesus Christ, and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world. At the end of the Pope’s visit, the Jєωs sang a “hymn” that included the line “I believe with all my heart in the coming of the Messiah,” meaning they refuse Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope had given permission for this denial of Christ to be sung in his presence, and he listened, with head bowed!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, talk on Assisi meeting, 1986)

    “We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)

    “Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice, but the choice is not between obedience and disobedience. What is suggested to us, what we are expressly invited to do, what we are persecuted for not doing, is to choose an appearance of obedience. But even the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.

    We therefore choose to keep it and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the Church has taught for two thousand years. The crisis is profound, cleverly organised and directed, and by this token one can truly believe that the master mind is not a man but Satan himself. For it is a master-stroke of Satan to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience [...] St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom we must always refer, goes so far in the “Summa Theologica” as to ask whether the “fraternal correction” prescribed by Our Lord can be exercised towards our superiors. After having made all the appropriate distinctions he replies: “One can exercise fraternal correction towards superiors when it is a matter of faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, 1986)

    John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Archbishop Lefebvre, Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

    “It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call “Operation Survival,” operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed “Operation ѕυιcιdє”. There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given at Consecrations of fourBishops at Econe, June 30th, 1988) 
    God Bless. 

    Adapted from :TraditionalCatholicRemnant

    http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/archbishop-lefebvre-speaks.164/

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #10 on: October 04, 2017, 08:57:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The contradiction here is very clear, if you accept the council as a valid ecuмenical council of the Church, you cannot pick and choose line by line what you accept and what you reject. That would certainly be schismatic and is indeed a new and novel proposition, and on that basis the above quotes are nonsense.

    If you reject it or doubt it as a whole, in toto, then that is another matter. Father Hesse explained the canonical and theological rules which govern this question a number of times.

    Is it any wonder that Traditionalists have been confused and uncertain for decades?


    Offline Merry

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 628
    • Reputation: +362/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #11 on: October 04, 2017, 09:12:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Death to the Novus Ordo. 
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #12 on: October 04, 2017, 09:22:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Death to the Novus Ordo.
    Does it really live, and if so in what way?

    Regardless, why linger in its orbit like moths to a flame?

    If you can rightly wish it dead, then why consider it any more relevant than any other false system? 

    If you don't wish to be tricked then how wise is it to do the bidding of the magician, most of all by paying him unmerited and imprudent attentions?

    Why so much focus, so much emphasis on that which not only has no salvific value, but quite the opposite?

    Do we render justice to the True, Beautiful, and Good in minding so much that which is otherwise?

    Is this not at least possibly a form of idolatry, witting or otherwise?
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Merry

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 628
    • Reputation: +362/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #13 on: October 04, 2017, 10:12:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Listen DZ, Pius X has condemned Modernism.  The Novus Ordo is that.  It can't be allowed to exist unopposed - it has to be worked against.  It is more than just a bane upon the Church.

    Why is this a problem for you?  What's with the argument?  Can't you just take the spirit? 
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Arguing Against An Angry Accordista Again
    « Reply #14 on: October 04, 2017, 10:14:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Listen DZ, Pius X has condemned Modernism.  The Novus Ordo is that.  It can't be allowed to exist unopposed - it has to be worked against.  It is more than just a bane upon the Church.

    Why is this a problem for you?  What's with the argument?  Can't you just take the spirit?
    Never mind.
    "Lord, have mercy".