Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SoldierofCtK on May 20, 2016, 08:27:39 AM
-
I think this might be in the right subforum, as His Excellency mentions a recent interview of +Fellay in the beginning of his sermon. Regardless, this video is from yesterday, May 19, in St. Catharines, Ontario Canada.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/TsLiCaK6dN4[/youtube]
-
Good explanation from Bp. Williamson regarding it being clear that Bp. Fellay doesn't know his enemy.
I like the commentary on how it's a great mistake to think that there is no faith left in the Novus Ordo church.
He describes at length the problem with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ controlling Rome, and that the masons will also destroy the Society [if reconciled].
I wish that the Bishop would have provided the name of the book that he described, as written by a Novus Ordo priest who definitely has the faith.
What strikes me in particular about the sermon is that Bp. Williamson is quite charitable in his criticisms of Bp. Fellay. This was not the case with Bp. Fellay's attitude toward Bp. Williamson in Bp. Fellay's latest interview. It was quite sad to see the animosity toward Bp. Williamson.
-
The book is "The Horror of the Profanation of the Most Holy Eucharist" by Mark Kreis and be purchased from Xulon Press or Amazon. Hope this helps!
-
This is a man who has his finger on the pulse of the SSPX and the Church as a whole. God save the Bishop!
-
I was hearing about the freemasons as a boy and my parents talked about them at length but no names seemed to crop up and one could be excused for thinking that they were one of the Church's classic bogeymen to scare the untutored, children and horses. To the extent that the Church we are also told has been riddled with them throughout history, the impression is that they take the form of some malevolent mist that descends on otherwise pious folk during their weak moments and carries them away to worship some other deity. If such an evil entity is attacking the very vitals of the Church and the SSPX, cannot the bishop name them so that we can mobilise and go and kill its leaders, wives, mistresses, servants, dogs and slaves? Or must they remain as some undefined agency of fear immune from attack because of their useful place in a very familiar strategy? Very much how the devil is depicted.
-
The book is "The Horror of the Profanation of the Most Holy Eucharist" by Mark Kreis and be purchased from Xulon Press or Amazon. Hope this helps!
Thanks for the info. I'll look it up.
-
I was hearing about the freemasons as a boy and my parents talked about them at length but no names seemed to crop up and one could be excused for thinking that they were one of the Church's classic bogeymen to scare the untutored, children and horses. To the extent that the Church we are also told has been riddled with them throughout history, the impression is that they take the form of some malevolent mist that descends on otherwise pious folk during their weak moments and carries them away to worship some other deity. If such an evil entity is attacking the very vitals of the Church and the SSPX, cannot the bishop name them so that we can mobilise and go and kill its leaders, wives, mistresses, servants, dogs and slaves? Or must they remain as some undefined agency of fear immune from attack because of their useful place in a very familiar strategy? Very much how the devil is depicted.
Indeed, that vague and everpresent Masonic rumbling in the clouds, but speaking of knowing that enemy, how about their foils, the conciliar popes who are not just mush minded hapless and ignorant clerics, but have been the enemies of the Church and the Catholic Religion, and to whom the Society has always bent the knee.
Acknowledging the enemy has always been a problem for them.
Being a moderate rebel is a dicey business.
-
I was hearing about the freemasons as a boy and my parents talked about them at length but no names seemed to crop up and one could be excused for thinking that they were one of the Church's classic bogeymen to scare the untutored, children and horses. To the extent that the Church we are also told has been riddled with them throughout history, the impression is that they take the form of some malevolent mist that descends on otherwise pious folk during their weak moments and carries them away to worship some other deity. If such an evil entity is attacking the very vitals of the Church and the SSPX, cannot the bishop name them so that we can mobilise and go and kill its leaders, wives, mistresses, servants, dogs and slaves? Or must they remain as some undefined agency of fear immune from attack because of their useful place in a very familiar strategy? Very much how the devil is depicted.
Indeed, that vague and everpresent Masonic rumbling in the clouds, but speaking of knowing that enemy, how about their foils, the conciliar popes who are not just mush minded hapless and ignorant clerics, but have been the enemies of the Church and the Catholic Religion, and to whom the Society has always bent the knee.
Acknowledging the enemy has always been a problem for them.
Being a moderate rebel is a dicey business.
Did you view the video?
-
Anybody got a video of his sermon from Confirmations at St. Athanasius the other night?
-
Nevermind, found it....
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGcr24n8fJo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGcr24n8fJo
-
Nevermind, found it....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGcr24n8fJo
Wow. An amazing sermon. Best that I've heard in a long time.
-
Very Inspiring, thought provoking and courageous sermon. Pray for His Excellency Bishop Williamson. :pray:
Thank you for posting.
-
Wessex - it is preferred to simply name the errors. Because, blessed are they who believe without seeing, as our Lord says. We do not need to see what goes on behind the closed doors of the lodge. We do not need to see what goes on in the ghetto. And, +Williamson does a great job at that. Not a sermon of his goes by without him repeating for us the church's teaching about objective truth/non contradiction(2+2 =4 and it does not =5). And, this strikes a deathblow to modernism. He also mentioned nfp in one of these recent usa sermons, commending those who practice their marriage right where it is not unlikely children are to occur. Although, I would prefer that he were more direct concerning it, because I don't believe I have ever heard him speak directly about the NFP controversy. And, Rome has a new teaching on NFP. NFP is the temptation of the flesh taught by the new church.
-
Wessex - it is preferred to simply name the errors. Because, blessed are they who believe without seeing, as our Lord says. We do not need to see what goes on behind the closed doors of the lodge. We do not need to see what goes on in the ghetto. And, +Williamson does a great job at that. Not a sermon of his goes by without him repeating for us the church's teaching about objective truth/non contradiction(2+2 =4 and it does not =5). And, this strikes a deathblow to modernism. He also mentioned nfp in one of these recent usa sermons, commending those who practice their marriage right where it is not unlikely children are to occur. Although, I would prefer that he were more direct concerning it, because I don't believe I have ever heard him speak directly about the NFP controversy. And, Rome has a new teaching on NFP. NFP is the temptation of the flesh taught by the new church.
I think the bishop likes his US audiences; the British ones ask too many questions!
Not seeing and relying on fallen clerics is the road to disillusion. Not a good formula. This masonic script is old hat. Has the SSPX ever told Rome to clean out her dirty stables; stables it now wishes to occupy? The bishop does a great job in turning a great problem into a great mythology. And so he becomes part of the problem. The people of today want more than vague generalities.
The bishop does indeed repeat that the new church is a mass of contradiction. But her intention is to build a church that embraces conflicting ideas in the name of inclusion. This is being true to the underlying objectives of the Council. I see more consistency here than in the bewildering amount of tortuous reasoning and positioning that continues to plague traditionalists. Their leaders for their own reasons prefer the convenience of fog to the boldness of clarity.
-
Well stated, Wessex! (CI software will not permit me to give you a thumbs up.)
-
I was hearing about the freemasons as a boy and my parents talked about them at length but no names seemed to crop up and one could be excused for thinking that they were one of the Church's classic bogeymen to scare the untutored, children and horses. To the extent that the Church we are also told has been riddled with them throughout history, the impression is that they take the form of some malevolent mist that descends on otherwise pious folk during their weak moments and carries them away to worship some other deity. If such an evil entity is attacking the very vitals of the Church and the SSPX, cannot the bishop name them so that we can mobilise and go and kill its leaders, wives, mistresses, servants, dogs and slaves? Or must they remain as some undefined agency of fear immune from attack because of their useful place in a very familiar strategy? Very much how the devil is depicted.
Good point!
HE knows Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has been with us for a long time.
His lectures cite, since Pope Gregory XVI at least.
I like your comment about killing them. I was watching a history on Wm. Tecuмseh Sherman's destruction of the South during the cινιℓ ωαr and thought the same thing. Why couldn't we kill this nutty Freemasonic Yankee general, who enlisted criminals in his army to burn, rape, murder and rob the residents of multiple States?
I think the issue is "firepower". We don't have enough of it.
We have to go to the ultimate weapon, pulling-out our Holy Rosary much more often.
-
Wessex - it is preferred to simply name the errors. Because, blessed are they who believe without seeing, as our Lord says. We do not need to see what goes on behind the closed doors of the lodge. We do not need to see what goes on in the ghetto. And, +Williamson does a great job at that. Not a sermon of his goes by without him repeating for us the church's teaching about objective truth/non contradiction(2+2 =4 and it does not =5). And, this strikes a deathblow to modernism. He also mentioned nfp in one of these recent usa sermons, commending those who practice their marriage right where it is not unlikely children are to occur. Although, I would prefer that he were more direct concerning it, because I don't believe I have ever heard him speak directly about the NFP controversy. And, Rome has a new teaching on NFP. NFP is the temptation of the flesh taught by the new church.
I think the bishop likes his US audiences; the British ones ask too many questions!
Not seeing and relying on fallen clerics is the road to disillusion. Not a good formula. This masonic script is old hat. Has the SSPX ever told Rome to clean out her dirty stables; stables it now wishes to occupy? The bishop does a great job in turning a great problem into a great mythology. And so he becomes part of the problem. The people of today want more than vague generalities.
The bishop does indeed repeat that the new church is a mass of contradiction. But her intention is to build a church that embraces conflicting ideas in the name of inclusion. This is being true to the underlying objectives of the Council. I see more consistency here than in the bewildering amount of tortuous reasoning and positioning that continues to plague traditionalists. Their leaders for their own reasons prefer the convenience of fog to the boldness of clarity.
"Thumbs up!" I think your contrarian view has merit for the discussion.
-
(http://classroomclipart.com/images/gallery/Clipart/School/TN_student-raising-his-hand-in-class-to-answer-question-clipart.jpg)
Matthew, may I make a few comments?
1. I don't think Bp. Williamson looks to be in good health.
2. It doesn't appear the Resistance Bishop's critics will argue with him concerning the topic of "Good souls" residing within the schismatic Novus ordo infrastructure, either in the pews or within the clergy.
But it begs the question, "What is that to us?"
3. Coincidentally, yesterday, I was recommended to read a book by Father Paul Trinchard, S.T.L., titled "Life Before Death". This is a Jesuit priest who converted to tradition, late in life.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41rzflljqbL._SX337_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Two of the main themes of his book:
A. The high level of invalid ordinations, post 1968.
B. The Novus ordo missae is a serious sacrilege.
This is in-line with Father James Wathen's, who had the grace and to write the "Great Sacrilege" book.
This debate, started by him in 1970, is more current than ever.
-
But is the "Beast" the real problem? Supposing Oliver Stone or whoever could pull it out of its lair into the light of day and kill it off, would our problems be over? Rather, is it not true that if the people then still clung to their liberalism, preferring illusion to reality, they would perpetuate all the conditions necessary for the "Beast" to come back to life in the same shadows? "Please deceive us! We love the rotten way of life you give us! Please pretend you are not there, and we will pretend also!" Ultimately, the "Beast" is product, and not producer, of the people's turning away from God.
-
Very good points Incred, In that vein, I would like to know how the good Bishop arrives at his doubly emphasized "most probably valid" ordinations. What gives him such confidence in something which is so questionable?
Having stated how the disciplines have been corrupted by the Masonics since the council in order to destroy the Church, it does not follow that these things would have improved over the decades. Thirty years ago that confidence was not the generally held opinion in Traditional circles.
Who could deny that the Freemasons have always known, that to destroy the Church, it was imperative to destroy the Catholic priesthood or render it invalid, Enter Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.
It appears that the Bishop has dug in his heels on the issue raised in NY and subsequent ECs, and is moving forward to expand its scope.
We who might disagree with his position would not deny that some in the Novus Ordo religion have held on to their faith and are in God's grace, but would argue that this has happened in spite of the Novus Ordo and its religion, not because of it.
The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.
-
Very good points Incred, In that vein, I would like to know how the good Bishop arrives at his doubly emphasized "most probably valid" ordinations. What gives him such confidence in something which is so questionable?
Having stated how the disciplines have been corrupted by the Masonics since the council in order to destroy the Church, it does not follow that these things would have improved over the decades. Thirty years ago that confidence was not the generally held opinion in Traditional circles.
Who could deny that the Freemasons have always known, that to destroy the Church, it was imperative to destroy the Catholic priesthood or render it invalid, Enter Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.
It appears that the Bishop has dug in his heels on the issue raised in NY and subsequent ECs, and is moving forward to expand its scope.
We who might disagree with his position would not deny that some in the Novus Ordo religion have held on to their faith and are in God's grace, but would argue that this has happened in spite of the Novus Ordo and its religion, not because of it.
The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.
JP,
A quick equation.
Father Trinchard stated that the Novus ordo structure is much worse than Protestantism.
Pope Leo XIII spoke from the Seat to say the Anglican ordinations were invalid.
Therefore: Novus ordo sacraments < Anglican sacraments ? True Catholic Sacraments.
-
The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.
What have you personally done to stop the Novus Ordo?
-
If there's so much Catholicism and validity in the new sacraments/mass, then the Bishop has the obligation of making his own, personal 'deal' with new-rome. He has no excuse for being 'independent' if new-rome offers the means of salvation.
-
The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.
What have you personally done to stop the Novus Ordo?
I stopped attending it,(shortlived as that was), I speak against, I write against it, I have encouraged, at least one priest out of it, I do my best to convince others to cease attending it and to stay away, and when called upon by my superiors to support their efforts to remove it, I will do so.
From there, it is up to our Bishops, Priests, and clerics to initiate a formal strategy to stop the revolution in accordance with the doctrine and law of the Church, as it is their duty to instruct the weak and ignorant about its evil nature and dangers.
And I always pray for it to stop. I have done all that my humble station has allowed for me to do.
God Bless You
-
Incredulous,
JP,
A quick equation.
Father Trinchard stated that the Novus ordo structure is much worse than Protestantism.
Pope Leo XIII spoke from the Seat to say the Anglican ordinations were invalid.
Therefore: Novus ordo sacraments < Anglican sacraments ? True Catholic Sacraments.
Yes the Novus Ordo and the Anglican service represent a distinction without difference. :cheers:
-
The straightforward remedy to stop the sacrilege in the Novus Ordo is to stop the Novus Ordo.
What have you personally done to stop the Novus Ordo?
I stopped attending it,(shortlived as that was), I speak against, I write against it, I have encouraged, at least one priest out of it, I do my best to convince others to cease attending it and to stay away, and when called upon by my superiors to support their efforts to remove it, I will do so.
From there, it is up to our Bishops, Priests, and clerics to initiate a formal strategy to stop the revolution in accordance with the doctrine and law of the Church, as it is their duty to instruct the weak and ignorant about its evil nature and dangers.
And I always pray for it to stop. I have done all that my humble station has allowed for me to do.
God Bless You
And yet the Novus Ordo continues on as before, despite your endeavors. Do you believe that if only Bp. Williamson would spend all of his time speaking out against the NO and its evils, then this would somehow stop the Novus Ordo? How would that work, exactly?
The SV's have a similar strategy: they want that all trads would work together to show that there isn't really a Pope in the chair of St. Peter. Only then will the Crisis (supposedly) end. Okay, maybe it's not quite that simple, but that's what it seems to boil down to.
Yet Bp. Williamsom doesn't adopt the methodology of either so-called solution (or the other personal solutions of laypersons). And for that there's no end of criticism.
What he is trying to do is to show that charity is very much needed, and that we should not think that there is no Faith left in the conciliar church. We should not have animosity for those who attend the NO. Why is that such a terrible thing?
-
and that we should not think that there is no Faith left in the conciliar church. We should not have animosity for those who attend the NO. Why is that such a terrible thing?
Why does the conciliar church need any kind of defense? 99% of the catholic world is on "their side". But it's we Trads who are at fault for pointing out their errors? We are the bad guys? NONSENSE!
The idea that there is this "animosity" against individual NO people is similar to the boogeyman - it doesn't exist. Trads do, and should, have animosity for those authorities who promote the NO, for they are destroying the church, and sending people to hell. Just as Christ hated the pharisees, so we hate modernists. But, in charity, we still pray for them. We also pray for those normal people who attend the NO, and we point out its errors, so that they may stop going.
But to defend the NO and to argue that they still have "some faith" is like arguing that a protestant is still "part catholic". ...Ok, I'll go along - I will say: The typical NO catholic is still part catholic. Now what? What does that solve? Are we supposed to stop trying to convert them? Are we supposed to stop telling them that the NO is wrong, communion in the hand is wrong, the new sacraments are doubtful, and that their salvation is in jeopardy, etc?
If we are still supposed to keep trying the convert them, then who cares if they are 0% or 90% catholic? If they (or anyone) isn't 100% catholic, they can't get to heaven! So who cares what % they are???????
-
and that we should not think that there is no Faith left in the conciliar church. We should not have animosity for those who attend the NO. Why is that such a terrible thing?
Why does the conciliar church need any kind of defense? 99% of the catholic world is on "their side". But it's we Trads who are at fault for pointing out their errors? We are the bad guys? NONSENSE!
The idea that there is this "animosity" against individual NO people is similar to the boogeyman - it doesn't exist. Trads do, and should, have animosity for those authorities who promote the NO, for they are destroying the church, and sending people to hell. Just as Christ hated the pharisees, so we hate modernists. But, in charity, we still pray for them. We also pray for those normal people who attend the NO, and we point out its errors, so that they may stop going.
But to defend the NO and to argue that they still have "some faith" is like arguing that a protestant is still "part catholic". ...Ok, I'll go along - I will say: The typical NO catholic is still part catholic. Now what? What does that solve? Are we supposed to stop trying to convert them? Are we supposed to stop telling them that the NO is wrong, communion in the hand is wrong, the new sacraments are doubtful, and that their salvation is in jeopardy, etc?
If we are still supposed to keep trying the convert them, then who cares if they are 0% or 90% catholic? If they (or anyone) isn't 100% catholic, they can't get to heaven! So who cares what % they are???????
Well, I don't think it's a case of Bp. Williamson defending the conciliar church when he says that it's a mistake to think that there's no faith left in the conciliar church. You seem to take everything one or two (or more) steps further than Bp. Williamson has gone. Regarding trads being at fault for pointing out their errors, well, where did Bp. Williamson say that trads are at fault for pointing out errors? I don't recall that he has said this.
What he DID mention in the video (did you view it?) is this: How is a Novus Ordo Catholic going to see tradition when they are called heretics? There is a way to address errors without, IMO, resorting to harshness.
If Our Lord hated the Pharisees, then why he did pray for the particular Pharisee that put him to death? Remember that? And didn't our Lord also command that we love our enemies, and pray for them? Not just to pray for them....but to love them. Pray for those who persecute us.
So you believe that all Novus Ordo Catholics aren't actually Catholic, therefore they aren't any of them going to Heaven? They're all going to Hell?
-
(http://media.salon.com/2013/10/reenactment-620x412.jpg)
Gentlemen, from Kentucky, North Carolina and South, Reload your rifles and break those Yankee ranks!
-
How is a Novus Ordo Catholic going to see tradition when they are called heretics? There is a way to address errors without, IMO, resorting to harshness.
Who said that NO catholics have no faith left? Who cares what % of Faith they have, if they are still in error? That's the question.
The Bishop is implying (as he's done previously) that we Trads are 'too extreme' because we have 'pharisaical scorn' (his words) of NO catholics. I have no scorn for anyone, only for error. And I don't see any evidence that there are numerous Trads out there on a witch hunt against NO catholics. This whole conflict is imaginary.
We Trads are the ones being attacked and told WE are heretics, WE are disobedient, WE are not part of the Church. THIS is not an imaginary conflict. THIS conflict happens anytime I talk to a NO catholic, even one who goes to the indult (and was formerly trad).
Secondly, using the word heretic isn't harsh, it's the truth. Christ called the Pharisees "serpents, brood of vipers" and "hypocrites" (multiple times) - is He too harsh? Our Lord hated the pharisees because they spread error and kept many people away from God and the Truth. He prayed for them so that they would convert. These 2 attitudes are not contradictory, and they apply for all the modernists of new-rome.
If a NO catholic (or any catholic) does not believe 100% in all articles of the Faith, they are, by definition a heretic. And, heretics go to hell. This is why we must try to convert them. Conversion happens through charity, but not at the expense of, or watering-down of the Truth. The truth is harsh enough to one who is living contrary to it. But many people want to blame the 'delivery' on why they reject it, when the reason is, they want to do what pleases them.
-
How is a Novus Ordo Catholic going to see tradition when they are called heretics? There is a way to address errors without, IMO, resorting to harshness.
Who said that NO catholics have no faith left? Who cares what % of Faith they have, if they are still in error? That's the question.
The Bishop is implying (as he's done previously) that we Trads are 'too extreme' because we have 'pharisaical scorn' (his words) of NO catholics. I have no scorn for anyone, only for error. And I don't see any evidence that there are numerous Trads out there on a witch hunt against NO catholics. This whole conflict is imaginary.
We Trads are the ones being attacked and told WE are heretics, WE are disobedient, WE are not part of the Church. THIS is not an imaginary conflict. THIS conflict happens anytime I talk to a NO catholic, even one who goes to the indult (and was formerly trad).
Secondly, using the word heretic isn't harsh, it's the truth. Christ called the Pharisees "serpents, brood of vipers" and "hypocrites" (multiple times) - is He too harsh? Our Lord hated the pharisees because they spread error and kept many people away from God and the Truth. He prayed for them so that they would convert. These 2 attitudes are not contradictory, and they apply for all the modernists of new-rome.
If a NO catholic (or any catholic) does not believe 100% in all articles of the Faith, they are, by definition a heretic. And, heretics go to hell. This is why we must try to convert them. Conversion happens through charity, but not at the expense of, or watering-down of the Truth. The truth is harsh enough to one who is living contrary to it. But many people want to blame the 'delivery' on why they reject it, when the reason is, they want to do what pleases them.
I'm not sure that Bp. Williamson has been putting out percentages of faith that the NO Catholics may or may not have. Could you point out where he has done this? As far as being in error, we can't really know how many are in error - probably most or many. We can't say for sure that all of them are, though. At least I can't.
I haven't seen that Bp. Williamson is implying that all trads are too extreme. I don't think he's given out a percentage, either. I wouldn't think that any trad would call an NO Catholic a heretic to his or her face. Maybe I'm wrong. But on the internet, it has been done.
Regarding our Lord praying for the Pharisees, didn't he pray for the Pharisees that called for this death, so that God the Father would forgive them? "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." This might have something to do with conversion, but it seems clear that Our Lord is praying for forgiveness for them. As St. Stephen did when he was martyred.
I agree that conversion happens through charity, but not at the expense of watering down the truth. I doubt that anyone here would disagree with that. It can seem harsh to those who do not understand God's justice.
There still is Faith in the conciliar church, despite the grave errors. I saw it myself when I attended the NO.
It would seem that you are already practicing charity toward those in the NO with whom you come into contact. But are all trads as charitable? There are some SV's who are not, but it's not clear that Bp. Williamson is speaking about them.
It was earlier on this thread that it was mentioned that Bp. Williamson should name names of the Freemasons, so that we could hunt them down and kill them, their wives, etc. Is this not extreme? Maybe the person wasn't serious, but he seemed to be.
-
(http://media.salon.com/2013/10/reenactment-620x412.jpg)
Gentlemen, from Kentucky, North Carolina and South, Reload your rifles and break those Yankee ranks!
I raise my sweet tea to thee, Incredulous. :cheers:
Deo Vindice!
-
Beautiful!
Thank you Kazimierz.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/formercountries/images/b/b0/Seal_of_the_Confederacy.png/revision/latest?cb=20110228010353)
Deo Vindice (English: Under God, our Vindicator), was the motto of the Confederate States of America (CSA), and was engraved on their official seal.
-
It is fascinating but frightening too that we are all hearing and reading the same sermons and articles because try as I might I do not hear what some of you hear coming from +Williamson. I do not understand how a person can consider themselves honest when they interpret another's words so far out from what is actually said. +Williamson has clarified himself so much that it can't be a simple misunderstanding anymore, we are moving into such interpreters being either willful or having some mental/spiritual block.
The fact that this controversy has blown up the way it has proves his point and proves that this is NOT an imaginary conflict. There is a very real problem with admitting that SOME N.O. MAY have Faith. And SOME Sacraments MAY be valid. This board is full of proof of this problem. We can't just take such statements at face value, we have to attach all kinds of additional meanings to them to excuse the kneejerk.
+Williamson's belief is now that there's so much Catholicism and validity to the New Mass that New Rome is the means to salvation? Come on now.
Even I can tell that the Fr Trinchard "equation" is completely bogus. You can't compare N.O. structure to Anglican ordination and come up with an equation that sticks. It's apples and oranges. Some similarities may exist but they are not comparable in essence. The "equation" is just a catchy line that is being peddled with the hope that no one will actually think about it. It's extremely simplistic.
BTW knowing how Catholic someone is DOES make a difference. If we are to have any hope of conversion, in reality, in practice, it means taking people where they are and facilitating the Holy Ghost to move their wills and their intellects. Not being truthful about their situation or their Faith, whether for evil or for good, will only harm. If you go into a situation with the attitude that no matter what good Faith a person has, be it ever so little, they are wrong, you will scandalize them and bungle the job the HG sent you to do. Perhaps some of you are gentler in practice but don't realize that on paper it looks like "Some N.O. MAY have Faith", I don't know. But I hope that is the case because otherwise our evangelization efforts are in need of a major overhaul. I never used to think it was us (mostly), because when people don't want to listen they will always find a way to blame you or your delivery, I get that. But this little drama has very nearly changed my mind. It likely IS us after all.
-
This is the dividing line.
Will you burn the incense or condone the burning of the incense or not?
Do you think the incense burners are of good intention, misled or invincibly ignorant?
God's ways are not our ways.
Don't dare tamper with the Holy Mass or risk being anathema.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e5/55/74/e55574235374197673dfc27c150f3d33.jpg)
-
It is fascinating but frightening too that we are all hearing and reading the same sermons and articles because try as I might I do not hear what some of you hear coming from +Williamson. I do not understand how a person can consider themselves honest when they interpret another's words so far out from what is actually said. +Williamson has clarified himself so much that it can't be a simple misunderstanding anymore, we are moving into such interpreters being either willful or having some mental/spiritual block.
PRESUPPOSITION
In order that both he who is giving the Spiritual Exercises, and he who is receiving them, may more help and benefit themselves, let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it...
-
Meg,
As far as being in error, we can't really know how many are in error - probably most or many. We can't say for sure that all of them are, though. At least I can't.
If one accepts V2 or the new mass, they are objectively in error, because both the council and the new mass teach, explicitly or implicitly, error, half-truths, and lukewarm truth. Whether or not those of new-rome fully realize the error they are in, is another matter. Truth exists outside of our mind, since truth is eternal and hence, we can be in error whether we realize it (or will it) or not.
As far as the Bishop is concerned, i've tried to make my point and i've been unsuccessful, so i will drop it.
-
It is fascinating but frightening too that we are all hearing and reading the same sermons and articles because try as I might I do not hear what some of you hear coming from +Williamson. I do not understand how a person can consider themselves honest when they interpret another's words so far out from what is actually said. +Williamson has clarified himself so much that it can't be a simple misunderstanding anymore, we are moving into such interpreters being either willful or having some mental/spiritual block.
PRESUPPOSITION
In order that both he who is giving the Spiritual Exercises, and he who is receiving them, may more help and benefit themselves, let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it...
B from A, I don't know how you do it but you seem to have an abundance of excellent quotes and resources at your fingertips for so many topics!
-
Meg,
As far as being in error, we can't really know how many are in error - probably most or many. We can't say for sure that all of them are, though. At least I can't.
If one accepts V2 or the new mass, they are objectively in error, because both the council and the new mass teach, explicitly or implicitly, error, half-truths, and lukewarm truth. Whether or not those of new-rome fully realize the error they are in, is another matter. Truth exists outside of our mind, since truth is eternal and hence, we can be in error whether we realize it (or will it) or not.
As far as the Bishop is concerned, i've tried to make my point and i've been unsuccessful, so i will drop it.
With all due respect, that has to be one of the most messed up statements I've read on here.
If one "accepts" (undefined) they are "objectively" in error because the council may or may not implicitly or explicitly teach error, half-truth and truth that doesn't have the tone favored by some unnamed authority.
The imprecision of traditionalists nowadays rivals any ambiguity in the texts and interpretations of the docuмents of Vatican II.
I can fully "accept" that the Novus Ordo is a validly published liturgical rite. I can also fully accept that it is an inferior, inadequate an imprudent liturgy for this day and age prone to and full of liturgical abuse in its day to day practice.
What I don't have to accept are the objective errors that are prevalent on both Trad and NeoCatholic circles that provoke unwarranted worries and false declarations of sedevacantism.
-
Meg,
As far as being in error, we can't really know how many are in error - probably most or many. We can't say for sure that all of them are, though. At least I can't.
If one accepts V2 or the new mass, they are objectively in error, because both the council and the new mass teach, explicitly or implicitly, error, half-truths, and lukewarm truth. Whether or not those of new-rome fully realize the error they are in, is another matter. Truth exists outside of our mind, since truth is eternal and hence, we can be in error whether we realize it (or will it) or not.
This is something that we can probably agree on. It does make sense that while they may indeed be objectively in error, they may not be aware of it. I'm not sure how closely it relates to the Council, but the New Mass does seem to embody the values of the Council. They don't have proper Catholic teaching from their pastors (it's all about peace, luv, and mercy), and the New Mass is so dull, boring, and lacking in true Catholic piety and teaching as well as not allowing time for silent prayer, and they also seldom have good access to the sacrament of Penance, since it's usually offered on Saturday instead of Sunday.
Really, given the terrible situation, it's amazing to me that there is any Faith in the conciliar church. As someone has already mentioned, this may be due to saying morning and evening prayers, and praying the Rosary. A devotion to Our Lady could be quite helpful to a Novus Ordo Cath, if they are sincere.
Perhaps you are correct in saying that Truth exists outside of our mind, since it is eternal, and that we can be in error without realizing it.
-
Meg, good points. My philosophy teacher always said that the definition of Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Reality exists outside of ourself since God made reality before we were born.
-
My philosophy teacher always said that the definition of Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality.
So did mine.
-
Gerard:
The imprecision of traditionalists nowadays rivals any ambiguity in the texts and interpretations of the docuмents of Vatican II.
Or, in short, many of us trads do not know what we are talking about half the time. I don't think I have ever seen on this forum or elsewhere any kind in depth discussion of any of the docuмents of Vatican II.
I can fully "accept" that the Novus Ordo is a validly published liturgical rite. I can also fully accept that it is an inferior, inadequate an(d) imprudent liturgy for this day and age prone to and full of liturgical abuse in its day to day practice.
I think that's fair.
What I don't have to accept are the objective errors that are prevalent on both Trad and NeoCatholic circles that provoke unwarranted worries and false declarations of sedevacantism.
Yeah, we can get totally confused listening to many trads and new Catholics alike. Sedevacantism is what happens when troubled minds stumble about blindly and eventually fall off the edge of the earth.
-
You know, Gerard, instead of you asking questions or trying to understand what I said (you know, like a NORMAL conversation) you just butt in, take what I said out of context, interpret what I said to your own understanding and then attack it. It's so childish and I refuse to answer you anymore.
-
You know, Gerard, instead of you asking questions or trying to understand what I said (you know, like a NORMAL conversation) you just butt in, take what I said out of context, interpret what I said to your own understanding and then attack it. It's so childish and I refuse to answer you anymore.
Don't mind the Conciliarist from Fish Eaters too much, Pax. He can't help it. He admits he goes to the Novus Ordo, so he has a desperate, personal reason for exonerating it. Yet few on this board take him to task on that. Because while everyone argues about old women and how it's OK for them to go (so long as they gain some "spiritual benefit", you understand), and how the Novus Ordo is a grace-giving event (it's "heresy" to deny it!), and how people who oppose it on principal are "exaggerating" or "over-reacting", they can't really correct the Conciliarist from Fish Eaters without seeming two-faced, can they?
-
Know your enemy! Never mind what he calls you.
-
Nevermind, found it....
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGcr24n8fJo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGcr24n8fJo
Fixed it....
-
You know, Gerard, instead of you asking questions or trying to understand what I said (you know, like a NORMAL conversation) you just butt in, take what I said out of context, interpret what I said to your own understanding and then attack it. It's so childish and I refuse to answer you anymore.
I didn't need to ask questions because I understood exactly what you stated.
It is a public forum so I didn't "butt in" I commented.
I didn't take anything you said out of context.
I didn't "interpret" it. I analyzed it and made a general comment in opposition to it.
You are free to answer me or not. I don't care.
-
Know your enemy! Never mind what he calls you.
Know your enemy and mind what you call him. You will be called to account for it.
-
Don't mind the Conciliarist from Fish Eaters too much, Pax.
Cute.
He can't help it. He admits he goes to the Novus Ordo, so he has a desperate, personal reason for exonerating it.
That's pure fiction. I've been to the Novus Ordo about 4 times in the last 14 years.
But I do know what I'm referring to.
I do exonerate it from false charges, that doesn't mean it's not a liturgical failure.
Yet few on this board take him to task on that.
Why should people defend your false premises?
Because while everyone argues about old women and how it's OK for them to go (so long as they gain some "spiritual benefit", you understand), and how the Novus Ordo is a grace-giving event (it's "heresy" to deny it!), and how people who oppose it on principal are "exaggerating" or "over-reacting", they can't really correct the Conciliarist from Fish Eaters without seeming two-faced, can they?
By the very fact that you refer to me as "conciliarist" is proof of your inability to stop the B.S.
You can't correct me because you refuse to face the truth and you find the refuge of creating a straw man argument irresistible.
You can't correct me because when it comes down to the details on which the argument is built, you can't deny them.
My foundations of my arguments are correct, real and true. Yours are imprecise, subjective and contingent in nature,
It's like arguing with an Atheist and that makes sense because you are imbibing in a variant of Modernism and that always leads to agnosticism and eventually atheism.
-
He can't help it. He admits he goes to the Novus Ordo, so he has a desperate, personal reason for exonerating it.
A wild charge, of a piece with a lot of wild charges which are made against folks on this forum by a variety of careless and thoughtless forum droolers.
Gerard: That's pure fiction. I've been to the Novus Ordo about 4 times in the last 14 years.
But I do know what I'm referring to.
I do exonerate it from false charges, that doesn't mean it's not a liturgical failure.
But you see, Gerard, some of these massive intellects can not bear the idea that the Novus Ordo should be exonerated from false charges. That you inform them that you have rarely attended MO Masses, and that you believe the NO to be a "liturgical failure" counts for nothing in their small minds. The fact that you give the NO any breathing space at all is intolerable. Because, quite frankly, to do so, is to exonerate the bishop and to let him off the hook.
(Now just watch the number of 'thumbs down' that I get from some of these dopes. I am an avid collector of 'thumbs down,' and feel honored each time I receive one.)
-
Ok, so riddle me this...the novus ordo should exonerated from what? The charges against it are those of theologian Ottaviani, not me. He said it has a doubtful consecration, a faulty theology and teaches a different Faith than Trent. Please tell me where he's wrong and BE SPECIFIC. no generalizations, no personal opinion. Show me where Ottaviani is wrong, by quoting a theological source. And, no, "new advent.com" doesn't count.
-
:barf:
Oh, be quiet, you Conciliarist.
-
He can't help it. He admits he goes to the Novus Ordo, so he has a desperate, personal reason for exonerating it.
A wild charge, of a piece with a lot of wild charges which are made against folks on this forum by a variety of careless and thoughtless forum droolers.
Gerard: That's pure fiction. I've been to the Novus Ordo about 4 times in the last 14 years.
But I do know what I'm referring to.
I do exonerate it from false charges, that doesn't mean it's not a liturgical failure.
But you see, Gerard, some of these massive intellects can not bear the idea that the Novus Ordo should be exonerated from false charges. That you inform them that you have rarely attended MO Masses, and that you believe the NO to be a "liturgical failure" counts for nothing in their small minds. The fact that you give the NO any breathing space at all is intolerable. Because, quite frankly, to do so, is to exonerate the bishop and to let him off the hook.
(Now just watch the number of 'thumbs down' that I get from some of these dopes. I am an avid collector of 'thumbs down,' and feel honored each time I receive one.)
Drat! We can't "thumb you down" cause Herr moderator has blocked us!
Here... take this Holly. :fryingpan:
-
Incred:
Drat! We can't "thumb you down" cause Herr moderator has blocked us!
Here... take this Holly. :fryingpan:
Why would the moderator block a 'thumbs down?" I don't get it.
-
Incred: Drat! We can't "thumb you down" cause Herr moderator has blocked us!
Here... take this Holly. :fryingpan:
Why would the moderator block a 'thumbs down?" I don't get it.
Cause your special ? :thinking:
-
:barf:
Oh, be quiet, you Conciliarist.
Gerard from Fish Eaters said,
The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is simply a more simple form of liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true mass" as some are fond of phrasing it.
And there it is.............................
-
:barf:
Oh, be quiet, you Conciliarist.
Gerard from Fish Eaters said,
The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is simply a more simple form of liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true mass" as some are fond of phrasing it.
And there it is.............................
You have to say it like this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a1/31/72/a131721cac422de357e0bfb286b828be.jpg)
"You Concilarisssst!!!"
-
:barf:
Oh, be quiet, you Conciliarist.
Gerard from Fish Eaters said,
The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is simply a more simple form of liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true mass" as some are fond of phrasing it.
And there it is.............................
You have to say it like this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a1/31/72/a131721cac422de357e0bfb286b828be.jpg)
"You Concilarisssst!!!"
My Bunny is innocent! :cry:
-
I was hearing about the freemasons as a boy and my parents talked about them at length but no names seemed to crop up and one could be excused for thinking that they were one of the Church's classic bogeymen to scare the untutored, children and horses. To the extent that the Church we are also told has been riddled with them throughout history, the impression is that they take the form of some malevolent mist that descends on otherwise pious folk during their weak moments and carries them away to worship some other deity. If such an evil entity is attacking the very vitals of the Church and the SSPX, cannot the bishop name them so that we can mobilise and go and kill its leaders, wives, mistresses, servants, dogs and slaves? Or must they remain as some undefined agency of fear immune from attack because of their useful place in a very familiar strategy? Very much how the devil is depicted.
I would kindly request you to hear the sermon again…You miss the point completely….the answers are all there…. besides….What did Our Lord do in the Garden of Gethsemane ? Did Our Lord fight the Romans and Jews who came to Crucify Him? Holy Scriptures informs us that Our Lord and Savior prayed for the reparation of Our Sins.
Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Luke 22:44 “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
His Excellency +W reminds us that one of our greatest weapon against The Satan and his minions is the Most Holy Rosary.
-
If there's so much Catholicism and validity in the new sacraments/mass, then the Bishop has the obligation of making his own, personal 'deal' with new-rome. He has no excuse for being 'independent' if new-rome offers the means of salvation.
The Bishop does not say that the ‘New Rome’ offers a means to Salvation. Please do not put your ‘spin’ to his Excellency’s message. The kind Bishop has criticized and exposed the ‘New Rome’ more than any other living Bishop out there. It is just that we cannot discount and discredit many good faithful Catholic Bishops, Priests and Laity….. even if they may not follow the traditional doctrine and teachings for lack of awareness
There is a fundamental difference between the Novus Ordo Hierarchy at the Top and many priests and laity at lower levels. While many in the Roman Hierarchy are influenced by Freemasons, there are many very faithful Bishops, Priests, Nuns and Laity out there, who receive their strength from Our Lord while in the Novus Ordo and the devotion to Our Lady. Many of these Novos Ordo Catholics ( > 99%) have never heard of tradition and still have great devotion. Can we really say that they are doing something wrong if they truly believe in the Transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Sacrifice of Holy Mass? and will not God Judge them accordingly?
Psalm’s 94:14 reminds us ‘ For the LORD will not abandon His people, Nor will He forsake His inheritance. ‘
-
The Bishop is implying (as he's done previously) that we Trads are 'too extreme' because we have 'pharisaical scorn' (his words) of NO catholics. I have no scorn for anyone, only for error. And I don't see any evidence that there are numerous Trads out there on a witch hunt against NO catholics. This whole conflict is imaginary.
If a NO catholic (or any catholic) does not believe 100% in all articles of the Faith, they are, by definition a heretic. And, heretics go to hell. This is why we must try to convert them. Conversion happens through charity, but not at the expense of, or watering-down of the Truth. The truth is harsh enough to one who is living contrary to it. But many people want to blame the 'delivery' on why they reject it, when the reason is, they want to do what pleases them.
For your kind information in my neck of the woods… I have encountered many Traditional Catholics who have 'pharisaical scorn' of Novus Ordo Catholics…. This is unfortunate as it does not help Novus Ordo Catholics who are attempting to transition to ‘tradition’. I have seem a few, that do come over to ‘Tradition’ but often take longer to make the shift because of this ‘pharisaical scorn’ tendencies that a few ‘trads’ display.
So what do we need to do? Be More Charitable and 'Christ-Like' when instructing them of the traditional ‘Truth’ handed down by the Holy Catholic Church and in humility pray to Our Blessed Mother.
-
Ok, so riddle me this...the novus ordo should exonerated from what? The charges against it are those of theologian Ottaviani, not me. He said it has a doubtful consecration, a faulty theology and teaches a different Faith than Trent. Please tell me where he's wrong and BE SPECIFIC. no generalizations, no personal opinion. Show me where Ottaviani is wrong, by quoting a theological source. And, no, "new advent.com" doesn't count.
There ere two separate issues, one where Ottaviani is wrong in which he contradicts himself for what I believe are political reasons but that is my opinion on his motivation. And two, where people are wrong about what Ottaviani really stated in the Intervnetion.
The charge that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil is ludicrous for one thing. That people claim it is as bad or worse than a Black Mass is another.
Ottaviani's intervention never charges the Novus Ordo as heretical nor does he call it intrinsically evil, nor does he say it's the same as a Black Mass.
There was a valid Catholic Church before Trent. He says in the introductory letter the Canons of Trent presented a barrier against heresies. In other words, the mass is still the mass whether it has armor or not. But it's prudent have the armor on.
Just prior to that in the introduction he states: "...if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details,…"
Ottaviani doesn't even ask for the abrogation of the Novus Ordo directly. He asks for recourse to the TLM.
Ottaviani meanwhile stated that he regretted his name being abused with the Intervention and his letter of retraction is well known.
So, you can pick your poison, either the intervention is wrong or the retraction is wrong (which he never denied signing) or he was wrong on both counts because he can't be right on both counts.
One final point to ask, did Ottaviani ever say the Novus Ordo or publicly declare his refusal to say it?
-
:barf:
Oh, be quiet, you Conciliarist.
Gerard from Fish Eaters said,
The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is simply a more simple form of liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true mass" as some are fond of phrasing it.
And there it is.............................
You can clear up the confusion. If transubstantiation occurs, if not Christ's, whose body and blood is offered? Or is it the same transubstantiation?
Is the Byzantine Liturgy or the Coptic rite the true Catholic Mass or not?
There isn't a separate sacrifice of Calvary for each occasion of transubstantiation, they are all the same, one sacrifice.
The 1950s Neo-trads don't like to deal with Catholic truth. That's probably why my questions will not be "taken on."
The reason no one will take me to task over what I've stated is because they realize they will be putting themselves into an overtly heretical position by trying to defend their own positions based on Catholic truth.
-
[/quote] My Bunny is innocent! :cry:[/quote]
What are you feeding that thing?
His weight looks to be out of control?
-
Gerard wrote:
"The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is a more simple form of the liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true Mass" as some are fond of phrasing it."
-----
I used to think the same thing....that the Novus Ordo is just a more simple form of the liturgy. But I don't think that Bp. Williamson or ABL ever said or wrote anything to this effect.
I do have sympathy for those stuck in the NO and conciliar church in general. I agree with Bp. Williamson that it is a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the church today. Whether this has to do with a Catholic being able to maintain his or her faith despite the conciliar Mass, or because there may be graces that come from the conciliar Mass, I don't really know.
The problem with the conciliar Mass is that its the official rite of a sect that is occupying the Catholic Church.
Bishop Tissier De Mallerais wrote a study of the conciliar church as opposed to the Catholic Church. It's posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website, here:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Bp. Tissier De Mallerais writes:
Should we deduce two materially distinct churches: one Catholic and one conciliar?
".....Just as one can say (with a pinch of salt) that liberalism is a Catholic heresy, in the sense that it was born in the bosom of the Catholic Church, so one can say that the conciliar church is born of the corruption of the Catholic Church and it cannot exist but by living off this corruption, as a parasite lives depending on an organism, sucking the substance of its host to construct its own substance. There is a sort of transfer of substance, I would dare to say, from one to the other, in a metaphoric sense and obviously not in a philosophical sense. To become conciliar, there is no need to separate oneself from the Catholic church, it is sufficient to allow oneself to become corrupted by the conciliar poison and to let one's substance become absorbed by the conciliar parasite. It is sufficient to practice the Mass of the new religion and to adhere, formally or materially, to the liberal ecuмenism that gives its form.
"On the other hand, the conciliar church does not necessarily coincide with the Catholic church, neither in its leaders nor its members. The leaders are not always leaders of the other. The members of the first can, by heresy, cease to be members of the second, but not necessarily. The Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. But this does not hinder the conciliar church from being a social reality; not only a section, but a counterfeit church, led by a sect of directors, a sect whose ideology or system is the form of the conciliar church, and which manoeuvres it toward its ends, with its relays and its executors, found of a large part of the hierarchy and faithful Catholics more or less conscious and consenting, to a diametrical overturning which it is trying to bring about.
The article quotes Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject:
"....In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm of the Catholic faith is Tradition."
-
GerardFE,
You can clear up the confusion. " If "transubstantiation occurs, if not Christ's, whose body and blood is offered? Or is it the same transubstantiation?
Is the Byzantine Liturgy or the Coptic rite the true Catholic Mass or not?
There isn't a separate sacrifice of Calvary for each occasion of transubstantiation, they are all the same, one sacrifice.
In the Catholic Mass of there is no if.
No one is arguing against the Byzantine and Coptic rites. It is you who try to use them to provide cover for the Cranmerized Novus Ordo.
Your other ploy is to include as an equal, the Novus Ordo meal service with the valid and licit rites of the Church, which it is not. It is a fabrication masquerading as a Catholic rite of Mass.
The other two rites were created to worship God in the manner proper to his Majesty in accordance with the Mind of the Church, the other was created for the cult of the worship of Man, and to change and eventually destroy the Church, in accrordance with the mind of its enemies.
The IF service can possibly be valid, because it illicitly uses a skeletal form of the Catholic sacramental form but, that in no way changes the whole Protestant/Masonic framework which surrounds it. It is not Catholic
And what ABL frequently referred to as the Mass of all times, and the Mass of the ages is the Latin Rite of the Roman Church. Never the Novus Ordo. The only ones who dispute these terms are always conciliar partisans.
-
GerardFE,
You can clear up the confusion. " If "transubstantiation occurs, if not Christ's, whose body and blood is offered? Or is it the same transubstantiation?
Is the Byzantine Liturgy or the Coptic rite the true Catholic Mass or not?
There isn't a separate sacrifice of Calvary for each occasion of transubstantiation, they are all the same, one sacrifice.
In the Catholic Mass of there is no if.
No one is arguing against the Byzantine and Coptic rites. It is you who try to use them to provide cover for the Cranmerized Novus Ordo.
Your other ploy is to include as an equal, the Novus Ordo meal service with the valid and licit rites of the Church, which it is not. It is a fabrication masquerading as a Catholic rite of Mass.
The other two rites were created to worship God in the manner proper to his Majesty in accordance with the Mind of the Church, the other was created for the cult of the worship of Man, and to change and eventually destroy the Church, in accrordance with the mind of its enemies.
The IF service can possibly be valid, because it illicitly uses a skeletal form of the Catholic sacramental form but, that in no way changes the whole Protestant/Masonic framework which surrounds it. It is not Catholic
And what ABL frequently referred to as the Mass of all times, and the Mass of the ages is the Latin Rite of the Roman Church. Never the Novus Ordo. The only ones who dispute these terms are always conciliar partisans.
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
GerardFE,
You can clear up the confusion. " If "transubstantiation occurs, if not Christ's, whose body and blood is offered? Or is it the same transubstantiation?
Is the Byzantine Liturgy or the Coptic rite the true Catholic Mass or not?
There isn't a separate sacrifice of Calvary for each occasion of transubstantiation, they are all the same, one sacrifice.
In the Catholic Mass of there is no if.
Then I guess Pius XII was a fool for writing an encyclical dealing with liturgical abuse in the TLM.
No one is arguing against the Byzantine and Coptic rites. It is you who try to use them to provide cover for the Cranmerized Novus Ordo.
Ignoring them when they prove your premise incorrect is not to provide cover. It provided a refutation for your argument.
Your other ploy is to include as an equal, the Novus Ordo meal service with the valid and licit rites of the Church, which it is not.
Straw man again. Liturgy is one thing, validity is another. Christ is Christ. The same in the weaker liturgy as in the superior liturgy.
Your ploy is to avoid that truth.
It is a fabrication masquerading as a Catholic rite of Mass.
No. It's a fabricated liturgy that is a Catholic rite of Mass. You don't like it. Neither do I. I just don't claim the power of the papacy to make declarations about it's legality.
The other two rites were created to worship God in the manner proper to his Majesty in accordance with the Mind of the Church, the other was created for the cult of the worship of Man, and to change and eventually destroy the Church, in accrordance with the mind of its enemies.
Your argument about motives is fallacious and vague. It doesn't matter what the motivations were, good, bad or a mixture of various people. Paul VI stated his reasoning for good or bad and he utilized his power. That's the end of the argument if not the banal, fabricated ranting by pearl clutching Neo-trads who are afraid of modernist cooties.
Also as pointed out, there are other rites in the Church that were developed outside the Church and accepted by the Church. So, your argument is hollow.
You want to claim the power of the papacy is one thing and the power of the Church is another when it comes to liturgy. Not so. the same "Church" you refer to with it's "Mind" is run by the power of the papacy. Pius XII whom you love to ignore stated that "…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
There it is. Just because a Pope exercised that power in a way you don't approve, you give yourself the power to declare Pius XII wrong.
The IF service can possibly be valid, because it illicitly uses a skeletal form of the Catholic sacramental form but, that in no way changes the whole Protestant/Masonic framework which surrounds it. It is not Catholic
Says you. You are nobody in the hierarchy of the Church. I don't recall Pius XII saying "if it's okay with J. Paul."
Protestant frameworks are stolen Catholic frameworks. It is sufficient for a Catholic rite because the elements are all there. Not to the degree that you or I like, but to ignore the truth is just childish.
And what ABL frequently referred to as the Mass of all times, and the Mass of the ages is the Latin Rite of the Roman Church. Never the Novus Ordo. The only ones who dispute these terms are always conciliar partisans.
LeFebvre also said that the Novus Ordo can be said by a pious priest in a totally Catholic way.
It wasn't his ideal situation, but he acknowledged the reality of it.
So, LeFebvre was a conciliar partisan in your opinion.
-
Gerard wrote:
"The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is a more simple form of the liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true Mass" as some are fond of phrasing it."
-----
I used to think the same thing....that the Novus Ordo is just a more simple form of the liturgy. But I don't think that Bp. Williamson or ABL ever said or wrote anything to this effect.
I do have sympathy for those stuck in the NO and conciliar church in general. I agree with Bp. Williamson that it is a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the church today. Whether this has to do with a Catholic being able to maintain his or her faith despite the conciliar Mass, or because there may be graces that come from the conciliar Mass, I don't really know.
The problem with the conciliar Mass is that its the official rite of a sect that is occupying the Catholic Church.
Bishop Tissier De Mallerais wrote a study of the conciliar church as opposed to the Catholic Church. It's posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website, here:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Bp. Tissier De Mallerais writes:
Should we deduce two materially distinct churches: one Catholic and one conciliar?
".....Just as one can say (with a pinch of salt) that liberalism is a Catholic heresy, in the sense that it was born in the bosom of the Catholic Church, so one can say that the conciliar church is born of the corruption of the Catholic Church and it cannot exist but by living off this corruption, as a parasite lives depending on an organism, sucking the substance of its host to construct its own substance. There is a sort of transfer of substance, I would dare to say, from one to the other, in a metaphoric sense and obviously not in a philosophical sense. To become conciliar, there is no need to separate oneself from the Catholic church, it is sufficient to allow oneself to become corrupted by the conciliar poison and to let one's substance become absorbed by the conciliar parasite. It is sufficient to practice the Mass of the new religion and to adhere, formally or materially, to the liberal ecuмenism that gives its form.
"On the other hand, the conciliar church does not necessarily coincide with the Catholic church, neither in its leaders nor its members. The leaders are not always leaders of the other. The members of the first can, by heresy, cease to be members of the second, but not necessarily. The Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. But this does not hinder the conciliar church from being a social reality; not only a section, but a counterfeit church, led by a sect of directors, a sect whose ideology or system is the form of the conciliar church, and which manoeuvres it toward its ends, with its relays and its executors, found of a large part of the hierarchy and faithful Catholics more or less conscious and consenting, to a diametrical overturning which it is trying to bring about.
The article quotes Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject:
"....In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm of the Catholic faith is Tradition."
None of that disputes what I wrote. You'll notice that the Novus Ordo is simply a rite that is defenseless against the "new" ecuмenism. You have to have those extra elements added in order to get the bad fruit.
LeFebvre's comment reinforces my position. Every dogma of the Church is still held by the "conciliar" Church even though they are virtually mute on some of them. But no error to the Depositi of Faith has been officially added and bound to the faithful.
-
GerardFE,
You'll notice that the Novus Ordo is simply a rite that is defenseless against the "new" ecuмenism. You have to have those extra elements added in order to get the bad fruit.
:facepalm:
-
GerardFE,
You'll notice that the Novus Ordo is simply a rite that is defenseless against the "new" ecuмenism. You have to have those extra elements added in order to get the bad fruit.
:facepalm:
A facepalm emoticon is not a rebuttal by the way.
Is there one for a head in the sand?
-
Gerard wrote:
"The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is a more simple form of the liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true Mass" as some are fond of phrasing it."
-----
I used to think the same thing....that the Novus Ordo is just a more simple form of the liturgy. But I don't think that Bp. Williamson or ABL ever said or wrote anything to this effect.
I do have sympathy for those stuck in the NO and conciliar church in general. I agree with Bp. Williamson that it is a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the church today. Whether this has to do with a Catholic being able to maintain his or her faith despite the conciliar Mass, or because there may be graces that come from the conciliar Mass, I don't really know.
The problem with the conciliar Mass is that its the official rite of a sect that is occupying the Catholic Church.
Bishop Tissier De Mallerais wrote a study of the conciliar church as opposed to the Catholic Church. It's posted on the Dominicans of Avrille website, here:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Bp. Tissier De Mallerais writes:
Should we deduce two materially distinct churches: one Catholic and one conciliar?
".....Just as one can say (with a pinch of salt) that liberalism is a Catholic heresy, in the sense that it was born in the bosom of the Catholic Church, so one can say that the conciliar church is born of the corruption of the Catholic Church and it cannot exist but by living off this corruption, as a parasite lives depending on an organism, sucking the substance of its host to construct its own substance. There is a sort of transfer of substance, I would dare to say, from one to the other, in a metaphoric sense and obviously not in a philosophical sense. To become conciliar, there is no need to separate oneself from the Catholic church, it is sufficient to allow oneself to become corrupted by the conciliar poison and to let one's substance become absorbed by the conciliar parasite. It is sufficient to practice the Mass of the new religion and to adhere, formally or materially, to the liberal ecuмenism that gives its form.
"On the other hand, the conciliar church does not necessarily coincide with the Catholic church, neither in its leaders nor its members. The leaders are not always leaders of the other. The members of the first can, by heresy, cease to be members of the second, but not necessarily. The Catholic Church is the only true Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. But this does not hinder the conciliar church from being a social reality; not only a section, but a counterfeit church, led by a sect of directors, a sect whose ideology or system is the form of the conciliar church, and which manoeuvres it toward its ends, with its relays and its executors, found of a large part of the hierarchy and faithful Catholics more or less conscious and consenting, to a diametrical overturning which it is trying to bring about.
The article quotes Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject:
"....In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm of the Catholic faith is Tradition."
None of that disputes what I wrote. You'll notice that the Novus Ordo is simply a rite that is defenseless against the "new" ecuмenism. You have to have those extra elements added in order to get the bad fruit.
LeFebvre's comment reinforces my position. Every dogma of the Church is still held by the "conciliar" Church even though they are virtually mute on some of them. But no error to the Depositi of Faith has been officially added and bound to the faithful.
Actually, it does dispute what you wrote. But I'm not going to take the time to try to explain it in a way that you might be able to understand, because you obviously don't want to understand. I've debated with enough progressives on CAF to know that you believe that your position is the only correct one, and that you've no intention of seeing it any other way. That's your choice.
-
GerardFE,
You'll notice that the Novus Ordo is simply a rite that is defenseless against the "new" ecuмenism. You have to have those extra elements added in order to get the bad fruit.
:facepalm:
A facepalm emoticon is not a rebuttal by the way.
Is there one for a head in the sand?
So here we are, Gerard contends that the Novus Ordo is a victim, defenseless against the "new ecuмenism", when in fact, and by the testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, it was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it.
And the added elements which he mentions which "get bad fruit", implies that without them it would produce good fruit.
Who has their head in the sand, or in an alternate reality? :scratchchin:
-
Meg,
Actually, it does dispute what you wrote. But I'm not going to take the time to try to explain it in a way that you might be able to understand, because you obviously don't want to understand. I've debated with enough progressives on CAF to know that you believe that your position is the only correct one, and that you've no intention of seeing it any other way. That's your choice.
Well said. :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
Actually, it does dispute what you wrote.
I stated that it reinforced my position and why. That's more than you've provided.
But I'm not going to take the time to try to explain it in a way that you might be able to understand, because you obviously don't want to understand.
I think that's just a lie and a pathetic excuse. You obviously don't want to be honest and concede that you are not capable of refuting what I stated.
I've debated with enough progressives on CAF to know that you believe that your position is the only correct one, and that you've no intention of seeing it any other way. That's your choice.
No. You just suck at making arguments and you don't admit when you're wrong.
It's a pathetic dishonest and evil tactic to make the assertion that you refuse to back up your statement with another false assertion about me.
Frankly, I'm sure that I gave them a lot more headaches at Catholic Answers than you did.
You don't have "time" to support your argument but you've got plenty of time to take a quick ad hominem shot and spread calumny.
I think you're a pathetic lying jackass.
-
So here we are, Gerard contends that the Novus Ordo is a victim, defenseless against the "new ecuмenism", when in fact, and by the testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, it was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it.
No. I don't anthropomorphize a liturgy.
The "razing of the bastions" was a very public stance, that was well known at the time. It was a bad idea and the minority opinion was right and PaulVI acknowledged as much. The 50s Catholics went along with it swimmingly.
None of that disputes anything I've stated. You can have a park with a fence and a gate and a guard, you can remove the guard, open the gate and take down the fence, it's still a park. The removal of the fence doesn't destroy it, if it were not abused it would be every bit the beautiful park it was prior to the removal of the fence.
And the added elements which he mentions which "get bad fruit", implies that without them it would produce good fruit.
It's just the truth, the park is the park, the fence is not the park.
Who has their head in the sand, or in an alternate reality? :scratchchin:
You.
-
This place is rapidly turning into Fish Eaters.
-
Actually, it does dispute what you wrote.
I stated that it reinforced my position and why. That's more than you've provided.
But I'm not going to take the time to try to explain it in a way that you might be able to understand, because you obviously don't want to understand.
I think that's just a lie and a pathetic excuse. You obviously don't want to be honest and concede that you are not capable of refuting what I stated.
I've debated with enough progressives on CAF to know that you believe that your position is the only correct one, and that you've no intention of seeing it any other way. That's your choice.
No. You just suck at making arguments and you don't admit when you're wrong.
It's a pathetic dishonest and evil tactic to make the assertion that you refuse to back up your statement with another false assertion about me.
Frankly, I'm sure that I gave them a lot more headaches at Catholic Answers than you did.
You don't have "time" to support your argument but you've got plenty of time to take a quick ad hominem shot and spread calumny.
I think you're a pathetic lying jackass.
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
-
Gerard,
Do not attempt to blame others for what you have said.
Your protests are without substance,
By the DIRECT testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, the Novus Ordo was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it, to be COMPATIBLE with Protestant communion services.
It is not Catholic
Do you always have to find a way to deny recorded facts? I retract the question, sorry, asked and answered, all conciliar apologists do this as a matter of course.
-
So here we are, Gerard contends that the Novus Ordo is a victim, defenseless against the "new ecuмenism", when in fact, and by the testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, it was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it.
No. I don't anthropomorphize a liturgy.
The "razing of the bastions" was a very public stance, that was well known at the time. It was a bad idea and the minority opinion was right and PaulVI acknowledged as much. The 50s Catholics went along with it swimmingly.
None of that disputes anything I've stated. You can have a park with a fence and a gate and a guard, you can remove the guard, open the gate and take down the fence, it's still a park. The removal of the fence doesn't destroy it, if it were not abused it would be every bit the beautiful park it was prior to the removal of the fence.
And the added elements which he mentions which "get bad fruit", implies that without them it would produce good fruit.
It's just the truth, the park is the park, the fence is not the park.
Who has their head in the sand, or in an alternate reality? :scratchchin:
You.
"Swimmingly"
Oh, does it mean we're arguing with a neo-trad Brit? :facepalm:
-
"Swimmingly"
Oh, does it mean we're arguing with a neo-trad Brit? :facepalm:
More like a neo-Concilarisssst Brit :roll-laugh1:
-
Pseudo-Trad is a more accurate description. :furtive:
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Oh don't be a pearl-clutching fop.
Catholic women don't take the cheap shots she did.
I will defend myself when needed and I won't succuмb to your phony outrage and
political correctness.
-
Pseudo-Trad is a more accurate description. :furtive:
Accuracy is your enemy. You haven't proven a single thing you've asserted in all the time I've been posting this year.
-
So here we are, Gerard contends that the Novus Ordo is a victim, defenseless against the "new ecuмenism", when in fact, and by the testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, it was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it.
No. I don't anthropomorphize a liturgy.
The "razing of the bastions" was a very public stance, that was well known at the time. It was a bad idea and the minority opinion was right and PaulVI acknowledged as much. The 50s Catholics went along with it swimmingly.
None of that disputes anything I've stated. You can have a park with a fence and a gate and a guard, you can remove the guard, open the gate and take down the fence, it's still a park. The removal of the fence doesn't destroy it, if it were not abused it would be every bit the beautiful park it was prior to the removal of the fence.
And the added elements which he mentions which "get bad fruit", implies that without them it would produce good fruit.
It's just the truth, the park is the park, the fence is not the park.
Who has their head in the sand, or in an alternate reality? :scratchchin:
You.
"Swimmingly"
Oh, does it mean we're arguing with a neo-trad Brit? :facepalm:
No, just a rational American. Good to see that you were unable to address my point and focused in on the use of a colloquialism.
-
"Swimmingly"
Oh, does it mean we're arguing with a neo-trad Brit? :facepalm:
More like a neo-Concilarisssst Brit :roll-laugh1:
Ohh! Now that's a real zinger!. What a wordsmith! I'm going to print out this thread just for your wit alone.
-
"Swimmingly"
Oh, does it mean we're arguing with a neo-trad Brit? :facepalm:
More like a neo-Concilarisssst Brit :roll-laugh1:
:tinfoil:
Go away, Concilarisssst.
:heretic:
-
:barf:
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/just-a-catholic-something-smells-fishy-YB81oR-clipart_zpsdtoc5ub2.jpg)
-
Gerard,
Do not attempt to blame others for what you have said.
Your protests are without substance,
Another false unsubstantiated set of assertions.
By the DIRECT testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, the Novus Ordo was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it, to be COMPATIBLE with Protestant communion services.
It is not Catholic [/quote]
Wrong. You are engaging in a non-sequitur.
Ecuмenism is meant to bring Cathoiics into the Church. If that was Bugnini's direct, stated intention, it is Catholic. It may be a naive plan but it is Catholic. Paul VI also had the same intentions as well as Cardinal Bea.
But, somehow I suspect you've never even read anything beyond little quotes of each in sometimes dubious translations.
Do you always have to find a way to deny recorded facts?
You claim your conclusions and assertions are facts. They are not. You take facts and put your own spin on them to support your conclusions. That is definitionally a non-sequitur.
I retract the question, sorry, asked and answered, all conciliar apologists do this as a matter of course.
Ah yes. The smear, the dig, the calumny. Your question is answered. Something you have always failed to do.
The fact is, the smear is all you have to work with. It's the tactic of a jackass.
-
Ecuмenism is meant to bring Cathoiics into the Church. If that was Bugnini's direct, stated intention, it is Catholic.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/55749cbcc7c847d9a898e3029baf1bde_zps0prunkdj.jpg)
-
Gerard,
Do not attempt to blame others for what you have said.
Your protests are without substance,
Another false unsubstantiated set of assertions.
By the DIRECT testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, the Novus Ordo was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it, to be COMPATIBLE with Protestant communion services.
It is not Catholic
Wrong. You are engaging in a non-sequitur.
Ecuмenism is meant to bring Cathoiics into the Church. If that was Bugnini's direct, stated intention, it is Catholic. It may be a naive plan but it is Catholic. Paul VI also had the same intentions as well as Cardinal Bea.
But, somehow I suspect you've never even read anything beyond little quotes of each in sometimes dubious translations.
Do you always have to find a way to deny recorded facts?
You claim your conclusions and assertions are facts. They are not. You take facts and put your own spin on them to support your conclusions. That is definitionally a non-sequitur.
I retract the question, sorry, asked and answered, all conciliar apologists do this as a matter of course.
Ah yes. The smear, the dig, the calumny. Your question is answered. Something you have always failed to do.
The fact is, the smear is all you have to work with. It's the tactic of a jackass.
[/quote]
Mr. Gerard from FE,
Perhaps you may want to consider this:
1) “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965
2) Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in even more forthright terms: "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."
-
Mr. Gerard from FE,
Perhaps you may want to consider this:
1) “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965
I'm very familiar with that quote. But unfortunately that is not what Bugnini actually said.
http://queenofmartyrspress.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-record-and-from-source-what-bugnini.html
This is what he actually said, "“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: 'For the Unity of Christians' (not 'of the Church', which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah 'heretics' and 'schismatics' but 'all brethren who believe in Christ...'
Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the "Council" accomplished by using a chisel. And let's say that often the work proceeded 'with fear and trembling' by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that 'Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke' the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."
(Translation found in Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis, Queen of Martyrs Press. pg. 21)
2) Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in even more forthright terms: "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."
That's another one I'm very familiar with. Here's a quote from the same book "the Devastated Vineyard" from the chapter "How to Respond to the Present Crisis."
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=793358.0
"….A second false response would be that of resignation, "It is a terrible source of grief that the Church is in such a state of disintegration, but how can we possibly put a stop to this process?" In this attitude of dispair one gives up all hope of a "second spring" in the Vineyard of the Lord. One throws up one's hands in despair, and is even in danger of separating from the spirit of the Church. Such people are in danger of being so scandalized by the unfortunate new Missal and especially by the elimination of the Tridentine Mass that they think they no longer have the duty of attending Sunday Mass if it is the Novus Ordo. But just the contrary is true: necessary as it is to recognized and suffer under the spirit and the tendency which is the basis of these changes in the liturgy _ and we cannot help but saying that these changes have disfigured the holy Mass - nevertheless the right response from us is to strengthen our faith in the real and bodily presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament, and to desire more deeply than ever to attend Mass and receive Communion every day. And by the way, we should not let ourselves be diverted by the new formulations and by the elimination of important prayers, from what is obejectively present at Mass. For instance, we must not forget the Tridentine Confiteor in which we accuse ourselves before God and before the whole court of heaven, since objectively our sins offend God and not the pairsh community, and obejectively the important thing is to enter into the invisible world of heaven.
Padre Pio told a friend of mine who was deploring many of the liturgical changes, "You are right - but Christ has not abandoned us. He is still present in the Tabernacle, and the Holy Sacrifice still takes place objectively!" And so it is clear that the attitude of resignation, of despair over the Church, is not the right response."
-
RedHerring of FE,
Ecuмenism is meant to bring Cathoiics into the Church. If that was Bugnini's direct, stated intention, it is Catholic. It may be a naive plan but it is Catholic. Paul VI also had the same intentions as well as Cardinal Bea.
Catholics do not need to come to the Church, They are already in it.
They were not making an effort to bring the heretics to Catholic Truth, they were trying to hide it sufficiently that the Protestants could say they were Christians with out it.I see that quirky IF has popped up again, and you are making an assumption based upon optimism and not facts.
Cardinal Bea was up to his ear in intrigues with the Jews, working against the Church. You need to select better Heroes of the Revolution.
By the DIRECT testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, the Novus Ordo was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it, to be COMPATIBLE with Protestant communion services.
Absolutely true, regardless of your meaningless protest.
The Novus Ordo was made for the most part by Protestants, and Bugnini, who was a Freemason. That is not how the Church develops the liturgy. It is anathema to what the Church does.
That New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church and it is not Catholic.
Truly Gerard, you act like a director of communications for the Revolutionary politbureau.
-
RedHerring of FE,
Ecuмenism is meant to bring Cathoiics into the Church. If that was Bugnini's direct, stated intention, it is Catholic. It may be a naive plan but it is Catholic. Paul VI also had the same intentions as well as Cardinal Bea.
Catholics do not need to come to the Church, They are already in it.
My mistake, I meant non-Catholics.
They were not making an effort to bring the heretics to Catholic Truth, they were trying to hide it sufficiently that the Protestants could say they were Christians with out it.
That was an abuse. Paul VI explicitly stated that, that sort of thing was a danger to be avoided.
I see that quirky IF has popped up again, and you are making an assumption based upon optimism and not facts.
The "if" is there as a qualifier. I'm not convinced that you are accurately representing what you claim. With that qualifier in place, I stipulated to the premise and followed on with the conclusion.
The "if" actually expresses my lack of optimism in you actually presenting accurate information.
Cardinal Bea was up to his ear in intrigues with the Jews, working against the Church. You need to select better Heroes of the Revolution.
No. I prefer Malachi Martin's assessment of Bea. He worked for him and presented a very realistic picture, warts and all. I also took the time to obtain a copy of Bea's book "On the Unity of Christians" in a first edition. It was published during the Council.
Correct me if I"m wrong, but I'll bet you've never even laid eyes on a book by Bea and you've never read anything but snippets of quotes here and there and you've swallowed everything that fit your agenda uncritically. And anything that was contrary to your biases you've ignored.
By the DIRECT testimony of Bugnini, and Paul VI, the Novus Ordo was created specifically to serve that New Ecuмenism, and as the prime liturgical vehicle of it, to be COMPATIBLE with Protestant communion services.
Absolutely true, regardless of your meaningless protest.
Now you are commenting on your own posts?
The Novus Ordo was made for the most part by Protestants, and Bugnini, who was a Freemason.
So what? Paul VI was the Pope who published it. And as stated, what is there is Catholic. Dietrich von Hildebrand quotes Padre Pio saying as much.
That is not how the Church develops the liturgy.
In terms of prudence, that is correct. But the Church isn't restricted from introducing a new liturgy in any way. The Syro Malankara rite was developed by non-Catholics outside of the Church and received and accepted by the Church.
It is anathema to what the Church does.
You exaggerate again. It is not anathema. You're not the Pope and you condemn Pius XII by stating what you state with your absence of authority.
That New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church and it is not Catholic.
No. It is. You just can't bring yourself to admit that it is and you just don't like it because it's weaknesses fly in the face of your delusions of impeccability in the Church rooted in an exaggerated Neo-Ultramontanism that ruined the Church and set it up for Vatican II.
Fr. Ripperger was absolutely right, the pre-Vatican II generation was the worst. They had everything and failed to pass on the faith. Lazy and submissive beyond all prudence.
Truly Gerard, you act like a director of communications for the Revolutionary politbureau.
No. I don't.
The main difficulty with his discussion is, you are just a liar. A boring, broken
record, know- nothing cowardly liar. Don't pretend to get all mad. You know it's true. There is ample evidence manifesting itself on these threads.
It's just sad, that you don't even have the courage of your convictions. I wonder if you are lying to yourself more than you do to the world when you are typing.
You can't defend your statements, you won't concede any arguments. You are stuck in a loop of falsified asinine assertions by your own arrogant pride.
I don't even get mad when I type any of this, I'm just stating a sad fact and while seeming harsh, it is done out of charity.
You're actually quite pitiable because your dishonesty precludes you from gaining
anyone's respect including your own.
I hope you change your ways.
-
Mr. Gerard from FE,
Perhaps you may want to consider this:
1) “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965
I'm very familiar with that quote. But unfortunately that is not what Bugnini actually said.
http://queenofmartyrspress.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-record-and-from-source-what-bugnini.html
This is what he actually said, "“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: 'For the Unity of Christians' (not 'of the Church', which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah 'heretics' and 'schismatics' but 'all brethren who believe in Christ...'
Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the "Council" accomplished by using a chisel. And let's say that often the work proceeded 'with fear and trembling' by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that 'Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke' the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."
(Translation found in Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis, Queen of Martyrs Press. pg. 21)
2) Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in even more forthright terms: "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."
That's another one I'm very familiar with. Here's a quote from the same book "the Devastated Vineyard" from the chapter "How to Respond to the Present Crisis."
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=793358.0
"….A second false response would be that of resignation, "It is a terrible source of grief that the Church is in such a state of disintegration, but how can we possibly put a stop to this process?" In this attitude of dispair one gives up all hope of a "second spring" in the Vineyard of the Lord. One throws up one's hands in despair, and is even in danger of separating from the spirit of the Church. Such people are in danger of being so scandalized by the unfortunate new Missal and especially by the elimination of the Tridentine Mass that they think they no longer have the duty of attending Sunday Mass if it is the Novus Ordo. But just the contrary is true: necessary as it is to recognized and suffer under the spirit and the tendency which is the basis of these changes in the liturgy _ and we cannot help but saying that these changes have disfigured the holy Mass - nevertheless the right response from us is to strengthen our faith in the real and bodily presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament, and to desire more deeply than ever to attend Mass and receive Communion every day. And by the way, we should not let ourselves be diverted by the new formulations and by the elimination of important prayers, from what is obejectively present at Mass. For instance, we must not forget the Tridentine Confiteor in which we accuse ourselves before God and before the whole court of heaven, since objectively our sins offend God and not the pairsh community, and obejectively the important thing is to enter into the invisible world of heaven.
Padre Pio told a friend of mine who was deploring many of the liturgical changes, "You are right - but Christ has not abandoned us. He is still present in the Tabernacle, and the Holy Sacrifice still takes place objectively!" And so it is clear that the attitude of resignation, of despair over the Church, is not the right response."
Mr.Gerard from FE,
With regards to point no.1 (Jason Roberts, O.S.S.M made a clarification). Link below and I copied and paste here the response as well:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B495_Bugnini.html
Hello,
I would like to notify you that our Queen of Martyrs Press website has posted the original Italian article from page 6 of the March 19, 1965 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, which is the source for the infamous "stumbling block for the Protestants" mis-quote that has been used for the past several decades. Although what is purported to be the words of the Great Architect of the Novus Ordo Missae are not the exact words that he used, I'm sure that most will agree that the meaning is the same.
I would also like to thank Mr. Patrick Odou for reviewing my book Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis on Tradition in Action.
In Domino,
Jason A. Roberts, O.S.S.M.
For the rest, your arguments are serious enough that I've decided to forward it to Fr.Paul Kramer to get an expert opinion. Fr.Paul Kramer's response below:
?And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices." ?
This idea is refuted in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. The idea that prayers can simply be removed from the liturgy is contrary to papal teaching and liturgical tradition. Pius XI teaches that it is the duty of the popes to preserve the liturgy and safeguard it from adulteration. The Council of Constance (Sess. 39) under Pope St. Martin V teaches that the pope is bound to the "traditional rite". Adherence to the traditional rites are prescribed by the Profession of Faith of Vatican I. The Council of Trent pronounced the anathema against the proposition that the traditional rites may be reformed into new rites.
Hence, the proposal to reform the liturgy by simplifying the rite, pronouncing it in a loud voice, and in the vernacular languages was condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei 33) as contrary to "the order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church"; and that such changes would be favourable to the heretics.
Pius XII teaches that the liturgy is an explicit profession of faith. Since the Fifth Century the popes teach that the liturgy is the lex credendi. Bugnini & Co. with the approval of Paul VI trashed the perpetual teaching of the Church and decided to radically reform the liturgy im order to accomodate the heretics -- as Msgr. Gamber, (the great German liturgist as Benedict XVI calls him), pointed out: The destruction of the liturgy is the destruction of the faith on which it is based.
[With the exception of the quotation of the Council of Constance, all the direct quotations and references can be found in my book.]
? "You are right - but Christ has not abandoned us. He is still present in the Tabernacle, and the Holy Sacrifice still takes place objectively!" ?
I agree with Padre Pio, but with these words he does not address the moral question of attending a liturgy that promotes heresy and constitutes a danger to the faith of Christians. The Novus Ordo missal was not even published until the year after Padre Pio's death, so there is no way that his words can be considered as implying that Catholics should attend the totally illicit new rite. We must stoutly resist these abominable reforms, by which the Catholic faith is destroyed, so that the new religion may take its place.
St. Pius X warned against the future One World Religion in Notre Charge Apostolique. Our Lady revealed to the La Salette seer, Melanie Calvat, that "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. Cardinal Ratzinger told at least two men, (one is a priest, the other an archbishop), that the Secret of Fatima warns against an "evil council", and warns that the Mass must not be altered. Pope Leo XIII prophecied in his prayer, which he placed in the Raccolta of officially approved prayers, that Rome will become the seat of the abomination of impiety:
"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the
Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered." The fulfillment of scripture: ?The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world would not have believed, that the adversary and the enemy should enter in by the gates of Jerusalem.?(Lamentations 4:12)
"and there shall be in the temple theabomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end." (Daniel 9:27)
"When therefore you shall see theabomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand." (Matthew 24:15)
"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8)
Whoever does not resist evil consents to it:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
Fr.Paul Kramer wishes to modify and add to his response. Below are his modified response:
Objection No. 1
Annibale Bugnini:
Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the "Council" accomplished by using a chisel. And let's say that often the work proceeded 'with fear and trembling' by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that 'Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke' the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."
(Translation found in Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis, Queen of Martyrs Press. pg. 21)
RESPONDEO DICENDUM:
This idea that prayers can be removed from the liturgy is refuted in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. The idea that prayers can simply be removed from the liturgy is contrary to papal teaching and liturgical tradition. Pius XI teaches that it is the duty of the popes to preserve the liturgy and safeguard it from adulteration. The Council of Constance (Sess. 39) under Pope St. Martin V teaches that the pope is bound to the "traditional rite". Adherence to the traditional rites are prescribed by the Profession of Faith of Vatican I. The Council of Trent pronounced the anathema against the proposition that the traditional rites may be reformed into new rites.
Hence, the proposal to reform the liturgy by simplifying the rite, pronouncing it in a loud voice, and in the vernacular languages was condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei 33) as contrary to "the order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church"; and that such changes would be favourable to the heretics.
Pius XII teaches that the liturgy is an explicit profession of faith. Since the Fifth Century the popes teach that the liturgy is the lex credendi. Bugnini & Co. with the approval of Paul VI trashed the perpetual teaching of the Church and decided to radically reform the liturgy im order to accomodate the heretics -- as Msgr. Gamber, (the great German liturgist as Benedict XVI calls him), pointed out: The destruction of the liturgy is the destruction of the faith on which it is based.
[With the exception of the quotation of the Council of Constance, all the direct quotations and references can be found in my book.]
Objection No. 2
?"….A second false response would be that of resignation, "It is a terrible source of grief that the Church is in such a state of disintegration, but how can we possibly put a stop to this process?" In this attitude of dispair one gives up all hope of a "second spring" in the Vineyard of the Lord. One throws up one's hands in despair, and is even in danger of separating from the spirit of the Church. Such people are in danger of being so scandalized by the unfortunate new Missal and especially by the elimination of the Tridentine Mass that they think they no longer have the duty of attending Sunday Mass if it is the Novus Ordo. But just the contrary is true: necessary as it is to recognized and suffer under the spirit and the tendency which is the basis of these changes in the liturgy _ and we cannot help but saying that these changes have disfigured the holy Mass - nevertheless the right response from us is to strengthen our faith in the real and bodily presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament, and to desire more deeply than ever to attend Mass and receive Communion every day.And by the way, we should not let ourselves be diverted by the new formulations and by the elimination of important prayers, from what is obejectively present at Mass. For instance, we must not forget the Tridentine Confiteor in which we accuse ourselves before God and before the whole court of heaven, since objectively our sins offend God and not the pairsh community, and obejectively the important thing is to enter into the invisible world of heaven.
Padre Pio told a friend of mine who was deploring many of the liturgical changes, "You are right - but Christ has not abandoned us. He is still present in the Tabernacle, and the Holy Sacrifice still takes place objectively!" And so it is clear that the attitude of resignation, of despair over the Church, is not the right response." ?
RESPONDEO DICENDUM:
I agree with Padre Pio, but with these words he does not address the moral question of attending a liturgy that promotes heresy and constitutes a danger to the faith of Christians. The Novus Ordo missal was not even published until the year after Padre Pio's death, so there is no way that his words can be considered as implying that Catholics should attend the totally illicit new rite. We must stoutly resist these abominable reforms, by which the Catholic faith is destroyed, so that the new religion may take its place.
St. Pius X warned against the future One World Religion in Notre Charge Apostolique.* Our Lady revealed to the La Salette seer, Melanie Calvat, that "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." Cardinal Ratzinger told at least two men, (one is a priest, the other an archbishop), that the Secret of Fatima warns against an "evil council", and warns that the Mass must not be altered.
The Vatican has denied that there is anything more to the Secret than that which it published on 26 June 2000; or that it makes any mention of an "evil council". The Vatican is LYING about the Third Secret. The part that was published reveals the martyrdom of the true pope. The part which remains concealed reveals the evil council and the heretical antipope of the apostate counterfeit church. Both of these things have been foretold in other Marian apparitions and Catholic prophecies. Long before it bacame a taboo topic, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli revealed the gist of the Secret in 1931:
? I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the ѕυιcιdє of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul…. I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.
A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him??(Reference to this quotation can be found in two of my books, The Devil's Final Battle, and The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy)
The "dangers which menace the Church"; is a phrase that is remarkably similar to Cardinal Ratzinger's comment on the Secret: "the dangers to the faith and to the life of the Christian".
"[T]he ѕυιcιdє of altering the faith in [1] her liturgy", (i.e. making radical ecuмenically Protestantizing changes in the Mass); 2) altering "her theology and her soul" (i.e. the heretical novelties of Vatican II, such as Ecuмenism, Religious Liberty); and 3) the great apostasy in the Church which will begin "at the top" (Cardinal Ciappi), and Satan will infiltrate himself even" at the summit" of the Church (Cardinal Ottaviani); spearheaded by a "pope who will be completely under the power of the devil" who will lead the stampede into apostasy (Cardinal Bea through Malachi Martin). Malachi personally confirmed to me in 1997 that the "pope" who will lead the apostasy in the Church will be a HERETIC and an ANTIPOPE.
The heretic antipope of the apostate counterfeit church was also foretold by St. Francis of Assisi, Bl. Anna Katherine Emmerich, and Sr. Jeanne le Royer.
Pope Leo XIII prophecied in his prayer, which he placed in the Raccolta of officially approved prayers, that Rome will become the seat of the abomination of impiety:
"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the
Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered." Thus, the fulfillment of scripture: ?The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world would not have believed, that the adversary and the enemy should enter in by the gates of Jerusalem.?(Lamentations 4:12)
Cardinal Manning elaborates:
"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- (Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
"and there shall be in the temple theabomination of desolation: and thedesolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end." (Daniel9:27)
"When therefore you shall see theabomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand." (Matthew 24:15)
"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8)
Whoever does not resist evil consents to it:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
* ? «?? 39. Nous craignons qu’il n’y ait encore pire. Le résultat de cette promiscuité au travail, le bénéficiaire de cette action sociale cosmopolite ne peut être qu’une démocratie qui ne sera ni catholique, ni protestante, ni juive??; une religion (car le sillonnisme, les chefs l’ont dit, est une religion) plus universelle que l’Église catholique, réunissant tous les hommes devenus enfin frères et camarades dans “?le règne de Dieu?”. – “?On ne travaille pas pour l’Église, on travaille pour l’humanité.?”??»
«?? 40. Et maintenant, pénétré de la plus vive tristesse, Nous Nous demandons, vénérables Frères, ce qu’est devenu le catholicisme du Sillon. Hélas??! lui qui donnait autrefois de si belles espérances, ce fleuve limpide et impétueux a été capté dans sa marche par les ennemis modernes de l’Église et ne forme plus dorénavant qu’un misérable affluent du grand mouvement d’apostasie organisé, dans tous les pays, pour l’établissement d’une Église universelle qui n’aura ni dogmes, ni hiérarchie, ni règle pour l’esprit, ni frein pour les passions et qui, sous prétexte de liberté et de dignité humaine, ramènerait dans le monde, si elle pouvait triompher, le règne légal de la ruse et de la force, et l’oppression des faibles, de ceux qui souffrent et qui travaillent. » ?
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Thank you, J. Paul.
Hurling abuse toward other forum members is nothing new, as you know, for Gerard. I just hope that he responds to the latest two posts by Servus Pius, which contains a lot of good information.
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Thank you, J. Paul.
Hurling abuse toward other forum members is nothing new, as you know, for Gerard. I just hope that he responds to the latest two posts by Servus Pius, which contains a lot of good information.
Hello Meg,
Those responses are not mine. I've forwarded the arguments of Mr.Gerard to Fr.Kramer since I considered those arguments serious enough. Fr.Kramer despite being busy writing a new book was gracious enough to respond. We certainly would benefit from the depth of his knowledge. Having said that, I would encourage everyone in this Forum to read and take advantage of this opportunity to benefit from Fr.Paul Kramer's knowledge.
Fr.Kramer posted his reply to Mr.Gerard on his Facebook page also. Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/1217146788330730
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Thank you, J. Paul.
Hurling abuse toward other forum members is nothing new, as you know, for Gerard. I just hope that he responds to the latest two posts by Servus Pius, which contains a lot of good information.
Hello Meg,
Those responses are not mine. I've forwarded the arguments of Mr.Gerard to Fr.Kramer since I considered those arguments serious enough. Fr.Kramer despite being busy writing a new book was gracious enough to respond. We certainly would benefit from the depth of his knowledge. Having said that, I would encourage everyone in this Forum to read and take advantage of this opportunity to benefit from Fr.Paul Kramer's knowledge.
Fr.Kramer posted his reply to Mr.Gerard on his Facebook page also. Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/1217146788330730
You have done a great service to the truth here Servus. We cannot expect the fellow in question to accept it. He will poo poo anything that denies his conciliar narrative.
-
Gerard the Crass,
That was an abuse. Paul VI explicitly stated that, that sort of thing was a danger to be avoided.
And yet he approved it after it was done.
You exaggerate again. It is not anathema. You're not the Pope and you condemn Pius XII by stating what you state with your absence of authority.
I said nothing about Pius XII. You are back to fabricating, again.
No. It is. You just can't bring yourself to admit that it is and you just don't like it because it's weaknesses fly in the face of your delusions of impeccability in the Church rooted in an exaggerated Neo-Ultramontanism that ruined the Church and set it up for Vatican II.
Fr. Ripperger was absolutely right, the pre-Vatican II generation was the worst. They had everything and failed to pass on the faith. Lazy and submissive beyond all prudence.
Wrong again. And you back up your flawed analysis with an FSSP conciliar /indult priest's opinion.
The main difficulty with his discussion is, you are just a liar. A boring, broken
record, know- nothing cowardly liar. Don't pretend to get all mad. You know it's true. There is ample evidence manifesting itself on these threads.
It's just sad, that you don't even have the courage of your convictions. I wonder if you are lying to yourself more than you do to the world when you are typing.
You can't defend your statements, you won't concede any arguments. You are stuck in a loop of falsified asinine assertions by your own arrogant pride.
I don't even get mad when I type any of this, I'm just stating a sad fact and while seeming harsh, it is done out of charity.
You're actually quite pitiable because your dishonesty precludes you from gaining
anyone's respect including your own.
And you are the arbiter of who is lying, which seems to be anyone here who does not accept your conciliar narrative.
And we can see by your gratuitously repeated and embelished slur and insult that you are a person of ill will, and a dullard, who refuses any evidence put before him which is contrary to your own ideas. These threads are full of you consistently acting in this manner to everyone who has engaged you in debate
I am satisfied that the other threads will demonstrate your unflinching defence of the conciliar revolution, its main operatives and its imitation ritual as well as an abusive manner in dealing with others.
The threads speak for themselves, and about you.
And yes I may sound to such as yourself like a broken record, but that is because I stand behind what I know to be true and with the evidence of fifty years which confirm it. I have no reason to change my position and you have presented nothing which would incline me do do so. It is what is called standing upon principles.
Your slurs and insults are indeed no more than an exercise in conciliar arrogance and your egocentric orientation.
Fish Eater's calls..........pick up the phone please.
-
Gerard the Crass,
That was an abuse. Paul VI explicitly stated that, that sort of thing was a danger to be avoided.
And yet he approved it after it was done.
No. He actually didn't approve of abuses in the area of Ecuмenism. He actually lamented them. JPII actually took ecuмenism off the rails.
You exaggerate again. It is not anathema. You're not the Pope and you condemn Pius XII by stating what you state with your absence of authority.
I said nothing about Pius XII. You are back to fabricating, again.
No. Pius XII clearly delineated what the power of the Pope is concerning liturgy. You deny that under your own authority.
No. It is. You just can't bring yourself to admit that it is and you just don't like it because it's weaknesses fly in the face of your delusions of impeccability in the Church rooted in an exaggerated Neo-Ultramontanism that ruined the Church and set it up for Vatican II.
Fr. Ripperger was absolutely right, the pre-Vatican II generation was the worst. They had everything and failed to pass on the faith. Lazy and submissive beyond all prudence.
Wrong again. And you back up your flawed analysis with an FSSP conciliar /indult priest's opinion.
At least you admit that I back my opinions up. That is far more than you've done.
My analysis is not flawed. You are incapable of determining that it is and demonstrating that.
And you are the arbiter of who is lying, which seems to be anyone here who does not accept your conciliar narrative.
The fact that you frame my "opinion" as a "conciliar narrative" is proof of yet another lie.
And we can see by your gratuitously repeated and embelished slur and insult that you are a person of ill will, and a dullard, who refuses any evidence put before him which is contrary to your own ideas.
It's not a slur. You are a liar. You state things that you know to be false.
I don't refuse any evidence. I examine it, put it to the test and check the results of the tests.
You simply don't like what the results turn out to be because your positions are untenable.
Hence, the lies and the straw man arguments.
These threads are full of you consistently acting in this manner to everyone who has engaged you in debate
Not everyone. Just the herd that you run with.
I am satisfied that the other threads will demonstrate your unflinching defence of the conciliar revolution, its main operatives and its imitation ritual as well as an abusive manner in dealing with others.
That's your problem. Truth is irrelevant to you. Your own self-satisfaction is the fuel you run on.
The threads speak for themselves, and about you.
I agree. And they demonstrate your delusions.
And yes I may sound to such as yourself like a broken record, but that is because I stand behind what I know to be true and with the evidence of fifty years which confirm it.
You don't know much then. And I'm addressing 2000 years of truth and evidence.
I have no reason to change my position and you have presented nothing which would incline me do do so. It is what is called standing upon principles.
You have no reason to change your positions because you employ no reason in holding your positions.
And you confuse standing on principles with being hard-headed, hard-hearted and hard-assed.
Your slurs and insults are indeed no more than an exercise in conciliar arrogance and your egocentric orientation.
Fish Eater's calls..........pick up the phone please.
You seem upset that I simply hit back when attacked. Would you prefer if I let you abuse me with impunity?
Are you that pathetic?
-
Ecuмenism is meant to bring Cathoiics into the Church. If that was Bugnini's direct, stated intention, it is Catholic.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/55749cbcc7c847d9a898e3029baf1bde_zps0prunkdj.jpg)
An appropriate image, because the "dialogue" with Gerard has gone from surreal to science fiction.
-
Make that unscientific fiction.
(There's nothing scientific about interstellar space travel!) :cheers:
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Thank you, J. Paul.
Hurling abuse toward other forum members is nothing new, as you know, for Gerard. I just hope that he responds to the latest two posts by Servus Pius, which contains a lot of good information.
You're another one that seems to think you can take shots with impunity. Why do you think I should be attacked and not respond?
Oh, and I'll post a response to the Fr. Kramer points later.
But right off the bat....
Pope Martin V is not a saint, canonized or by acclamation.
And how he could have approved the 39th session of Constance when he was not a Pope or even a priest at the time is a cute trick.
Session 41 dealt with his eventual election.
There's more, that I'll put up tomorrow in a more orderly fashion.
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Thank you, J. Paul.
Hurling abuse toward other forum members is nothing new, as you know, for Gerard. I just hope that he responds to the latest two posts by Servus Pius, which contains a lot of good information.
Hello Meg,
Those responses are not mine. I've forwarded the arguments of Mr.Gerard to Fr.Kramer since I considered those arguments serious enough. Fr.Kramer despite being busy writing a new book was gracious enough to respond. We certainly would benefit from the depth of his knowledge. Having said that, I would encourage everyone in this Forum to read and take advantage of this opportunity to benefit from Fr.Paul Kramer's knowledge.
Fr.Kramer posted his reply to Mr.Gerard on his Facebook page also. Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/1217146788330730
You have done a great service to the truth here Servus. We cannot expect the fellow in question to accept it. He will poo poo anything that denies his conciliar narrative.
Thank you for your kind words J.Paul :smile:
-
Hey! Mr. Knowitall,
Curb your derisive and abusive tone towards other forum members and have some level of decency when addressing a Catholic woman!
Thank you, J. Paul.
Hurling abuse toward other forum members is nothing new, as you know, for Gerard. I just hope that he responds to the latest two posts by Servus Pius, which contains a lot of good information.
You're another one that seems to think you can take shots with impunity. Why do you think I should be attacked and not respond?
Oh, and I'll post a response to the Fr. Kramer points later.
But right off the bat....
Pope Martin V is not a saint, canonized or by acclamation.
And how he could have approved the 39th session of Constance when he was not a Pope or even a priest at the time is a cute trick.
Session 41 dealt with his eventual election.
There's more, that I'll put up tomorrow in a more orderly fashion.
Mr.Gerard please find below Fr.Kramer's response to your comments.
"Gerard" (of Fish Eaters) resorts to deceitful sophistry in his objection to my statement of an indisputable historical fact, to wit, that Pope Martin V ratified Session 39 of the Council of Constance. His objection manifests an abysmal ignorance:
"And how he could have approved the 39th session of Constance when he was not a Pope or even a priest at the time is a cute trick."
This is one the most doltish comments I have read in many a year. After his election, Pope Martin V had the task of modifying and ratifying, or rejecting the acts of the Council that had taken place before his election, when there was no pope who could effectively preside, (since there were three competing claimants at the time). Other councils, both ecuмenical and regional, have been ratified after the fact by popes who were not present at the council when the acts were passed. So much for the "cute trick". Martin V ratified Session 39 after he was elected. This dolt should study some more Church History before shooting off his mouth, since the only trickery in this matter has been Gerard's own verbal sleight of hand -- which is not very "cute".
The fact that I inadvertently canonized Martin V has no relevance whatever to the point at issue -- it is a red herring. The fact remains he was a sovereign Pontiff of the Roman Church, and he did ratify Sess. 39.
The general approbation of the decrees (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fidei per præsens concilium conciliariter et non aliter nec alio modo) by Martin V, was followed by the ratification of Eugene IV, as mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia: ?Eugene IV (22 July, 1446) approved the council, with due reserve of the rights, dignity, and supremacy of the Apostolic See (absque tamen præjudicio juris dignitatis et præeminentiæ Sedis Apostolicæ).?
Thus, what is essential, is that the Council was duly ratified (including Session 39), and has always been generally held in the Church as a duly approved ecuмenical council. The doctrine set forth in Session 39, which teaches that the pope is bound to the traditional rite has been taught explicitly since the pontificate of Pope St. Agatho. That teaching therefore is unquestionably de fide.
Martin I was the saint -- not Martin V. I had read many volumes of Church History during my university studies in Rome back in the 70s; but it has been nearly 40 years since I studied Church History at the Angelicuм. However, the minor lapse of memory is as insignificant as it is understandable -- and it only goes to illustrate that I have forgotten more Church History than Gerard has ever learned.
-
Gerard,
Special delivery from FE........................come home. We miss you here at Jackassic park.................and hurry! you'll be late for mass......... :clown: :clown: :clown:
-
Gerard the Feckless,
No. Pius XII clearly delineated what the power of the Pope is concerning liturgy. You deny that under your own authority.
Vatican II turned regulation and modification of the liturgy over to bishops councils, bishops and "experts". Paul VI approved this. Pius would have been very unhappy considering that his delineation forbid that.
You bucket is full of holes.
-
Two posts and Fr Kramer already recognizes the Conciliatisssst for what he is. :roll-laugh1:
This is gonna be good.
:heretic:
-
Two posts and Fr Kramer already recognizes the Conciliatisssst for what he is. :roll-laugh1:
This is gonna be good.
:heretic:
Really??? By all means, feel free to elaborate and make a point by point rebuttal please.
-
Two posts and Fr Kramer already recognizes the Conciliatisssst for what he is. :roll-laugh1:
This is gonna be good.
:heretic:
Really??? By all means, feel free to elaborate and make a point by point rebuttal please.
Ooopss blooper...sorry I've misunderstood the post...dang multiple windows..that's what happens when you multi task too much :fryingpan:
Matthew please delete my post directly above
-
Ooopss blooper...sorry I've misunderstood the post...dang multiple windows..that's what happens when you multi task too much :fryingpan:
Matthew please delete my post directly above
No worries, Servus. I thoroughly enjoyed Fr. Kramer's response to the Conciliarisssst from Fish Eaters. Thank you for serving as the go-between.
:cheers:
-
Ooopss blooper...sorry I've misunderstood the post...dang multiple windows..that's what happens when you multi task too much :fryingpan:
Matthew please delete my post directly above
No worries, Servus. I thoroughly enjoyed Fr. Kramer's response to the Conciliarisssst from Fish Eaters. Thank you for serving as the go-between.
:cheers:
Owwww I felt very embarrassed :scared2: I had too many windows opened due to multi-tasking which resulted to loss of focus on my part. As a result, got a bit confused and misunderstood your post. :sad:
-
Mr.Gerard please find below Fr.Kramer's response to your comments.
Servus,
You do a disservice to Fr. Kramer. I have to finish my full response and post it.
Now, Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed and come up with an excuse for not continuing because he's already spent too much time on this "dolt."
"Gerard" (of Fish Eaters) resorts to deceitful sophistry in his objection to my statement of an indisputable historical fact, to wit, that Pope Martin V ratified Session 39 of the Council of Constance. His objection manifests an abysmal ignorance:
Not sophistic, Socratic. I was pointing out some facts to arouse curiosity in people.
The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.
And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over and the Holy Ecuмenical Council of Constance is ratified under SAINT Martin V binds the papacy to be subject to the liturgy is a diabolically dishonest tactic.
"And how he could have approved the 39th session of Constance when he was not a Pope or even a priest at the time is a cute trick."
This is one the most doltish comments I have read in many a year.
Not as doltish as what he wrote that inspired it. It was done satirically in order to draw out the truth that he "inadvertently" and "understandably" forgot/witheld concerning the Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions.
Now we come to the attempt to save face and fill in the blanks. I was originally going to do this myself but it would have been ignored by the sycophants.
"After his election, Pope Martin V had the task of modifying and ratifying, or rejecting the acts of the Council that had taken place before his election, when there was no pope who could effectively preside, (since there were three competing claimants at the time). "
Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.
Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.
Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.
Other councils, both ecuмenical and regional, have been ratified after the fact by popes who were not present at the council when the acts were passed.
So much for the "cute trick".
No. The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. He gave papal approbation to the Council that had it's legal force of convocation from Gregory XII.
Martin V ratified Session 39 after he was elected.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: " Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance, and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecuмenical synod over the pope), concluded that both popes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an approbation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)"
This dolt should study some more Church History before shooting off his mouth, since the only trickery in this matter has been Gerard's own verbal sleight of hand -- which is not very "cute".
It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob. He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.
The fact that I inadvertently canonized Martin V has no relevance whatever to the point at issue -- it is a red herring.
No. A red herring would be if someone wrote, "Pope Pius V" when describing some juridical decision he made and someone makes an issue of not referring to him as "Saint" Pius V.
But, naturally, I'm deceptive when pointing out facts of history, but Fr. Kramer presents falsehoods that are "inadvertent" additions that coincidentally juice up his story.
C'mon. As if adding "saint" to a Pope doesn't give it gravitas.
Does anyone not think that the canonizations of JPII and John XXIII weren't to give gravitas to Vatican II and the post-conciliar disaster?
Fr. Kramer is consciously or unconsciously trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by claiming that a Holy Council of the Church dogmatically bound all Popes to be subject to a liturgical rite, ratified under the Supreme Authority of a Sainted Pope.
And I'm the one being deceitful? Quite the opposite.
The fact remains he was a sovereign Pontiff of the Roman Church, and he did ratify Sess. 39.
The fact remains that he didn't ratify what Fr.Kramer claims he did nor did he attempt to bind himself or future Popes to be subject to a liturgical form.
The general approbation of the decrees (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fidei per præsens concilium conciliariter et non aliter nec alio modo) by Martin V, was followed by the ratification of Eugene IV, as mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia: ?Eugene IV (22 July, 1446) approved the council, with due reserve of the rights, dignity, and supremacy of the Apostolic See (absque tamen præjudicio juris dignitatis et præeminentiæ Sedis Apostolicæ).?
More sleight of hand. Martin now gave approbation, and Eugene gave the ratification with the qualifier that undermines undermines Fr.Kramer's very point.
Fr. Kramer states that Constance binds a Pope. Pope Eugene exerts papal primacy over and above anything to the contrary in the Councils.
The fact remains, Popes are not subject to liturgies. Liturgies are subject to the Apostolic See.
Thus, what is essential, is that the Council was duly ratified (including Session 39), and has always been generally held in the Church as a duly approved ecuмenical council. The doctrine set forth in Session 39, which teaches that the pope is bound to the traditional rite has been taught explicitly since the pontificate of Pope St. Agatho. That teaching therefore is unquestionably de fide.
Deceptive, not de Fide.
As stated and well understood, both Martin and Eugene had no intention of submitting the papacy to the decrees of a council.
Session 39 also makes no mention of any particular liturgical rite. It speaks broadly about the "rites" (plural) in administering the sacraments.
Session 39 also specifically binds the Pope to call Councils in perpetuity in 5,7 and then every 10 years in perpetuity. Martin V was the first Pope to try it and abandon it. So much for a Pope being "bound" by a council.
"For this reason we establish, enact, decree and ordain, by a perpetual edict, that general councils shall be held henceforth in the following way. The first shall follow in five years immediately after the end of this council, the second in seven years immediately after the end of the next council, and thereafter they are to be held every ten years for ever. They are to be held in places which the supreme pontiff is bound to nominate and assign within a month before the end of each preceding council, with the approval and consent of the council, or which, in his default, the council itself is bound to nominate. Thus, by a certain continuity, there will always be either a council in existence or one expected within a given time. If perchance emergencies arise, the time may be shortened by the supreme pontiff, acting on the advice of his brothers, the cardinals of the Roman church, but it may never be prolonged. Moreover, he may not change the place assigned for the next council without evident necessity. If an emergency arises whereby it seems necessary to change the place--for example in the case of a siege, war, disease or the like--then the supreme pontiff may, with the consent and written endorsement of his aforesaid brothers or of two-thirds of them, substitute another place which is suitable and fairly near to the place previously assigned. It must, however, be within the same nation unless the same or a similar impediment exists throughout the nation. In the latter case he may summon the council to another suitable place which is nearby but within another nation, and the prelates and other persons who are customarily summoned to a council will be obliged to come to it as if it had been the place originally assigned. The supreme pontiff is bound to announce and publish the change of place or the shortening of time in a legal and solemn form within a year before the date assigned, so that the aforesaid persons may be able to meet and hold the council at the appointed time."
Martin I was the saint -- not Martin V. I had read many volumes of Church History during my university studies in Rome back in the 70s; but it has been nearly 40 years since I studied Church History at the Angelicuм.
Excuse making. So we should trust Fr. Kramer's 40 year old conflated memories of books or the books and sources at our fingertips?
However, the minor lapse of memory is as insignificant as it is understandable -- and it only goes to illustrate that I have forgotten more Church History than Gerard has ever learned.
That's a convenient "lapse" of memory, forgetting that someone is not a saint.
That "lapse" sure does spice up the history and make it sound much more cut and dry, doesn't it?
In other words, Fr. Kramer is allowed to write falsehoods because he once knew a lot more about Church history than he does now. So, his enfeeblement is both his excuse and justification for not stating the truth in the here and now.
This is absurd. Change the discipline and follow the logic. Fr. Kramer's failures in basic arithmetic are excusable because it's been so long since he studied advanced mathematics at the Archimedes academy. So, that proves that he's forgotten more advanced mathematics than Gerard ever learned. It's not even a good insult because it's a non-sequitur.
The truth is, Gerard may or may not know advanced mathematics but he can do basic arithmetic in the here and now.
So if Fr. Kramer is engaging in a financial transactions and messes up the change, he's justified in defrauding someone. "Listen, I used to be really good at math but that was a long time ago, just give me three twenties and we'll call it even."
What a scam!
But if Gerard points out the scam. He's "deceptive."
Some quick mop up points that clear up the idea that Popes are subject to liturgies.
Pius XII Mediator Dei:
"44 Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history."
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself."
-
Ooopss blooper...sorry I've misunderstood the post...dang multiple windows..that's what happens when you multi task too much :fryingpan:
Matthew please delete my post directly above
No worries, Servus. I thoroughly enjoyed Fr. Kramer's response to the Conciliarisssst from Fish Eaters. Thank you for serving as the go-between.
:cheers:
The really funny part of this is your incorrect use of the term conciliarist.
I'm the one defending papal supremacy over that of councils.
Fr. Kramer is deceptively trying to impose a Gallican/Conciliarist power grab away from the papacy.
-
Gerard the Feckless,
No. Pius XII clearly delineated what the power of the Pope is concerning liturgy. You deny that under your own authority.
Vatican II turned regulation and modification of the liturgy over to bishops councils, bishops and "experts". Paul VI approved this. Pius would have been very unhappy considering that his delineation forbid that.
You bucket is full of holes.
Pius XII forbade plenty of things and rightly so in his pontificate. He also allowed a number of things that many people today are squeamish about.
But he was the Pope and it was within the scope of his power to do so.
Paul VI had the same power and allowed a number of things that many people also are squeamish about. Paul VI also upheld a number of things that made liberals around the world howl in disapproval.
He was Pope, it was within his power to do so.
-
The really funny part of this is your incorrect use of the term conciliarist.
The term is correct. You are a conciliarist. You are an active proponent and defender of the Conciliar religion and what flows from it, and in my opinion are far more dangerous than the accordistas that Matthew bans from this forum.
Go back to Fish Eaters.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/just-a-catholic-something-smells-fishy-YB81oR-clipart_zpsdtoc5ub2.jpg)
-
The really funny part of this is your incorrect use of the term conciliarist.
The term is correct. You are a conciliarist. You are an active proponent and defender of the Conciliar religion and what flows from it, and in my opinion are far more dangerous than the accordistas that Matthew bans from this forum.
Go back to Fish Eaters.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/just-a-catholic-something-smells-fishy-YB81oR-clipart_zpsdtoc5ub2.jpg)
I am relatively new in this forum and now I understand why you and J_Paul are so exasperated with Gerard from FE.
It is utterly useless to reason out with Gerard from FE, he is not interested in the merits of the arguments coming from an Expert such as Fr.Kramer. He is only interested in promoting his conciliarist views. It is clear from his childish rants that he is a Conceited person.
-
The really funny part of this is your incorrect use of the term conciliarist.
The term is correct. You are a conciliarist. You are an active proponent and defender of the Conciliar religion and what flows from it, and in my opinion are far more dangerous than the accordistas that Matthew bans from this forum.
Go back to Fish Eaters.
No. You're divorced from reality.
Now a degree of nominalism seems to be setting in with the Neo-trads.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/conciliarism
-
I am relatively new in this forum and now I understand why you and J_Paul are so exasperated with Gerard from FE.
It is utterly useless to reason out with Gerard from FE, he is not interested in the merits of the arguments coming from an Expert such as Fr.Kramer. He is only interested in promoting his conciliarist views. It is clear from his childish rants that he is a Conceited person.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/conciliarism
Conciliarism, in the Roman Catholic church, a theory that a general council of the church has greater authority than the pope and may, if necessary, depose him. Conciliarism had its roots in discussions of 12th- and 13th-century canonists who were attempting to set juridical limitations on the power of the papacy. The most radical forms of the conciliar theory in the Middle Ages were found in the 14th-century writings of Marsilius of Padua, an Italian political philosopher who rejected the divine origin of the papacy, and William of Ockham, an English philosopher who taught that only the church as a whole—not an individual pope or even a council—is preserved from error in faith.
The 15th century saw serious attempts to put the conciliar theories into practice. The Council of Constance (1414–18) invoked the doctrine to depose three claimants to the papal throne; it then elected Pope Martin V as sole legitimate successor to St. Peter, thereby effectively healing the Western (Great) Schism (1378–1417). Though this council is recognized by Rome as the 16th ecuмenical council, neither was it convened by a legitimate pope nor were its declarations ever formally approved in their totality; the council’s condemnation of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus (pre-Reformation reformers) was approved, but not the decree Sacrosancta espousing conciliarism. The faction-ridden Council of Basel, which opened in 1431, reaffirmed Sacrosancta. The theory has continued to live on, and its theses have influenced such doctrines as Gallicanism, a French position that advocated restriction of papal power.
The first Vatican Council in 1870 explicitly condemned conciliarism. The second Vatican Council (1962–65) asserted that the pope as a member and the head of the college of bishops forms with it at all times an organic unity, especially when the council is gathered in a general council.
-
Gerard the Feckless,
No. Pius XII clearly delineated what the power of the Pope is concerning liturgy. You deny that under your own authority.
Vatican II turned regulation and modification of the liturgy over to bishops councils, bishops and "experts". Paul VI approved this. Pius would have been very unhappy considering that his delineation forbid that.
You bucket is full of holes.
Pius XII forbade plenty of things and rightly so in his pontificate. He also allowed a number of things that many people today are squeamish about.
But he was the Pope and it was within the scope of his power to do so.
Oh yes, .........and how's that working out for you........................... :scratchchin:
-
That is utterly pointless, Gerard.
-
That is utterly pointless, Gerard.
Which is par for the course.
-
Gerard the Feckless,
No. Pius XII clearly delineated what the power of the Pope is concerning liturgy. You deny that under your own authority.
Vatican II turned regulation and modification of the liturgy over to bishops councils, bishops and "experts". Paul VI approved this. Pius would have been very unhappy considering that his delineation forbid that.
You bucket is full of holes.
Pius XII forbade plenty of things and rightly so in his pontificate. He also allowed a number of things that many people today are squeamish about.
But he was the Pope and it was within the scope of his power to do so.
Oh yes, .........and how's that working out for you........................... :scratchchin:
That's a very strange response. The inference drawn is that, regardless of objective reality if something isn't working out for me, I should change the reality?
Suppose it's raining. If I say, "It's raining." And you say, "How is that working out for you?" You think I should simply state, "It's sunny out?" and it will work out differently for me?
It's interesting how some of the posters here refuse to directly answer pointed questions, but they actually do provide insight into their confused inner workings albeit obliquely.
-
No. You're divorced from reality.
Now a degree of nominalism seems to be setting in with the Neo-trads.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/conciliarism
Everybody else on this board and in trad circles across the globe knows EXACTLY what is meant when using the term "conciliarist".
Except you.
You. Are. A. Conciliarist.
-
I am relatively new in this forum and now I understand why you and J_Paul are so exasperated with Gerard from FE.
It is utterly useless to reason out with Gerard from FE, he is not interested in the merits of the arguments coming from an Expert such as Fr.Kramer. He is only interested in promoting his conciliarist views. It is clear from his childish rants that he is a Conceited person.
Oh, it's certainly not just me and J.Paul. The conciliarist is determined to infect this board and turn it into Fish Eaters 2.0. I know at least three other people who have stopped posting here because they're exasperated that Gerard is allowed to "defend" and exonerate conciliarism (as real traditionalists understand the term), the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, ecuмenism, etc., with impunity.
And your analysis is absolutely correct.
-
I am relatively new in this forum and now I understand why you and J_Paul are so exasperated with Gerard from FE.
It is utterly useless to reason out with Gerard from FE, he is not interested in the merits of the arguments coming from an Expert such as Fr.Kramer. He is only interested in promoting his conciliarist views. It is clear from his childish rants that he is a Conceited person.
Oh, it's certainly not just me and J.Paul. The conciliarist is determined to infect this board and turn it into Fish Eaters 2.0. I know at least three other people who have stopped posting here because they're exasperated that Gerard is allowed to "defend" and exonerate conciliarism (as real traditionalists understand the term), the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, ecuмenism, etc., with impunity.
And your analysis is absolutely correct.
The blind leading the blind.
Creating straw man arguments is "analysis".
Absurd.
I know some people that have written me that ceased to post and even avoided visiting this site because it had become a haven for "pharisees" and "ignoramuses."
I've been thanked for coming on here and posting because of the lunacy that has taken root by trads that have very little to do with traditional Catholicism but are more interested in creating friction and crushing charity.
I don't make the rules around here and I abide by them, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a house-cleaning of some of you guys that don't do anything to contribute to a discussion but instead simply lie, snipe and create flame wars.
-
No. You're divorced from reality.
Now a degree of nominalism seems to be setting in with the Neo-trads.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/conciliarism
Everybody else on this board and in trad circles across the globe knows EXACTLY what is meant when using the term "conciliarist".
Except you.
You. Are. A. Conciliarist.
No. That "dolt" and intellectually dishonest slob, Fr. Kramer is a conciliarist by his
support of errors from the Council of Constance and his lies about the power of the
papacy being subject to a liturgy.
See that? A simple sentence that makes an assertion and is supported by fact. A
little pizzazz of course as well, but that's a gift. :)
You couldn't do the first part if you're life depended on it.
That's why you are a liar.
Your lies stink from the edge of Heaven to the depths of Hell where you are headed for because of your filthy obstinacy and calumny.
That's EXACTLY the value of your demonic contributions to this forum.
-
The blind leading the blind.
Creating straw man arguments is "analysis".
Absurd.
I know some people that have written me that ceased to post and even avoided visiting this site because it had become a haven for "pharisees" and "ignoramuses."
I've been thanked for coming on here and posting because of the lunacy that has taken root by trads that have very little to do with traditional Catholicism but are more interested in creating friction and crushing charity.
I don't make the rules around here and I abide by them, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a house-cleaning of some of you guys that don't do anything to contribute to a discussion but instead simply lie, snipe and create flame wars.
I was talking to Servus, not you, Conciliarist
-
No. That "dolt" and intellectually dishonest slob, Fr. Kramer is a conciliarist by his
support of errors from the Council of Constance and his lies about the power of the
papacy being subject to a liturgy.
See that? A simple sentence that makes an assertion and is supported by fact. A
little pizzazz of course as well, but that's a gift. :)
You couldn't do the first part if you're life depended on it.
That's why you are a liar.
Your lies stink from the edge of Heaven to the depths of Hell where you are headed for because of your filthy obstinacy and calumny.
That's EXACTLY the value of your demonic contributions to this forum.
You're a lover of the revolution, a defender the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
You are a conciliarist.
-
The blind leading the blind.
Creating straw man arguments is "analysis".
Absurd.
I know some people that have written me that ceased to post and even avoided visiting this site because it had become a haven for "pharisees" and "ignoramuses."
I've been thanked for coming on here and posting because of the lunacy that has taken root by trads that have very little to do with traditional Catholicism but are more interested in creating friction and crushing charity.
I don't make the rules around here and I abide by them, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a house-cleaning of some of you guys that don't do anything to contribute to a discussion but instead simply lie, snipe and create flame wars.
I was talking to Servus, not you, Conciliarist
Then send a PM. Liar.
-
You're a lover of the revolution,
Liar.
a defender the New Mass
,
Liar. I'm a defender of the objective power of the papacy.
Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
I'll defend Hitler and Judas Iscariot from lies.
You are a conciliarist.
Nope. I'm an enemy of lies and liars.
That's your problem.
You misuse the term "conciliarist" in the same way gαys talk "marriage."
Go find your safe space and express yourself on your video blog, young lady.
-
You're a lover of the revolution,
Liar.
a defender the New Mass
,
Liar. I'm a defender of the objective power of the papacy.
Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
I'll defend Hitler and Judas Iscariot from lies.
You are a conciliarist.
Nope. I'm an enemy of lies and liars.
That's your problem.
You misuse the term "conciliarist" in the same way gαys talk "marriage."
Go find your safe space and express yourself on your video blog, young lady.
:roll-laugh2:
You're a lover of the revolution, a defender the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
You are a conciliarist.
-
Then send a PM. Liar.
Nope. :laugh1:
-
No. You're divorced from reality.
Now a degree of nominalism seems to be setting in with the Neo-trads.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/conciliarism
Everybody else on this board and in trad circles across the globe knows EXACTLY what is meant when using the term "conciliarist".
Except you.
You. Are. A. Conciliarist.
No. That "dolt" and intellectually dishonest slob, Fr. Kramer is a conciliarist by his
support of errors from the Council of Constance and his lies about the power of the
papacy being subject to a liturgy.
See that? A simple sentence that makes an assertion and is supported by fact. A
little pizzazz of course as well, but that's a gift. :)
You couldn't do the first part if you're life depended on it.
That's why you are a liar.
Your lies stink from the edge of Heaven to the depths of Hell where you are headed for because of your filthy obstinacy and calumny.
That's EXACTLY the value of your demonic contributions to this forum.
My my what temper...now now we all know how Emotionally disturbed and Fragile you are. We don't wanna hurt you, I promise :wink:
We would be more gentle next time. All we need from you is to be our Lab rat...errr I mean guinea PIG so we can TEST Conciliarist response time per minute or CRT/min. You would be a perfect case study on "HOW A CONCILIARIST WOULD ADAPT TO A HEALTHY TRADITIONALIST ENVIRONMENT". Very serious questions needs to be addressed such as:
1) What is their pulse rate in such an environment?
2) Will their mouth foam??
3) Will their eyes become dilated?
4) Do they turn red? Do they turn green? or maybe yellow?
5) How do they react to Traditionalist priest such as Fr.Kramer (The last experiment was EXPLOSIVE!--The poor Conciliarist test RAT ...errr I mean Conciliarist test PIG.....errr I mean Concilliarist guinea PIG was SHRIEKING like a DEMON sprinkled with Holy Water! :detective:
The purpose of this SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT is to help CONCILIARIST adjust MENTALLY and EMOTIONALLY in a TRADITIONALIST COMMUNITY
Now where did that CONCILIARIST test PIG go? Anybody seen where that poor creature go? :detective:
-
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_zpsy8gqlc2o.jpg)
-
Then send a PM. Liar.
Nope. :laugh1:
Then, I'll comment on whatever the hell I like and you can't stop me. :laugh1:
-
You're a lover of the revolution, a defender the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
You are a conciliarist.
Compounding the sins. Your demons have an easy job it seems.
-
Oh Boy! :popcorn:
-
You're a lover of the revolution, a defender the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
You are a conciliarist.
Compounding the sins. Your demons have an easy job it seems.
AHA! there you are...you naughty BOY :fryingpan: I have a surprise for ya :wink:
-
You're a lover of the revolution, a defender the New Mass, Paul VI, Bugnini, and ecuмenism
You are a conciliarist.
Compounding the sins. Your demons have an easy job it seems.
AHA! there you are...you naughty BOY :fryingpan: I have a surprise for ya :wink:
Now Now! pat the dog..........gently........... :rolleyes:
-
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_2_zps0ilsqh0i.jpg)
-
Le Happy rogues gallery! The one on the left and Paul VI are even rubbing their hands together........ :scratchchin:
And you should see the ones hiding behind the curtain................ :shocked:...........
-
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_2_zps0ilsqh0i.jpg)
IHSV... Please teach me how to do this mime technology. :farmer:
-
IHSV... Please teach me how to do this mime technology. :farmer:
Anytime you're ready :ready-to-eat:
I suspect Gerard is busy searching the interwebs for a 4th grader-friendly meme generator so he can post his own memes. He always has to have the last word in any "debate".
Then again.... maybe he's given up. Who knows?
-
My my what temper...now now we all know how Emotionally disturbed and Fragile you are. We don't wanna hurt you, I promise :wink:
I'm skeptical of that. I don't know of ways to lie like you do without malice.
We would be more gentle next time. All we need from you is to be our Lab rat...errr I mean guinea PIG
"We" is interesting. How many? I would suspect "Legion."
Mentioning swine is interesting as well, perhaps Gerasene?
so we can TEST Conciliarist response time per minute or CRT/min. You would be a perfect case study on "HOW A CONCILIARIST WOULD ADAPT TO A HEALTHY TRADITIONALIST ENVIRONMENT".
Your difficulty would be your failure to define your terms. What you call "Healthy traditionalist" such as Fr. Kramer is actually "Conciliarist" or "Gallican" as the Church defines it.
To take Fr, Kramer for example, as a conciliarist trying to hobble the papacy and promote heresy, when confronted with a health minded traditionalist that points out his flaws, he resorts to the typical ad homimen warfare that pseudo-Catholics that follow him resort to.
It's easy to observe the pack mentality.
Very serious questions needs to be addressed such as:
1) What is their pulse rate in such an environment?
2) Will their mouth foam??
3) Will their eyes become dilated?
4) Do they turn red? Do they turn green? or maybe yellow?
You would best do this by comparing how you felt and behaved compared with how you feel and behave when I correct you.
5) How do they react to Traditionalist priest such as Fr.Kramer (The last experiment was EXPLOSIVE!--The poor Conciliarist test RAT ...errr I mean Conciliarist test PIG.....errr I mean Concilliarist guinea PIG was SHRIEKING like a DEMON sprinkled with Holy Water! :detective:
True. Did you notice how he desperately resorted to calling me a "dolt" and made pathetic excuses for writing falsehoods?
The purpose of this SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT is to help CONCILIARIST adjust MENTALLY and EMOTIONALLY in a TRADITIONALIST COMMUNITY
It's cute for you to play "scientist. " And healthy, I'm sure you've got your little test tubes and you put Alka Seltzer and Palmolive soap in them.
But eventually you need to get your bath and go to bed and let the grown ups handle the real issues.
Now where did that CONCILIARIST test PIG go? Anybody seen where that poor creature go? :detective:
I realize Fr. Kramer was where you were putting your hopes, but seriously, it's not nice to call him such terms.
-
He's back for more :ready-to-eat:
-
IHSV... Please teach me how to do this mime technology. :farmer:
Anytime you're ready :ready-to-eat:
I suspect Gerard is busy searching the interwebs for a 4th grader-friendly meme generator so he can post his own memes. He always has to have the last word in any "debate".
Then again.... maybe he's given up. Who knows?
Hardly. You are looking hysterical at this point, you make me look good. Though if I did create some memes I wouldn't be lying in any of them like you do.
You are correct in one sense, I am a little rusty on my computer graphics. I've been going old school lately with actual freehand work. There is a stagnation that occurs when you spend too much time trying to achieve effects on the screen. Years ago I wanted to achieve a particular watercolor effect, so I simply did a tiltwash and scanned it in hi res before adding the graphics. Everyone wanted to know how I "achieved" the watercolor "effect." My answer, "I painted a watercolor." I'm a traditionalist in more than just the faith.
I will admit it's been a few years since I'd designed a variety of book covers for a publisher, so I haven't subscribed to the Adobe package. I actually used to get the program as a CD when they did that sort of thing. I have tinkered with Gimp a bit though since it was free. Why not?
And I am in the midst of creating a logo for a military organization right now and it's running late.
Also, on my personal list is I have to teach Atila Sinke Guimareas a lesson about posting phony pictures. I plan on faking a photo of him observing an exotic dancer twerking in front of him. I just haven't decided whether to make it a man or woman.
Do you think I can do it with minimal layering and use the blending tool to create the more realistic effects? I really don't want to spend too much time on it, just enough to teach him a lesson about treating people the way he wants to be treated.
-
He's back for more :ready-to-eat:
No. You guys keep coming back for more.
You've dropped all pretense of trying to argue on logic, principles, doctrine.
So, it's just a boring flame war at this point with a cadre of unimaginative pearl clutchers.
Anything new from Fr. Kramer? I should dig out my original draft and deal with that.
The kiddies are running out of steam.
-
Oh! Hi, Gerard!
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_3_zpsa4rszdhe.jpg)
-
I found this over at Fr. Kramer's Facebook page.
Gerard (of Fish Eaters) merely provides an article on the Conciliarism of past history; which when compared to today's Collegiality, is like a sniffle compared to full blown pneumonia. Conciliarism has morphed into a radicalized Collegiality that has developed in the era of the post-Council, due to the impetus it was given by the Second Vatican Council. It has resulted in what is now an ever increasing decentralization of the Church leading inevitably to what was prophecied by St. Hildegard of Bingen (Doctor of the Church), who fotetold that the Catholics of the world will prefer their own national hierarchies to the pope.
Antipope Francis, the "destroyer", implements policies that promote this development, while the true pope, Benedict XVI, no longer exercises the papal primacy of jurisdiction. The greatest schism, foretold by St. Francis of Assisi, Bl. Anna Katherine Emmerich, Marie Julie Jahenny, Sr. Jeanne le Royer, et al., is already in the making and will materialize as the "false church of darkness" foretold by Bl. Emmerich.
Fr. Kramer,
I don't merely provide a quick definition of "conciliarism" that is one point I've made because some of your more ignorant sycophants believe "concilliarism" to be anyone who doesn't subscribe to their radical emotionally driven assessment of Vatican II. They need to be educated on these matters.
In other words, If I believe Vatican II to be a disaster, a "bad idea, done badly" as Fr. Malachi Martin described it. If I believe the docuмents are ambiguous instead of overtly Satanic. Then I am actually an advocate in favor of Vatican II. If I believe that the Black Mass in which the Eucharist is desecrated and children are abused, murdered and cannibalized is worse than the Novus Ordo, I"m an apologist in favor of the Novus Ordo.
You should be spending less time trying to debunk my positions and spend some time analyzing the positions of your supporters. You will eventually be too liberal for them if charity and clarity are emphasized in degrees that they "feel" are excessive or present at all.
They have no conception in how you relate the "conciliarism/ Gallicanism" of the past with Collegiality of today. it's like a liberal who cannot comprehend the impossibility of gαy marriage or female ordination.
Now, with that in mind, if you really want to understand this crisis, you have to go with every excess the Devil provokes not just the liberal leftward swing.
You can't understand the collegiality of the current crisis without understanding that the Gallicans were rallied in reaction to the Neo-Ultramontanism which conservative dissidents from the definition of Vatican I indulged in and promoted. While seeming benign during the reigns of orthodox and militant Popes, it eventually lead to the various manualists "extending infallibility" absurdly and the due respect necessary towards the papacy being exaggerated. This left the faithful imbibing in fantastical ideas concerning the papacy, opening them up for being misled by Pentecostalisma and apparition chasing along with being completely unprepared to resist a liberal Pope or Popes.
You can't have Vatican II without nearly a century of dissidence from Vatican I.
Vatican II is the punishment heaped upon the pre-conciliar Church. Remember that Moses was punished for striking the rock twice when God said to do something else.
I would argue that the decentralization of the Church is a minor issue in itself. Comparisons with the Eastern Catholic Churches demonstrate that the Pope does not have to comment and micromanage everything in each Church.
If the Latin Church were fractured into regional Churches with Metropolitans under the Pope established, the Church would survive and possibly thrive if those Metropolitans ware more doctrinally faithful than the Pope. Obviously Catholics are not doctrinally obligated to "prefer" a Pope to their local ordinary if the ordinary is a closer, better Shepherd of souls than a Pope of less than stellar ability. He could even shield the faithful from the influence or weakness of a bad Pope. If your Bishop were John Hughes of New York and the Pope was St. Celestine who was wisely aware of his ineptness as Pope. Preferring John Hughes as your spiritual guide is wise. It doesn't translate to disloyalty or lack of submission to a Pope.
God is in control, He can handle any damage done by any Pope or Anti-Pope.
A final thought on the "Benedict XVI is still the true Pope." If Msgr Gansweinn is correct and Benedict XVI has implemented an attempt to fracture the papacy by "expanding the Petrine ministry" it may be the fact that by doing that Benedict bound the Universal Church to an office in opposition to that defined by Vatican I.
A case coiuld be made that Benedict lost the papacy in that attempt to redefine the papacy. His resignation would be irrelevant because its heterodox character caused him to lose the office.
Therefore Francis is Pope or Anti-Pope on his own merits and not with any bearing on the previous papacy of Josef Ratzinger.
-
Oh! Hi, Gerard!
[img]http://i1146.photobucket.com/...
You've come full circle already? Fake Bugnini quotes was only a few pages ago.
C'mon, you can do better.
Try for a something with some real wit this time. :)
I believe in you.
-
Oh, c'mon Gerard... give it up!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/96/3b/f2/963bf2aab4a7eae3724bccc72c90e7ad.jpg)
As you can see, it's very easy to "tree" conciliarists on this forum.
You best mosey on to Fish-eaters, or start posting comments on Michael Voris's blogs.
You'll feel much more at home there.
-
Oh! Hi, Gerard!
[img]http://i1146.photobucket.com/...
You've come full circle already? Fake Bugnini quotes was only a few pages ago.
C'mon, you can do better.
Try for a something with some real wit this time. :)
I believe in you.
AHA!! There you are you NAUGHTY BOY :wink: Now...now...we don't wanna aggravate your EMOTIONAL frailty or your PSYCHOLOGICAL inadequacy.
Now...now....calm down BOY.....calm down......don't be hard on Fr.Kramer. He is an EXPERT trying to heal your MADNESS errrr...I mean your Conceitedness. Advance Theology is NOT for boys like you who are AMATEUR THEOLOGIAN WANNABE'S. Knowledge and Application are 2 different things ya know :wink:
Now...now...take it easy...take a very deeeeep breath. It's time to take your MEDICINE. Trust me, it will do good to lessen your CONCEITEDNESS and HOPEFULLY cure your CONCILIAR malady.
Now open your mouth wide and say AHHHH...
Here it is: Your FAKE Bugnini Quotes
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B495_Bugnini.html
Hello,
I would like to notify you that our Queen of Martyrs Press website has posted the original Italian article from page 6 of the March 19, 1965 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, which is the source for the infamous "stumbling block for the Protestants" mis-quote that has been used for the past several decades. Although what is purported to be the words of the Great Architect of the Novus Ordo Missae are not the exact words that he used, I'm sure that most will agree that the meaning is the same.
I would also like to thank Mr. Patrick Odou for reviewing my book Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis on Tradition in Action.
In Domino,
Jason A. Roberts, O.S.S.M.
-
Oh! Hi, Gerard!
[img]http://i1146.photobucket.com/...
You've come full circle already? Fake Bugnini quotes was only a few pages ago.
C'mon, you can do better.
Try for a something with some real wit this time. :)
I believe in you.
YIKES!!! better watch out ihsv, this Dolt is CREEPY :surprised:
-
YIKES!!! better watch out ihsv, this Dolt is CREEPY :surprised:
He just likes my pictures :laugh1:
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_5_zpsxjjxnffa.jpg)
-
Oh! Hi, Gerard!
[img]http://i1146.photobucket.com/...
You've come full circle already? Fake Bugnini quotes was only a few pages ago.
C'mon, you can do better.
Try for a something with some real wit this time. :)
I believe in you.
YIKES!!! better watch out ihsv, this Dolt is CREEPY :surprised:
Now being a friend of canines, it does not take you long to figure out what it is that you have stepped in,
In the same way, once you hear it, it does not take long to realize what a conciliarist has brought into the house on his shoe................
Be cautious! this fellow is a corrector of popes, councils, saints, priests, bishops and Catholic fakers........................... :shocked:
-
Then send a PM. Liar.
Nope. :laugh1:
Then, I'll comment on whatever the hell I like and you can't stop me. :laugh1:
Well at least he got that right! :roll-laugh1:
-
Oh, c'mon Gerard... give it up!
What exactly is it you want me to give up? Telling the truth?
As you can see, it's very easy to "tree" conciliarists on this forum.
What do you mean? It's a cute picture but it doesn't mean anything.
Nobody has made an argument to prove me wrong about anything.
You haven't even made a case that I'm a "conciliarist" as the term is being bandied about around here.
You best mosey on to Fish-eaters,
Funny, you obviously know nothing of my history on Fisheaters.
or start posting comments on Michael Voris's blogs.
I've already done that. I had to correct them on a few points.
You'll feel much more at home there.
It's apparent I'm needed here.
-
Then send a PM. Liar.
Nope. :laugh1:
Then, I'll comment on whatever the hell I like and you can't stop me. :laugh1:
Well at least he got that right! :roll-laugh1:
Absolutely, I didn't capitalize "hell."
You guys are trying your best though, sad.
-
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_4_zpssxx4iznd.jpg)
-
AHA!! There you are you NAUGHTY BOY :wink: Now...now...we don't wanna aggravate your EMOTIONAL frailty or your PSYCHOLOGICAL inadequacy.
Hah! I'm reminded by your writing of the "child catcher" from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"
Are you going to offer lollipops?
Now...now....calm down BOY.....calm down......don't be hard on Fr.Kramer.
Don't worry, he needs a little tough love. The sycophants have gone to his head and he's not making that much sense anymore.
The obsession with prophecies and visions is another dangerous sign.
He is an EXPERT trying to heal your MADNESS errrr...I mean your Conceitedness. Advance Theology is NOT for boys like you who are AMATEUR THEOLOGIAN WANNABE'S. Knowledge and Application are 2 different things ya know :wink:
Which one of us was it that is falsely calling a Pope a saint? And which is advocating a formally condemned proposition from a quasi-ecuмenical council?
Under the Pius-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, Fr, Kramer is to be suspect of heresy.
Can.2332 - Each and every one who has any kind of position, rank or condition whatsoever, including royal, episcopal or Cardinalship, who appeals the reigning Pontiff's laws, decrees and orders to a universal Council, is suspect of heresy and ipso facto incurs and excommunication especially reserved to the Apostolic See.
"Desire to Destoy" Atila Sinke Guimareas page 202 footnote 41.
Now...now...take it easy...take a very deeeeep breath. It's time to take your MEDICINE.
But, but….none of you seems capable of giving me any "medicine." I'm still suffering from chronic truthfulness.
Can I borrow some of your hallucinogenics?
Trust me, it will do good to lessen your CONCEITEDNESS and HOPEFULLY cure your CONCILIAR malady.
Will I be cured when I stop telling the truth and start misquoting people and acting all hysterical?
When I abandon Catholic doctrine and start exaggerating and twisting the deposit of faith, will I be okay then?
Now open your mouth wide and say AHHHH...
Should I bite into that fruit Mr Serpent Pius?
Here it is: Your FAKE Bugnini Quotes
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B495_Bugnini.html
Hello,
I would like to notify you that our Queen of Martyrs Press website has posted the original Italian article from page 6 of the March 19, 1965 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, which is the source for the infamous "stumbling block for the Protestants" mis-quote that has been used for the past several decades. Although what is purported to be the words of the Great Architect of the Novus Ordo Missae are not the exact words that he used, I'm sure that most will agree that the meaning is the same.
I would also like to thank Mr. Patrick Odou for reviewing my book Reasons for Resistance; The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Speaks on the Post-Vatican II Crisis on Tradition in Action.
In Domino,
Jason A. Roberts, O.S.S.M.
What's your point? Are you making excuses for misquoting someone and having a hissy fit when corrected?
Do you think the tone of the misquote indicates more or less malice than the real quote?
-
Be cautious! this fellow is a corrector of popes, councils, saints, priests, bishops and Catholic fakers........................... :shocked:
Says the deposer of Popes and self-appointed magisterium.
-
YIKES!!! better watch out ihsv, this Dolt is CREEPY :surprised:
He just likes my pictures :laugh1:
Seems like I'm living rent free in your head.
You're spending way too much time compounding your lies.
Are you at least getting paid to troll and flame?
-
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_6_zpstromrmge.jpg)
-
I thought this thread was about Bp. Williamson, and specifically about his sermon on May 19. But what has it turned into? Why, little more than a 'food fight' between Gerard and group of pesky forum 'flies' who buzz relentlessly and malevolently about his head. Must this continue?
-
Dear Moderator,
I wish to post the reply of a Resistance Priest Fr.Paul Kramer in response to the tirades of Mr.Gerard from FE. Fr.Kramer's response below:
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papally ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified. Gerard, who like Luther pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!): he spesks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
3) ? And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING! A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob. He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history", "to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for graruitously vilifying a priest. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
9) The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments, and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalonaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
* 1 Cor. 11:23 - 24, ff. - ? ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem
et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem " . . .?
-
I thought this thread was about Bp. Williamson, and specifically about his sermon on May 19. But what has it turned into? Why, little more than a 'food fight' between Gerard and group of pesky forum 'flies' who buzz relentlessly and malevolently about his head. Must this continue?
Ah! Conciliarist lite comes to the rescue of Conciliarist Extraordinaire!
Yes, it must continue. He keeps coming back, and as long as he keeps posting, we'll be posting.
-
In view of what the good priest Fr.Paul Kramer said about Mr.Gerard of FE, I hearby plead to the good Moderator to BAN Mr.Gerard of FE from this Forum.
-
In view of what the good priest Fr.Paul Kramer said about Mr.Gerard of FE, I hearby plead to the good Moderator to BAN Mr.Gerard of FE from this Forum.
(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/150612_ReaganBerlin-1250x650.jpg)
Mr. Moderator.... Ban the conciliarists from this trad forum!
-
In view of what the good priest Fr.Paul Kramer said about Mr.Gerard of FE, I hearby plead to the good Moderator to BAN Mr.Gerard of FE from this Forum.
Ban me if you want, I say I have the right to defend my good name.
Fr. Kramer is an intellectual slob based on his "inadvertent" errors that he brushes away with a wave of the hand.
He engages in a flame war with the comment "dolt." and is horrified that someone would call him on it.
It's an act of charity to tell the truth.
I'll respond to Fr. Kramer's slop on a new topic.
-
The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments, and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalonaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument
:applause:
-
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papaly ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified. Gerard, who like Luther pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!): he speaks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
3) ?And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING! A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob. He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history, and spreads heresy to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for gratuitously vilifying a priest and falsely accusing him of heresy. What heretical proposition have I professed? He doesn't say. (Let him produce a direct verbatim quotation of my heresy!) It does not exist. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
9) The lengthy quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments, and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalomaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
* 1 Cor. 11:23 - 24, ff. - ? ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem
et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem " . . .?
-
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_7_zps7uimllsu.jpg)
-
In view of what the good priest Fr.Paul Kramer said about Mr.Gerard of FE, I hearby plead to the good Moderator to BAN Mr.Gerard of FE from this Forum.
Ban me if you want, I say I have the right to defend my good name.
Fr. Kramer is an intellectual slob based on his "inadvertent" errors that he brushes away with a wave of the hand.
He engages in a flame war with the comment "dolt." and is horrified that someone would call him on it.
It's an act of charity to tell the truth.
I'll respond to Fr. Kramer's slop on a new topic.
Your Argument falls flat and is deceptive. Just because he calls you a Dolt does not give you reason or justification to commit the Grave SIN of Sacrilege. And you call this An act of charity to tell the truth?? Really?! To commit the SIN of Public Sacrilege is NOT charity
I quote again Fr.Paul Kramer's words
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history, and spreads heresy to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for gratuitously vilifying a priest and falsely accusing him of heresy. What heretical proposition have I professed? He doesn't say. (Let him produce a direct verbatim quotation of my heresy!) It does not exist. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
-
I thought this thread was about Bp. Williamson, and specifically about his sermon on May 19. But what has it turned into? Why, little more than a 'food fight' between Gerard and group of pesky forum 'flies' who buzz relentlessly and malevolently about his head. Must this continue?
Really?? Perhaps you may wish to re-consider your position. A friendly reminder--To Defend a SINNER and more seriously a GRAVE SINNER, one becomes an accessory and shares in the SIN committed.
Take note, the Grave SIN committed is the Grave SIN of Public Sacrilege as Fr.Paul Kramer pointed out.
-
ihsv:
Ah! Conciliarist lite comes to the rescue of Conciliarist Extraordinaire!
Yes, it must continue. He keeps coming back, and as long as he keeps posting, we'll be posting.
I've been called a lot of things over the years, but not a "Conciliarist." This is a first. :scared2:
Gerard may deserve criticism, I don't know. It's certain that he and Fr. Kramer get under one another's skin. That's pretty evident. But I don't see Gerard trying to head folks back to Rome. But if I'm wrong, supply some text from Gerard, and I'll reconsider.
You say, ihsv, that Gerard "keeps coming back." But then, so do you. :rolleyes:
-
For those who were wondering: :scratchchin:
cods·wal·lop
?kädz?wäl?p
noun: BRITISH informal
Meaning: nonsense.
-
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papaly ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified. Gerard, who like Luther pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!): he speaks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
3) ?And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING! A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob. He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history, and spreads heresy to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for gratuitously vilifying a priest and falsely accusing him of heresy. What heretical proposition have I professed? He doesn't say. (Let him produce a direct verbatim quotation of my heresy!) It does not exist. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
9) The lengthy quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments, and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalomaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
* 1 Cor. 11:23 - 24, ff. - ? ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem
et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem " . . .?
This is the Updated Reply of Fr.Paul Kramer. He wanted to add few more things into it.
-
ihsv: Ah! Conciliarist lite comes to the rescue of Conciliarist Extraordinaire!
Yes, it must continue. He keeps coming back, and as long as he keeps posting, we'll be posting.
I've been called a lot of things over the years, but not a "Conciliarist." This is a first. :scared2:
Gerard may deserve criticism, I don't know. It's certain that he and Fr. Kramer get under one another's skin. That's pretty evident. But I don't see Gerard trying to head folks back to Rome. But if I'm wrong, supply some text from Gerard, and I'll reconsider.
Gerard is actively defending the revolution in the form of the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, the "good intentions" of the revolutionaries (Paul VI, Bugnini, etc.,), the "catholicity" of ecuмenism, etc. You see that. Of course you do. And because you "don't know" if he deserves criticism, the label of "conciliarist lite" seems appropriate. Particularly since you're the only person I've seen openly defend him. There may be others, but I haven't seen it.
You say, ihsv, that Gerard "keeps coming back." But then, so do you. :rolleyes:
That's the rub, isn't it? A typical tactic of the revolutionaries, whether it be getting evil legislation past or changing the mindset of a society, is relentlessness. Constantly pushing, never giving up. Again and again, over and over, until they wear down the opposition and achieve their aims. Gerard is very much like that. Normal people recognize bad will when they see it and eventually "shake the dust off their feet" rather than continue arguing. That leaves the weak minded and undecided lurkers vulnerable.
Such people aren't worth arguing with, and are worthy of nothing but public ridicule.
If Gerard would stop, I wouldn't have a reason to come back to this thread, now would I? And why should three or four posters have to stop posting on a thread rather than the one?
Make you a deal. If Gerard doesn't post any more on this thread, neither will I. If he does, well....
-
I would suggest, since I have been been dealing with this fellow for months now, that yes he is indeed a conciliar apologist, but more importantly he is a subversive.
How are we to convince and convert the great Mass of presumed ignorant Novus Ordo folks, when you have a constant stream of confusing half truths and misrepresentations undermining the message that the Novus Ordo is very bad for Catholics and a peril to their faith. Little headway can be made when such compromised and compromising views are being inserted into Traditional discussions.
This revolution is far from over, it is a work in progress, so, we are still at war with this council, its false mass, its promoters, and its practitioners.
They are now sufficiently emboldened to challenge any part of the settled Magisterium and to the face a well trained priest such as Father Kramer.
A subversive in our midst.
-
ihsv:
Such people aren't worth arguing with, and are worthy of nothing but public ridicule.
Then don't argue with "such people."
-
Ihsv,
Normal people recognize bad will when they see it and eventually "shake the dust off their feet" rather than continue arguing. That leaves the weak minded and undecided lurkers vulnerable.
And that is the only reason that I have continued to engage this individual for months now. If people have wondered why? There it is.
This is the same battle which was fought against a post council hoarde of conciliar apologists decades ago, and here it is again, to infect and subvert a new and uninformed generation whose only recourse has generally been to the indoctrination of the Vatican II church and its New Religion.
-
ihsv: Such people aren't worth arguing with, and are worthy of nothing but public ridicule.
Then don't argue with "such people."
I haven't been arguing with him. I've been ridiculing him.
Like this:
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/conciliarist_8_zpsvo9lo7ae.jpg)
It only takes a few minutes to put together.
I see the need to modify the "deal" I offered in my previous post
Make you a deal. If Gerard doesn't post any more on this thread, neither will I (unless someone makes a post directed at me). If he does, well....
-
ihsv: Ah! Conciliarist lite comes to the rescue of Conciliarist Extraordinaire!
Yes, it must continue. He keeps coming back, and as long as he keeps posting, we'll be posting.
I've been called a lot of things over the years, but not a "Conciliarist." This is a first. :scared2:
Gerard may deserve criticism, I don't know. It's certain that he and Fr. Kramer get under one another's skin. That's pretty evident. But I don't see Gerard trying to head folks back to Rome. But if I'm wrong, supply some text from Gerard, and I'll reconsider.
You say, ihsv, that Gerard "keeps coming back." But then, so do you. :rolleyes:
Don't worry about it, just roll with it. These guys have gone so far off the rails. I"m having a ball.
They are just spinning the wheel to come up with new nonsense.
-
Don't worry about it, just roll with it. These guys have gone so far off the rails. I"m having a ball.
They are just spinning the wheel to come up with new nonsense.
Oops! Deal's off :)
-
In view of what the good priest Fr.Paul Kramer said about Mr.Gerard of FE, I hearby plead to the good Moderator to BAN Mr.Gerard of FE from this Forum.
Ban me if you want, I say I have the right to defend my good name.
Fr. Kramer is an intellectual slob based on his "inadvertent" errors that he brushes away with a wave of the hand.
He engages in a flame war with the comment "dolt." and is horrified that someone would call him on it.
It's an act of charity to tell the truth.
I'll respond to Fr. Kramer's slop on a new topic.
Your Argument falls flat and is deceptive. Just because he calls you a Dolt does not give you reason or justification to commit the Grave SIN of Sacrilege. And you call this An act of charity to tell the truth?? Really?! To commit the SIN of Public Sacrilege is NOT charity
I quote again Fr.Paul Kramer's words
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history, and spreads heresy to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for gratuitously vilifying a priest and falsely accusing him of heresy. What heretical proposition have I professed? He doesn't say. (Let him produce a direct verbatim quotation of my heresy!) It does not exist. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
So many things wrong with that.
Telling the truth isn't sacrilege.
Fr. Kramer despite his delusions doesn't hold authority to make that judgement.
In my reply on the other thread, I suggested he give me the information for where he is incarnated and the name of his superior and we'll set the canonical process in motion.
He can make his case in front of Archbishop Chaput and explain how he'll appeal to Pope Ganswein or whomever he has discerned is Pope by then if it isn't himself.
-
Gerard,
Just curious, what is that new-age looking avatar of yours? It's difficult to tell what it is because it's so small.
-
Nevermind. Found a larger version of it.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/3108_zpsgzuyrbf4.jpg)
:confused1:
:shocked:
What. Is. That?
-
Nevermind. Found a larger version of it.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/3108_zpsgzuyrbf4.jpg)
:confused1:
:shocked:
What. Is. That?
You are right, it definitely looks like a New Age icon. Looks sinister even.
-
Nevermind. Found a larger version of it.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/3108_zpsgzuyrbf4.jpg)
:confused1:
:shocked:
What. Is. That?
You will grasp at anything you can find.
Also, you mean you made a larger version of it.
It's a vidcap from the finale of the Fantastic Four: Rise of the Siver Surfer with a few additional flares and adjustments added by me.
When I saw the movie I was reminded me of the Transfiguration.
Over at Suscipe Domine I have the tagline ".. and his raiment became white and glittering."
Sorry. I'm a fun guy on top of everything else. But I can see your delicate nature is disturbed. I'll update it for you if you like to help you relax.
-
Gerard is a public sinner guilty of sacrilege for falsely accusing a priest of heresy -- and yes, I do have the theological competence to make that judgment. No jurisdiction is required for a priest with pontifical degrees to condemn the sins of evildoers.
-
Nevermind. Found a larger version of it.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/3108_zpsgzuyrbf4.jpg)
:confused1:
:shocked:
What. Is. That?
You are right, it definitely looks like a New Age icon. Looks sinister even.
"We too now have the cult of Man"
-
You will grasp at anything you can find.
:rolleyes:
Also, you mean you made a larger version of it.
No, I found it. I did a google image search for "conciliarist" and it showed up, right next to the pic of the "Catholic Social Teaching for Dummies" book.
The forum automatically resizes images
-
Gerard is a public sinner guilty of sacrilege for falsely accusing a priest of heresy -- and yes, I do have the theological competence to make that judgment. No jurisdiction is required for a priest with pontifical degrees to condemn the sins of evildoers.
Anything else you want to make up out of the blue?
-
No, I found it. I did a google image search for "conciliarist" and it showed up, right next to the pic of the "Catholic Social Teaching for Dummies" book.
The forum automatically resizes images
…..meh…..too derivative of old jokes. I would like to give an appropriate rejoinder but I'll wait till you do something genuinely funny.
-
No, I found it. I did a google image search for "conciliarist" and it showed up, right next to the pic of the "Catholic Social Teaching for Dummies" book.
The forum automatically resizes images
…..meh…..too derivative of old jokes. I would like to give an appropriate rejoinder but I'll wait till you do something genuinely funny.
Who said I was trying to be funny? I was quite serious.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o533/ihsv/6ab9d6f1e7d344dcac9f0caf9de1db69_zpshfrdnam9.png)
-
No, I found it. I did a google image search for "conciliarist" and it showed up, right next to the pic of the "Catholic Social Teaching for Dummies" book.
The forum automatically resizes images
…..meh…..too derivative of old jokes. I would like to give an appropriate rejoinder but I'll wait till you do something genuinely funny.
Who said I was trying to be funny? I was quite serious.
You mean you weren't trying to be funny?……oh….
Well good for you. You keep giving it the old kindergarten try.
-
Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments. Gerard gratuitously pontificates like a self appointed authority, with a great profusion of assertions which are based on merely assumed and unstated premises; with no attempt made to systematically demonstrate his position with reasoned argumentation that directly addresses the point that has been presented to him. Thus, his arguments are without logical foundation, and are easily shown by one with a classical scholastic theological academic training to be fallacious and erroneous. Yet, he obstinately clings to his unfounded and unproven opinions even when the flawed logic of his thinking has been plainly put before him; and he continues to insist that he is right,and that the correctness of his strongly held opinions is demonstrated and underscored by the force of his adamantly repeated assertions. His lack of formal, systematic theological training is patent in every one of the multitude of errant comments he asserts with a bold self assurance that betrays himself to be utterly oblivious of his own intellectual incompetence. It is a fools chore to argue with one who flaunts in such a crass manner, an immense ignorance and bigotry, thinly disguised as erudition by means of elaborations of profuse verbosity which unravel when subjected to the scrutiny of critical examination.
-
Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments. Gerard gratuitously pontificates like a self appointed authority, with a great profusion of assertions which are based on merely assumed and unstated premises; with no attempt made to systematically demonstrate his position with reasoned argumentation that directly addresses the point that has been presented to him. Thus, his arguments are without logical foundation, and are easily shown by one with a classical scholastic theological academic training to be fallacious and erroneous. Yet, he obstinately clings to his unfounded and unproven opinions even when the flawed logic of his thinking has been plainly put before him; and he continues to insist that he is right,and that the correctness of his strongly held opinions is demonstrated and underscored by the force of his adamantly repeated assertions. His lack of formal, systematic theological training is patent in every one of the multitude of errant comments he asserts with a bold self assurance that betrays himself to be utterly oblivious of his own intellectual incompetence. It is a fools chore to argue with one who flaunts in such a crass manner, an immense ignorance and bigotry, thinly disguised as erudition by means of elaborations of profuse verbosity which unravel when subjected to the scrutiny of critical examination.
That's the bloviating of a fraud.
You're simply ranting without a hint of substance.
Nothing of what you've asserted can you prove.
And as I predicted in an earlier post, you'd give vapid diaphanous dodges and make a pathetic excuse to not engage in the discussion and exit a discussion in which you came in guns blazing and made an utter fool of yourself.
What is apt, you describe as "off point." which is merely a dodge as I've concretely demonstrated.
When you right something patently wrong, you claim it doesn't' matter.
In response to your errors you simply attack the person who was correct in the first place and create a fog by bragging about your education and how much you forgot and how much better you must be than I in recognizing the truth of something. You take it objectively and it's absurd poppycock. Not a bit of logic to it.
You hurl insults gratuitously and cower and run and whine and cry when someone justifiably and more charitably counters your nonsense with a just rebuke. Pathetic.
Franklly, you are just a wind bag, ham-handed churned out dime a dozen "academic" with no common sense nor any capability of cogitative discernment.
I doubt you have any true appreciation for the meaning of what Catholic truth is actually recorded and gathering dust between your ears.
You display an unimaginative, uncreative, atrophied mind ill suited for any intellectual truths it's been force fed and unable to digest.
You display no competence to be able to accurately assess or make judgment upon me, my soul, my erudition or the methods of systematic analysis I employ to dismantle the combination of fallacies, emotional outbursts and irrational selectivity cobbled together in making your gratuitous and dishonest assertions.
-
Gerard, what Don Paolo said was correct (at least) in some capacity. You jump around too much in your posts, you never answer/respond directly to any questions, but interject (oftentimes numerous) tangential and/or off-topic subjects which leads to confusion and irrelevence. If you would calm down and not take everything so personally or defensively, your posts would be more simple, for you have much knowledge that COULD be beneficial to a discussion.
-
Gerard, what Don Paolo said was correct (at least) in some capacity. You jump around too much in your posts, you never answer/respond directly to any questions, but interject (oftentimes numerous) tangential and/or off-topic subjects which leads to confusion and irrelevence. If you would calm down and not take everything so personally or defensively, your posts would be more simple, for you have much knowledge that COULD be beneficial to a discussion.
Would you show me an example?
Since most of my replies are done in the "Fisking" style, they are point by point rebuttals to others arguments, with the original quote above.
That is how I responded to Fr. Kramer. He set the structure of the argument.
I didn't call him a "dolt" right out of the box like he did to me. I didn't go on tangents bringing up or bragging about my education. I didn't have to try and create guilt by association when he tried to associate me with Martin Luther.
If he went off topic or on a tangent, I follow where he went and address what he
stated in whatever mode or tone he stated it.
If Fr. Kramer creates the "fog of war" and chaotically bounces around, that's his "system" and he then complains about the lack of 'systematic" argumentation, that's a cute trick. It's used in politics.it''s called "muddying the waters."
Most of the time I do answer an respond directly in an absolute sense.
I will answer with, "No." or "Wrong." or "False" and then I explain why I believe my argument is stronger.
For the record, I don't take any of this personally. I often keep the posters, and the lurkers in my prayers and pray that I'll be guided in my contributions.
As for being defensive, I'm defending my position. If I think I'm holding the position of the Truth, I have to defend it. If people are trying to obfuscate the truth by smearing me personally, I have to address the smear because it's an attempt to use me as an obstacle to the truth.