Author Topic: Bp. Fellay contradicts de Fide Catholic teaching (Read 4183 times)

Incredulous · « **on:** November 21, 2012, 01:07:58 AM »

From TIA

h0Ɩ0cαųst & Holodomor

h0Ɩ0cαųst & Holodomor

Contradiction or Hypocrisy?

The Holodomor is the name given to the extermination, mostly by starvation, of over 7 million people in the Ukraine, an area about the size of France and controlled by Russia. Hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million of Ukraine’s intellectual leaders – writers, university professors, scientists, and journalists – were liquidated in purges ordered by Stalin. Ukrainian bishops, priests and thousands of Christian lay leaders were sent to Siberian labor camps, the so-called “Gulag” (Soviet Policy and the Ukrainian Genocide of 1923-1933). The total number of people wantonly killed by order of Stalin is far more people than were killed In the terrible nαzι h0Ɩ0cαųst in which an estimated 6 million Jєωs were killed, and the greatest percentage of the people killed in the Ukraine were Christian.

A brutal and callous contrast

The conciliar Church has been very public and energetic in expressing its great concern about the unwarranted killing by the nαzιs of the 6 million Jєωs. In fact so energetic has been the conciliar Church in its concern for the unwarranted killing of the Jєωs that it has even changed fundamental De fide tenets of the traditional Catholic Faith to accommodate this concern. For example, conciliar Church authorities have stated Jesus Christ is not the Messiah for the Jєωs, thus denying the De fide teaching that Christ is indeed the messiah for all (See item 840, p. 223 of Pope John Paul II’s Catechism of the Catholic Church).

The same authorities have also stated that Judaism is salvific in and of itself in direct denial of the thrice defined ex-cathedra dogma that “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” (See “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” published on August 12, 2002 jointly by the Bishop’s Committee for Ecuмenical and Interreligious Affairs, SCC and the National Council of ѕуηαgσgυєs). Since the Jєωs openly deny the divinity of Christ, this declaration is also in direct defiance of Christ’s words, "No one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) and thatt"to reject Him was to reject the One who sent Me" (Luke 10:16).

In brutal and callous contrast, the conciliar Popes and authorities have maintained a near total silence by expressing virtually no concern about the far greater horrific slaughter of the more than 7 million innocent mostly Christian people starved to death and killed in the Ukraine. In light of the fact that the conciliar Popes consider themselves advocates of Christianity and are continually expressing concern for those who have suffered death by tyrants, such a dichotomy in concern is inexplicable, if not cruelly hypocritical.

Fellay's declarations on the Jєωs

Overriding concern for the unwarranted killing of the Jєωs by the nαzι has even led Bishop Fellay, the nominal head of the SSPX, a group of Catholics dedicated to restoring the traditional Catholic Faith, to also confuse a fundamental tenet of the Catholic Faith. The Bishop has stated:

“We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people. We reject every accusation of Anti-Semitism. Completely and absolutely. We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler. This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jєωs, proclaims, 'I wished myself to be an anathema [from Christ] for my brethren!' (Rom. 9, 3). The Jєωs are 'our elder brothers' in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.”[

The Bishop’s statements contradict the de Fide Catholic teaching that the old covenant was superseded by Christ's coming on earth and his establishment of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the good Bishop is well aware the тαℓмυd, which is the work that contains the doctrines, laws and commentaries on Judaism made by the most prestigious rabbis throughout history, contains such teachings as: •“Whoever loves a Christian would hate his own creator;

•“Those who deny the teaching of Israel, particularly the followers of the
Nazarene, should be killed;

•“It is always a good work to execute them; if this is not possible, we should try
to cause their deaths.

•“It is prohibited for the Jєωs to praise the learning or virtue of a Christian,” etc.

In addition, just as the conciliar Church has not publicly demonstrated a concern for the Ukrainian Holodomor, so also has the good Bishop publicly not stressed any such concern.

The disparity in the concern of Catholic Church authorities for the killing of the Jєωs by the nαzιs compared to its near total lack of concern for the killing of many, if not more, innocent Christians by the communists is so great it is difficult to think it is not deliberate. It is surely unwarranted and, at the very least, questionable.

Zero concern for the salvation of souls

Furthermore, the preceding statements by conciliar Church authorities reveal an extremely callous disregard for the eternal welfare of the souls of Jєωs because the statements encourage Jєωs to deny the divinity of Christ and to not convert to the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation.

The statements are just one more example of the many conciliar Church teachings and actions which contradict the fundamental measure for evaluating all teachings and actions of Catholic Church authorities. The measure is the degree to which a teaching or action fulfills Christ’s purpose for establishing the Catholic Church, which is to give honor and glory to God and the salvation of souls. .

For more data on the Holodomor check here, here, here, here & here (See TIA link).

Robert Banaugh, Ph.D.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2012, 02:50:05 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

From TIA

h0Ɩ0cαųst & Holodomor

The Bishop’s statements contradict the de Fide Catholic teaching that the old covenant was superseded by Christ's coming on earth and his establishment of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the good Bishop is well aware the тαℓмυd, which is the work that contains the doctrines, laws and commentaries on Judaism made by the most prestigious rabbis throughout history, contains such teachings as: •“Whoever loves a Christian would hate his own creator;

•“Those who deny the teaching of Israel, particularly the followers of the
Nazarene, should be killed;

•“It is always a good work to execute them; if this is not possible, we should try
to cause their deaths.

•“It is prohibited for the Jєωs to praise the learning or virtue of a Christian,” etc.

It would always be nice if they can give some sources for these statements...

Quote

Zero concern for the salvation of souls

Furthermore, the preceding statements by conciliar Church authorities reveal an extremely callous disregard for the eternal welfare of the souls of Jєωs because the statements encourage Jєωs to deny the divinity of Christ and to not convert to the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation. [/color]

The statements are just one more example of the many conciliar Church teachings and actions which contradict the fundamental measure for evaluating all teachings and actions of Catholic Church authorities. The measure is the degree to which a teaching or action fulfills Christ’s purpose for establishing the Catholic Church, which is to give honor and glory to God and the salvation of souls. .

Maybe St. Bernard also did not care about the salvation of souls, then:

Esto, de Judaeis excusat te tempus: habent terminum suum qui praeveniri [al., praeteriri] non poterit. Plenitudinem gentium praeire oportet. Sed de ipsis gentibus quid respondes? Imo quid tua consideratio respondet tibi percunctanti sic? Quid visum est patribus ponere metam Evangelio, verbum suspendere fidei, donec infidelitas durat? Qua ratione, putamus, substitit velociter currens sermo? (Psal. CXLVII, 15.) quis primus inhibuit hunc salutarem cursum? Et illis causa forte quam nescimus, aut necessitas potuit obstitisse.

Nobis quae dissimulandi ratio est? Qua fiducia, qua conscientia Christum non vel offerimus eis qui non habent? An veritatem Dei in injustitia detinemus? Et quidem quandoque perveniat gentium plenitudo necesse est. (Consideratione, III/I, 2sq)

Maybe we should more ask ourselves, what the Doctor Mellifluus expounds just after the quoted passage: Are we waiting for the faith to fall from heaven upon them? Who ever believed by accident? How shall they believe without a preacher?

Besides that, the Holy Chair has made the general obligation of the Church very clear:

"the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men" (CCC 848)

further the declaration Dominus Jesu:

“solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith." (AAS 92, p. 742)

Further the lesser known Declaratio circa catholicam doctrinam de Ecclesia contra nonnullos errores hodiernos tuendam

"One is the Church, which after His Resurrection our Savior handed over to Peter as Shepherd (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to propagate and govern her (cf. Mt 18:18ff.) (and which) He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (cf. 1 Tm 3:15). And this Church of Christ, "constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in union with that Successor."(3) This declaration of the Second Vatican Council is illustrated by the same Council's statement that "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the general means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained,"(4) and that same Catholic Church "has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all the means of grace"(5) with which Christ wished to enhance His messianic community..." (AAS 65 [1973] 396-408)

or John Paul II.:

"[It is said] that Christians renounce guiding non-Christians to the way of the Gospel, refrain from proposing or encouraging conversion, and exclude the prospect of Baptism. Thus the way of salvation followed by each according to his own education and religious background would be respected (cf. RM 4).

But such a concept appears incompatible with Christ's mandate to the apostles (cf. Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15) handed down to the Church, and with the authentic ecclesiology to which the Second Vatican Council referred in order to show the obvious need for missionary activity. It is a question of several basic truths. God desires salvation for all. Jesus Christ is the "only Mediator," the one who "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5), since "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). "All must be converted to him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into him by baptism and into the Church which is his body. For Christ himself by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church" (AG 7).... The Church's traditional teaching illustrates the inconsistency and superficiality of a relativist and irenic attitude regarding the way of salvation in a religion different from that based on faith in Christ.....one cannot, in the name of these ways, slow down or abandon missionary activity.... missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity" (AG 7)." (General Audience, May 10, 1995)

further John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, AAS 83 (1991), 293 or Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, AAS 69 (1976)

Francisco · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2012, 06:44:47 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Incredulous
From TIA

h0Ɩ0cαųst & Holodomor

The Bishop’s statements contradict the de Fide Catholic teaching that the old covenant was superseded by Christ's coming on earth and his establishment of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the good Bishop is well aware the тαℓмυd, which is the work that contains the doctrines, laws and commentaries on Judaism made by the most prestigious rabbis throughout history, contains such teachings as: •“Whoever loves a Christian would hate his own creator;

•“Those who deny the teaching of Israel, particularly the followers of the
Nazarene, should be killed;

•“It is always a good work to execute them; if this is not possible, we should try
to cause their deaths.

•“It is prohibited for the Jєωs to praise the learning or virtue of a Christian,” etc.

It would always be nice if they can give some sources for these statements...

Quote
Zero concern for the salvation of souls

Furthermore, the preceding statements by conciliar Church authorities reveal an extremely callous disregard for the eternal welfare of the souls of Jєωs because the statements encourage Jєωs to deny the divinity of Christ and to not convert to the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation. [/color]

The statements are just one more example of the many conciliar Church teachings and actions which contradict the fundamental measure for evaluating all teachings and actions of Catholic Church authorities. The measure is the degree to which a teaching or action fulfills Christ’s purpose for establishing the Catholic Church, which is to give honor and glory to God and the salvation of souls. .

Maybe St. Bernard also did not care about the salvation of souls, then:

Esto, de Judaeis excusat te tempus: habent terminum suum qui praeveniri [al., praeteriri] non poterit. Plenitudinem gentium praeire oportet. Sed de ipsis gentibus quid respondes? Imo quid tua consideratio respondet tibi percunctanti sic? Quid visum est patribus ponere metam Evangelio, verbum suspendere fidei, donec infidelitas durat? Qua ratione, putamus, substitit velociter currens sermo? (Psal. CXLVII, 15.) quis primus inhibuit hunc salutarem cursum? Et illis causa forte quam nescimus, aut necessitas potuit obstitisse.

Nobis quae dissimulandi ratio est? Qua fiducia, qua conscientia Christum non vel offerimus eis qui non habent? An veritatem Dei in injustitia detinemus? Et quidem quandoque perveniat gentium plenitudo necesse est. (Consideratione, III/I, 2sq)

Maybe we should more ask ourselves, what the Doctor Mellifluus expounds just after the quoted passage: Are we waiting for the faith to fall from heaven upon them? Who ever believed by accident? How shall they believe without a preacher?

Besides that, the Holy Chair has made the general obligation of the Church very clear:

"the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men" (CCC 848)

further the declaration Dominus Jesu:

“solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith." (AAS 92, p. 742)

Further the lesser known Declaratio circa catholicam doctrinam de Ecclesia contra nonnullos errores hodiernos tuendam

"One is the Church, which after His Resurrection our Savior handed over to Peter as Shepherd (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to propagate and govern her (cf. Mt 18:18ff.) (and which) He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (cf. 1 Tm 3:15). And this Church of Christ, "constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in union with that Successor."(3) This declaration of the Second Vatican Council is illustrated by the same Council's statement that "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the general means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained,"(4) and that same Catholic Church "has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all the means of grace"(5) with which Christ wished to enhance His messianic community..." (AAS 65 [1973] 396-408)

or John Paul II.:

"[It is said] that Christians renounce guiding non-Christians to the way of the Gospel, refrain from proposing or encouraging conversion, and exclude the prospect of Baptism. Thus the way of salvation followed by each according to his own education and religious background would be respected (cf. RM 4).

But such a concept appears incompatible with Christ's mandate to the apostles (cf. Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15) handed down to the Church, and with the authentic ecclesiology to which the Second Vatican Council referred in order to show the obvious need for missionary activity. It is a question of several basic truths. God desires salvation for all. Jesus Christ is the "only Mediator," the one who "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5), since "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). "All must be converted to him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into him by baptism and into the Church which is his body. For Christ himself by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church" (AG 7).... The Church's traditional teaching illustrates the inconsistency and superficiality of a relativist and irenic attitude regarding the way of salvation in a religion different from that based on faith in Christ.....one cannot, in the name of these ways, slow down or abandon missionary activity.... missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity" (AG 7)." (General Audience, May 10, 1995)

further John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, AAS 83 (1991), 293 or Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, AAS 69 (1976)

And the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecuмenism also features in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)! A Google check will give the numbers....

Mea Culpa · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2012, 07:59:43 AM »

The Bishop’s statements contradict the de Fide Catholic teaching that the old covenant was superseded by Christ's coming on earth and his establishment of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the good Bishop is well aware the тαℓмυd, which is the work that contains the doctrines, laws and commentaries on Judaism made by the most prestigious rabbis throughout history, contains such teachings as: •“Whoever loves a Christian would hate his own creator;

•“Those who deny the teaching of Israel, particularly the followers of the
Nazarene, should be killed;

•“It is always a good work to execute them; if this is not possible, we should try
to cause their deaths.

•“It is prohibited for the Jєωs to praise the learning or virtue of a Christian,” etc. [/quote]

It would always be nice if they can give some sources for these statements...

It's been a long time since I read this, but those 3 points looks like a direct quote from:

http://www.тαℓмυdunmasked.com/

which was written by "[Author, Father I. B. Pranaitis]- Roman Catholic Priest; Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg."
*IMPRIMATUR: St. Petersburg, April 13, 1892

bowler · « **Reply #4 on:** November 21, 2012, 08:49:04 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Maybe St. Bernard also did not care about the salvation of souls, then:

Esto, de Judaeis excusat te tempus: habent terminum suum qui praeveniri [al., praeteriri] non poterit. Plenitudinem gentium praeire oportet. Sed de ipsis gentibus quid respondes? Imo quid tua consideratio respondet tibi percunctanti sic? Quid visum est patribus ponere metam Evangelio, verbum suspendere fidei, donec infidelitas durat? Qua ratione, putamus, substitit velociter currens sermo? (Psal. CXLVII, 15.) quis primus inhibuit hunc salutarem cursum? Et illis causa forte quam nescimus, aut necessitas potuit obstitisse.

Nobis quae dissimulandi ratio est? Qua fiducia, qua conscientia Christum non vel offerimus eis qui non habent? An veritatem Dei in injustitia detinemus? Et quidem quandoque perveniat gentium plenitudo necesse est. (Consideratione, III/I, 2sq)

Maybe we should more ask ourselves, what the Doctor Mellifluus expounds just after the quoted passage: Are we waiting for the faith to fall from heaven upon them? Who ever believed by accident? How shall they believe without a preacher?

It would be nice if you could give us a reponse in English. Then maybe we'd know what you are questioning/contributing.

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:01:12 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Besides that, the Holy Chair has made the general obligation of the Church very clear:.....

Pius X describing the modernists said that one one side they say something completely orthodox, then on another they completely say something heretical. They are pluralists.

The Jєωs today have been told by conciliar Rome and the Conferences of Catholic Bishops in all the countires, that they can be saved in their religion.
That is what the Jєωs have been told, and it is what they believe.

You are not dealing in reality. You have been fooled by double speak.

Besides, the article is more about the conciliar church not ever mentioning the Ukrainian Holodomor 7 million, than it is about the salvation of the Jєωs.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:20:53 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Maybe St. Bernard also did not care about the salvation of souls, then:

Esto, de Judaeis excusat te tempus: habent terminum suum qui praeveniri [al., praeteriri] non poterit. Plenitudinem gentium praeire oportet. Sed de ipsis gentibus quid respondes? Imo quid tua consideratio respondet tibi percunctanti sic? Quid visum est patribus ponere metam Evangelio, verbum suspendere fidei, donec infidelitas durat? Qua ratione, putamus, substitit velociter currens sermo? (Psal. CXLVII, 15.) quis primus inhibuit hunc salutarem cursum? Et illis causa forte quam nescimus, aut necessitas potuit obstitisse.

Nobis quae dissimulandi ratio est? Qua fiducia, qua conscientia Christum non vel offerimus eis qui non habent? An veritatem Dei in injustitia detinemus? Et quidem quandoque perveniat gentium plenitudo necesse est. (Consideratione, III/I, 2sq)

Maybe we should more ask ourselves, what the Doctor Mellifluus expounds just after the quoted passage: Are we waiting for the faith to fall from heaven upon them? Who ever believed by accident? How shall they believe without a preacher?

It would be nice if you could give us a reponse in English. Then maybe we'd know what you are questioning/contributing.

The full text can be read here: http://archive.org/details/bernarddeclirvau00bernuoft

But in any way, it is indispensable to have knowledge of Latin (and a little Greek cannot be wrong) in order to learn and discuss theology. Otherwise, one has no access to 99% of theological writings and also the detriment of inaccurate translations.

A traditionalist should have a very special appreciation for the Latin language, and if we wish to continue in the line of school theology, whose only lingua franca was Latin until the late 1960s, we should keep to the language of Cicero and Horace.

It was to Liberals who started to ban the Latin tongue from universities and seminaries, to the detriment of students, clergy and laity. How can one form an orthodox understanding of our holy faith, if we do not speak nor even understand the language of the ancients, the Fathers and scholastics?

Maybe it is worth to think about ones own contribution to theological discussion under the aspects of ones own formation in the classical languages, philosophy and theology. It surely changed my attitude a lot and let me better see my ineptitude and littleness, for [h]e shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets., Matthew 12,19.
But still I am frail, as my postings here demonstrate...the ascent of Mount Carmel is a long and steep road for me.

Quote

Besides, the article is more about the conciliar church not ever mentioning the Ukrainian Holodomor 7 million, than it is about the salvation of the Jєωs.

Sure, but this cannot be about "de fide" teaching. Anyway, John Paul II. mentions it very much in his Address to Ukrainians on 23 November 2003, on the 70th commemoration of the Holodomor, which can be easily found on the Internet.

subpallaeMariae · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2012, 10:01:21 AM »

I don't know if it is useful to rely on the inflammatory TIA website for our battle. SSPX is not their cause- Prof. Plinio is thier cause.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2012, 10:44:00 AM »

Quote from: pyrrhos

But in any way, it is indispensable to have knowledge of Latin (and a little Greek cannot be wrong) in order to learn and discuss theology. Otherwise, one has no access to 99% of theological writings and also the detriment of inaccurate translations.

Why don't you go hang out on a Latin language theology board then?

If you have a point to make, then don't be surprised when a translation is wanted.

Or maybe your point is to disparage Catholics who don't know Latin, while at the same time failing to clearly make your point?

At any rate, it's highly irritating. Is that your intention?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2012, 10:47:18 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Pius X describing the modernists said that one one side they say something completely orthodox

The lip service to orthodoxy is highly cynical and it cannot excuse them.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2012, 11:10:33 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Why don't you go hang out on a Latin language theology board then?

If you have a point to make, then don't be surprised when a translation is wanted.

Or maybe your point is to disparage Catholics who don't know Latin, while at the same time failing to clearly make your point?

At any rate, it's highly irritating. Is that your intention?

My point is, that arguing about a professing catholic contradicting the faith without having the necessary knowledge in the Catholic faith is absurd. Some of these absurdities that follow have been demonstrated in the "coin-operated sedevacantists"-thread.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2012, 11:16:36 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

My point is, that arguing about a professing catholic contradicting the faith without having the necessary knowledge in the Catholic faith is absurd.

It's not impossible to discuss the Catholic Faith without Latin. The claim that Catholic doctrine can only be discussed or learned in Latin is obviously false. Ideas are not dependent on Language.

Quote

Some of these absurdities that follow have been demonstrated in the "coin-operated sedevacantists"-thread.

Highly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2012, 11:37:44 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Pyrrhos
My point is, that arguing about a professing catholic contradicting the faith without having the necessary knowledge in the Catholic faith is absurd.

It's not impossible to discuss the Catholic Faith without Latin. The claim that Catholic doctrine can only be discussed or learned in Latin is obviously false. Ideas are not dependent on Language.

Obviously ideas can be grasp in any language. But when the loci theologici are in the realm of Greek and Latin, it is impossible to get hold of them without an adequate knowledge of the same.
It is no coincidence that school theology and the usage of ecclesiastical Latin fell in the same time, as they are necessary codependent.

VCR · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2012, 12:04:30 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: Pyrrhos
My point is, that arguing about a professing catholic contradicting the faith without having the necessary knowledge in the Catholic faith is absurd.

It's not impossible to discuss the Catholic Faith without Latin. The claim that Catholic doctrine can only be discussed or learned in Latin is obviously false. Ideas are not dependent on Language.

Obviously ideas can be grasp in any language. But when the loci theologici are in the realm of Greek and Latin, it is impossible to get hold of them without an adequate knowledge of the same.
It is no coincidence that school theology and the usage of ecclesiastical Latin fell in the same time, as they are necessary codependent.

In other words we should all pay our due respects to this armchair pontificating "language expert".
We all bow before and adore your linguistic charade even though it has very little to do with the topic at hand. Go and show off to someone more gullible.

Sunbeam · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2012, 12:39:00 PM »

Quote from: Responding to Pyrrhos, VCR

In other words we should all pay our due respects to this armchair pontificating "language expert". We all bow before and adore your linguistic charade even though it has very little to do with the topic at hand. Go and show off to someone more gullible.

Whilst Pyrrhos would have done better to have provided translations of the texts that he had quoted (since not everyone in this forum has had the advantage of an education in the classical languages), there was no need for this sarcastic contribution from VCR.