Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on May 28, 2016, 06:39:34 PM
-
You might wonder where this thread came from --
The answer is simple. I had to delete another thread of nonsense from Greg Taylor. I want everyone to know where I stand on such nonsense. That is the only reason I'm bringing up Fr. Pfeiffer on purpose.
I am well aware of all the slander and calumny of Fr. Pfeiffer's group/cult against good priests and bishops.
This includes, but is not limited to, calumnies/lies against Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, Fr. Zendejas, Fr. Garcia, Fr. Voigt, Fr. Abraham, CathInfo itself, and others.
In the list of those whose trash isn't welcome here, I include all those in Fr. Pfeiffer's virtual cult: Pablo, Maccabees, Greg Taylor/the Recusant, as well as some posters on Cor Mariae, ABL Forum 2.1, etc. I also include Fr. Cardozo and any other priests who hate Bishop Williamson and who have hitched their wagon to Boston, KY.
They will say and do anything which seems to help their cause -- even if that "help" largely consists of TEARING DOWN the mainstream Resistance, in order to turn back the clock to 2012 when Fr. Pfeiffer was king of the Resistance.
These poor deluded souls, in their bitter zeal, feel that by stabbing Bishop Williamson, they give worship to God. (John 16:2)
Because it's true that in the early days of the Resistance, Fr. Pfeiffer was all we had. Either he hadn't fallen yet, or we were blissfully unaware of any brewing problems. Those were the "good old days".
But Father is now (quite maliciously) trying to DESTROY 95% of the Resistance, with the aim of making all resistant Catholics desperate for his ministrations -- however sporadic or slipshod -- and cause us to beg for his help, even if that means dealing with evil men like Pablo.
All I can say to Fr. Pfeiffer is: YOU WISH!
If I had a choice between Fr. Pfeiffer and staying home, I think I'd go with the latter at this point. He's just gone too far. His spiritual life is practically zilch, his bitter zeal has reached fever pitch, and the insanity of his operation has also gone off the charts. Especially the actions of Pablo. Just read the testimony of Constance!
-
So true Matthew, you put it very well!
These are the people who think they are higher and more knowledgeable than Resistance Bishops and Priests. They often write and speak with lack of basic respect for Resistance Bishops and Priests who have fought ‘tooth and nail’ for many decades to uphold Holy Catholic Tradition. They call names and preach hatred of other ‘resistance’ members who do not ‘toe the line’ and conform to their views.
They twist the facts, misinterpret and modify the truth (intentionally or sometimes in ignorance) to suite their own divisive agenda. They are often slow to grasp reality when warned time and time again (Pablo fiasco is one such example), they are often late to realize that many of their accusations of the Bishops and some Priests are completely baseless, yet they seldom recant, instead; they continue to promote their hatred and lack of charity to prove their point.
We need to pray in a special way that these people STOP their NONSENSE and STOP breaking up the RESISTANCE!
-
I think the moral of this story is "The love of money is the root of all evil."
-
I wonder how the pfeifferite cultists will deal with this. Ignore it, I suppose, like the Wrecusant does of anything awkward, attacking everyone else as the best form of defense. Their arrogance must blind them so much.
If any pfeifferite has come to their senses in recent months and left the cult, it would be interesting to hear from them.
God have mercy on them all.
-
I am well aware of all the slander and calumny of Fr. Pfeiffer's group/cult against good priests and bishops.
This includes, but is not limited to, calumnies/lies against Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, Fr. Zendejas, Fr. Garcia, Fr. Voigt, Fr. Abraham, CathInfo itself, and others.
In the list of those whose trash isn't welcome here, I include all those in Fr. Pfeiffer's virtual cult: Pablo, Maccabees, Greg Taylor/the Recusant, as well as some posters on Cor Mariae, ABL Forum 2.1, etc. I also include Fr. Cardozo and any other priests who hate Bishop Williamson and who have hitched their wagon to Boston, KY.
They will say and do anything which seems to help their cause -- even if that "help" largely consists of TEARING DOWN the mainstream Resistance, in order to turn back the clock to 2012 when Fr. Pfeiffer was king of the Resistance.
These poor deluded souls, in their bitter zeal, feel that by stabbing Bishop Williamson, they give worship to God. (John 16:2)
Because it's true that in the early days of the Resistance, Fr. Pfeiffer was all we had. Either he hadn't fallen yet, or we were blissfully unaware of any brewing problems. Those were the "good old days".
But Father is now (quite maliciously) trying to DESTROY 95% of the Resistance, with the aim of making all resistant Catholics desperate for his ministrations -- however sporadic or slipshod -- and cause us to beg for his help, even if that means dealing with evil men like Pablo.
All I can say to Fr. Pfeiffer is: YOU WISH!
If I had a choice between Fr. Pfeiffer and staying home, I think I'd go with the latter at this point. He's just gone too far. His spiritual life is practically zilch, his bitter zeal has reached fever pitch, and the insanity of his operation has also gone off the charts. Especially the actions of Pablo. Just read the testimony of Constance!
I stand with you on this issue Matthew.
-
Again, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
The direction Bp. Williamson and his entourage are pursuing ostensibly in the name of tradition is only one way. I remember saying the same thing about ABL in the 80s although experienced old hands tell me he was pursuing many directions at the same time!
Personalising movements runs the risk of being tied to the caprices and quirks of its leaders but I am sure there are many wise heads that refuse to get attached to personalities and accept their services within limits. Being somewhat detached pays off in the end.
If the scene in the UK is representative of affairs both the SSPX and Bp. W are leaving the faithful in a state of confusion. I, like Gregory Taylor, counsel them to rely on neither and await some improvement. The bishop gives precious little thought to his own kind because he is refused the adulation he receives elsewhere. Shepherdless, we soldier on without too much drama.
-
Again, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
The direction Bp. Williamson and his entourage are pursuing ostensibly in the name of tradition is only one way. I remember saying the same thing about ABL in the 80s although experienced old hands tell me he was pursuing many directions at the same time!
Personalising movements runs the risk of being tied to the caprices and quirks of its leaders but I am sure there are many wise heads that refuse to get attached to personalities and accept their services within limits. Being somewhat detached pays off in the end.
If the scene in the UK is representative of affairs both the SSPX and Bp. W are leaving the faithful in a state of confusion. I, like Gregory Taylor, counsel them to rely on neither and await some improvement. The bishop gives precious little thought to his own kind because he is refused the adulation he receives elsewhere. Shepherdless, we soldier on without too much drama.
Christian Charity demands some principles ….
Quote from AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV -- APPEALING FOR PEACE
“As regards matters in which without harm to faith or Morals in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to Morals”.
Link.. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum.html
You are entitled to your opinion, however, but neither you nor Grey Taylor have the moral authority to spread and write hatred towards Bishops and some Priests of the ‘Resistance’. It is unacceptable to show disrespect to Clergy just because you do not fully agree with all that they say.
-
If the scene in the UK is representative of affairs both the SSPX and Bp. W are leaving the faithful in a state of confusion.
I haven't noticed anyone causing confusion in the UK except Gregory Taylor and a small number of eccentric sedes.
I, like Gregory Taylor, counsel them to rely on neither [the SSPX and Bp. W.] and await some improvement.
So Wessex admits he is adding to the confusion and working against Bishop Williamson.
The bishop gives precious little thought to his own kind because he is refused the adulation he receives elsewhere.
What a load of rubbish. Is this an example of the sort of 'counsel' Wessex gives?
Shepherdless, we soldier on without too much drama.
We don't regard ourselves as 'shepherdless', Wessex. BTW do you attend any Resistance Masses?
-
Rapha
Wessex is a grumpy ole, cynical home-aloner who is full of his own importance and looks down on everyone else.
-
You are entitled to your opinion, however, but neither you nor Grey Taylor have the moral authority to spread and write hatred towards Bishops and some Priests of the ‘Resistance’. It is unacceptable to show disrespect to Clergy just because you do not fully agree with all that they say.
We have to speak as we find. Bishops and priests today no longer have that automatic right to be believed and followed. In fact, they need to prove themselves; pious words alone are not enough to allay the suspicions of a badly let down laity.
In the absence of bishops and priests that are off on their own 'trips', we rely on what few resources we have. If this is a crisis ..... I see it as an opportunity ..... we at least can get back to basics and attempt to shed the religious dross of centuries. Hotel rooms can put a different perspective on things!
-
So let me see if I understand...I need to declare myself by selecting one of the following:
a) +Fellay
b) +Williamson
c) Pfeiffer
d) Sanborn
e) The Pope in Hiding
Have I left any "traditionalist" leader out? Thanks but no thanks. I will remain Catholic, strive to grow in Faith and Virtue, take valid sacraments where I can from those who are not morally corrupt.
(And in regards to the boxing match between +W and Pfeiffer it's rather obvious who "floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee". I put my paltry sum on the bishop, liberal or not).
-
If this is a crisis ..... I see it as an opportunity ..... we at least can get back to basics and attempt to shed the religious dross of centuries. Hotel rooms can put a different perspective on things!
Are you an anti-clerical, an iconoclast (statue smasher), a protestant, or what?
Your words, far from resonating with me or ringing true, instead shock and horrify me.
"religious dross of centuries"?
St. Pius X never mentioned any religious dross that needed to be shed. If the Crisis has lasted centuries as you claim, then St. Pius X was alive during it, and he (a saintly pope) certainly should have addressed the "Church triumphalism" and various accretions that you deplore!
I guess you want to go back to a simpler form of Christianity, like in the first few centuries?
-
You are entitled to your opinion, however, but neither you nor Grey Taylor have the moral authority to spread and write hatred towards Bishops and some Priests of the ‘Resistance’. It is unacceptable to show disrespect to Clergy just because you do not fully agree with all that they say.
We have to speak as we find. Bishops and priests today no longer have that automatic right to be believed and followed. In fact, they need to prove themselves; pious words alone are not enough to allay the suspicions of a badly let down laity.
In the absence of bishops and priests that are off on their own 'trips', we rely on what few resources we have. If this is a crisis ..... I see it as an opportunity ..... we at least can get back to basics and attempt to shed the religious dross of centuries. Hotel rooms can put a different perspective on things!
This is poison -- utter nonsense. The so-called dross is the Faith, for there never was a lot of Protestant ''basics'' as the Modernists lie -- the Church, storied in ritual and splendour, has always been so and she grows rather more splendid, more majestic, more filled with physical beauty as the centuries pass -- never changing, always the same, but given new Saints and new private Revelations and new basilicae.
Please do not imagine I find questioning the judgement of a Prince of the Church anything more or less than torture.
-
If this is a crisis ..... I see it as an opportunity ..... we at least can get back to basics and attempt to shed the religious dross of centuries. Hotel rooms can put a different perspective on things!
Are you an anti-clerical, an iconoclast (statue smasher), a protestant, or what?
Your words, far from resonating with me or ringing true, instead shock and horrify me.
"religious dross of centuries"?
St. Pius X never mentioned any religious dross that needed to be shed. If the Crisis has lasted centuries as you claim, then St. Pius X was alive during it, and he (a saintly pope) certainly should have addressed the "Church triumphalism" and various accretions that you deplore!
I guess you want to go back to a simpler form of Christianity, like in the first few centuries?
I am here in danger of echoing some of the sentiments of Bp. Williamson! He is prominent in pointing out the artificial world of 50s Catholicism and its stark contradictions. My parents were certainly living these contradictions to the point of having one set of beliefs on Sunday and another set on other days. I was growing up thinking that the Church on the surface merely proposed an ideal way of life which could never be achieved nor needed to. Confession was becoming a convenient gateway linking both worlds.
I would opt for the triumph of simplicity where a crisis wonderfully concentrates the mind on what is most important and easily discards what is not. Again, we are told we are living in remarkable times which is forcing us to concentrate on the basics. And moving away from structures and titles may be part of the bishop's thinking where top-heavy institutions steal the limelight from the faith. I could be talking of an English approach where we are less inclined to go overboard when it comes to expression ..... unlike our continental and American cousins!
-
I could be talking of an English approach where we are less inclined to go overboard when it comes to expression ..... unlike our continental and American cousins!
Wow you could be a great role model for English silence.
-
wessex,
I am here in danger of echoing some of the sentiments of Bp. Williamson! He is prominent in pointing out the artificial world of 50s Catholicism and its stark contradictions. My parents were certainly living these contradictions to the point of having one set of beliefs on Sunday and another set on other days. I was growing up thinking that the Church on the surface merely proposed an ideal way of life which could never be achieved nor needed to. Confession was becoming a convenient gateway linking both worlds.
The 40's and, 50's, were the time when Merchantile Atlanticism came to dominate the older cultures of old Europe and Asia dividing the world of men, and quickly drawing them away from the reality the Faith and into unbridled materialism where one's religion served as an adornment rather than a foundation in their lives.
The 60's were the tipping point and this anti-Christ orientation has been gaining ground since then, heading towards it conclusion. I have no doubt that we are in an end times war with it. It carries all of the necessary characteristics of anti-Chist within it.
Few today, can carry on with life's necessities without bearing its mark and enduring its dictates.
It is abundantly clear that the conciliar revolution was its vanguard within the religious world. Even most non-Catholic sects and Uniates have been corrupted by the conciliar presence. They are all collapsing together now, as they all come under the regime of the lust for commerce and power. Vatican Bank, SSPX, Mega Church's, etc.
-
Dear Moderator,
I wish to post this reply from Fr.Paul Kramer for the purpose of calling to your attention the treatment of a good Resistance Priest such as Fr.Paul Kramer has been abusively receiving from Mr.Gerard from FE. And I wish also to point out that we become accessory to the SIN by turning a blind eye.
After reading the reply of Fr.Paul Kramer, one can inescapably conclude that Mr.Gerard from FE has to be Banned from CathInfo for committing a GRAVE Sin against a priest in good standing.
Fr.Paul Kramer's letter 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 " . . .?
-
This is an updated reply from Fr.Kramer. He wanted to add a few things. Updated post below, Fr.Kramer's response is in color Blue:
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 " . . .?
-
wessex,
I am here in danger of echoing some of the sentiments of Bp. Williamson! He is prominent in pointing out the artificial world of 50s Catholicism and its stark contradictions. My parents were certainly living these contradictions to the point of having one set of beliefs on Sunday and another set on other days. I was growing up thinking that the Church on the surface merely proposed an ideal way of life which could never be achieved nor needed to. Confession was becoming a convenient gateway linking both worlds.
The 40's and, 50's, were the time when Merchantile Atlanticism came to dominate the older cultures of old Europe and Asia dividing the world of men, and quickly drawing them away from the reality the Faith and into unbridled materialism where one's religion served as an adornment rather than a foundation in their lives.
The 60's were the tipping point and this anti-Christ orientation has been gaining ground since then, heading towards it conclusion. I have no doubt that we are in an end times war with it. It carries all of the necessary characteristics of anti-Chist within it.
Few today, can carry on with life's necessities without bearing its mark and enduring its dictates.
It is abundantly clear that the conciliar revolution was its vanguard within the religious world. Even most non-Catholic sects and Uniates have been corrupted by the conciliar presence. They are all collapsing together now, as they all come under the regime of the lust for commerce and power. Vatican Bank, SSPX, Mega Church's, etc.
Having religion as an engaging accessory in life did apply to both rich and poor. There was a kind of democracy here where all could be involved notwithstanding echoes of the class model in the form of hierarchies at the high church end. We could with some justification say that the Church was at one time an accessory of the Italian aristocracy!
The expansion and ambitions of the middle-classes I suppose tested the resilience of the Church on earth. Yes, materialism was going to be the first priority even among seemingly devout Christians and churches were framing their activities to accommodate this reality. So, we now have the churches we deserve without too much objection on our part. The job is to get back to something that is better than materialism; something the rich cannot buy and something that eases the hardship of the poor. And the middle-classes have to persuaded that nirvana means more that a good pension!.
-
Indeed, when the Church became associated with the merchant class early on, it signaled the coming of all manner of problems over the many many centuries to come. More than a few of the worst popes were of this class.
Bringing business into the sanctuary is as unnatural as buggery.
The Menzingen elitists empire and the Vatican bank of Pacelli are modern examples of this.
Rome is now rife with both usury and bum bandits.
-
Are there any priests left out there who can defend The Church and himself with grace and charity and leave the name-calling on the school yard?
-
We need to pray for our priests. It's becoming more and more evident that the devil attacks priests unrelentingly. We need pious priests.