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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7

Author Topic: How Low SSPX has Fallen inviting this corrupter of innocense to speak !  (Read 6344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: How Low SSPX has Fallen inviting this corrupter of innocense to speak !
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2019, 08:28:05 PM »
Probably technically off topic but does anyone have a source on why Theology of the Body itself is problematic?  I've seen Novus Ordo Watch critique it, but I don't know much about it.

BTW this video disturbed me.  Yeah, even me.  I'm bothered that the SSPX would promote this guy.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: How Low SSPX has Fallen inviting this corrupter of innocense to speak !
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2019, 08:56:20 PM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 01, 2019, 08:28:05 PM
BTW this video disturbed me.  Yeah, even me.  I'm bothered that the SSPX would promote this guy.

Perfectly logical.  

The SSPX is demonstrating to Rome that:

1) There “is no rejection (ie., of conciliarism) in their hearts;”

2) That they can play well with the conciliarists in the sandbox;

3) That their cult dupes are so lobotomized that they will not merely refrain from complaining about Fr. Kilcawley (demonstrating that they too have “no rejection in their hearts”); that they will not merely attend such a conference; that they will actually defend Kilkawley against those who would express concern;

4) They have total mind control over their dupes, and things will be much easier in 2020 than they were in 2012.

Conclusion: You should let us sign on the dotted line now!  We even have biritual priests permanently manning our parishes, and the backlash is so minimal that word didn’t leak out to the internet for a whole year!
Logged

Offline cosmas

Re: How Low SSPX has Fallen inviting this corrupter of innocense to speak !
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2019, 11:15:41 PM »
This reminds me of the Fight against sex-ed being brought into the catholic school system down south. I was told that the diocese was bringing it in because of the Aids Crisis . Bishop Belivaqua was supposedly pushing it in all the catholic schools. It was brought in to us parishoners as part of the religious curriculum . My child was the only one in the school that was kept out of the class. It was a Planned Parenthood Program put together for the catholic school system. We eventually left after we saw we weren't getting anywhere with no support from fellow parishoners or the N.O. church itself. This is what SSPX is heading into if they rejoin Apostate Rome Along with all the other abuses.
Logged

Offline donkath

Re: How Low SSPX has Fallen inviting this corrupter of innocense to speak !
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2019, 02:43:42 AM »
Pope Francis Extract:
"What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it's not it ... True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: 'This is your sin, and I will sin again'. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. "
(Emphasis added) Source

_____________________________


In the Church many have their hands in their hair, because things that have never been seen are happening. There have been popes of all kinds in two thousand years, but a pope had never happened in the church who, in the homily of the Mass, utters phrases that - in the mouth of anyone else - would be considered blasphemy. The otherriers, for example, pope Bergoglio, in Santa Marta, came up with an expression that must have frozen the listeners (even if then nobody has the courage to say anything).

Commenting - in a totally absurd way - on the biblical passage of the serpent raised by Moses in the desert (Numbers 21, 4-9), he affirmed that Jesus "became sin, made himself a devil, a serpent for us". Textual. But how can we say that Jesus "became a devil"?

Jesus, for Christian doctrine, took upon himself the sins of all, paying for everyone as a sacrificial lamb without blemish, so that St. Paul writes: "He who had not known sin, God treated him as sin in our favor, because we we could become God's righteousness through him "(2 Cor 5:21).

But to say that Jesus "became a devil" is something completely different (with a gnostic flavor). The Son of God became man to redeem men, he did not become a devil to redeem the devils, who, I remember, are totally connoted by the inextinguishable hatred of God (it is unimaginable for a Pope to say such a thing about Jesus).

Lost - There is now a long series of sortie of this kind with which Bergoglio has long bombed the poor flock of increasingly disconcerted and bewildered Christians. To Eugenio Scalfari he declared that "there is no Catholic God". On 16 June 2016, opening the Conference of the Diocese of Rome, in the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano, he came out stating that Jesus, in the episode of the adulteress, "is a bit of a fool". Then he added that Jesus - always in the episode in which he saved the woman from stoning - "has failed towards morality" (this text too). Finally, even that Jesus was not "clean" (it is not known that he meant).

Add to this the "magisterium of gestures", such as the fact that in greeting the faithful he never makes with the hand the sign of the cross, or his obstinate refusal to kneel before the tabernacle and before Jesus the Eucharist (while he kneels in a whole series of other occasions in which there is no Eucharist).

Various other shots could be added, above all on questions concerning morals, for example always in Scalfari he said that «each of us has his own vision of the Good and also of the Evil. We must incite him to proceed towards what he thinks is Good "(a perfect manifesto of relativism, the end of Catholicism).

But what is most striking is the progressiveness of the increasingly unheard-of statements about Jesus, culminating in the sentence of the day before yesterday ("he became a devil"). What explanations can be found? The first that comes to mind is theological ignorance. True, Pope Bergoglio is not culturally equipped and is one of the few people who came to the cardinalate and then to the papacy without a doctorate in theology. But above all, if one is so unprepared in theology and so imprudent as to make declarations on the verge of blasphemy, it is good that he does not hold the highest office (even doctrinal) of the Church because it would be like putting a boy, who does not even know how to drive a car , to pilot a Boeing. Or at least it is good that you do not speak in arm.

Secondly, the lack of theological qualifications does not explain such disconcerting statements, because one can take any parish priest of Christianity who has only done the seminary (without other titles), and certainly will never say such things. Not even one who simply attended the Catechism. The fact is that Bergoglio literally theorized "incomplete thought". And those who continue to have a solid thought are disqualified as doctrinaire, fundamentalist and rigorous. He declared this in an interview with Father Spadaro criticizing the past learned of the Jesuits: "epochs (in which) in the company" he said "a closed, rigid, more instructive-ascetic than mystical thought was lived". Then in Evangelii Gaudium he took it upon "those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances" (n. 40). And finally he wrote: "Sometimes, listening to a completely orthodox language, what the faithful receive, because of the language they use and understand, is something that does not correspond to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ" (n. 41).

Today we have the first pope who - instead of being the Custodian of doctrinal orthodoxy - criticizes the "completely orthodox language". According to some, he does it to justify the goodies he says and wants to continue to spread. But this stubborn will, which has been constant for four years now, suggests that there is a systematic decision to deconstruct Catholic doctrine or at least subject it to such delegitimization as to make the idea pass, in the Christian people, that everyone can say, think and believe what he wants. It is the empire of relativism. Indeed a Barnum Circus. But, perhaps, to fully understand what is happening, it is good to remember the "dramatic struggle" in the Church, of which he spoke, a year ago, at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Msgr. Georg Gaenswein, secretary of Benedict XVI, about the 2005 Conclave, which led to the election of card. Ratzinger, to whom the then card was opposed Bergoglio, supported by progressives.

Clash - Gaenswein evoked precisely the Conclave of April 2005 "from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, came out elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called" Salt Party of the Earth " (Salt of Earth Party) around cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called St. Gall Group around cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O 'Connor () The election was certainly the result also of a clash, the key of which had almost provided Ratzinger himself as cardinal dean, in the historic homily of 18 April 2005 in St. Peter's; and precisely there where "a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and leaves only its own ego and desires as its last measure" had contrasted another measure: "the Son of God and true man" like "the measure of true humanism "". Gaenswein then added that at present the mentality that Benedict XVI had opposed is prevailing and "the" dictatorship of relativism "has long been expressed in an overwhelming way through the many channels of new media that could barely be imagined in 2005" . Words that make us understand what drama is going on inside the Church today. One of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, Robert Spaemann, a personal friend of Benedict XVI, thundered some time ago on Die Tagespost with an article with an eloquent title: "Even in the Church there is a limit to tolerability".

Another important Catholic philosopher, Josef Seifert, a collaborator of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, intervened with very harsh criticism, which motivated him thus: «the Pope is not infallible if he does not speak ex cathedra. Various Popes (like Formosus and Honorius I) were condemned for heresy. And it is our holy duty - out of love and mercy towards so many souls - to criticize our bishops and even our dear Pope, if they deviate from the truth and if their mistakes damage the Church and souls ». Such an explosive situation in the Church had never been seen.

Antonio Socci

..


Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: How Low SSPX has Fallen inviting this corrupter of innocense to speak !
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2019, 09:38:08 AM »
Here's a fictitious question and answer between me (LT) and Bp. Fellay (BF) about the Novus Ordo "priest" Kilcawley giving a lecture at an SSPX Conference on Family. :

LT: How is it possible that you Bp. Fellay are going to allow this perverted, theology of the body trash spreader to speak at an SSPX family conference (show him examples of what he has taught)?

BF: He is not giving a lecture on Theology of the Body, why are you calumniating against the good man, his subject has nothing to do with theology of the body, he is giving a lecture on the dangers of the internet.

LT: Well, if that is your mindset, why don't you invite Bp. Williamson to lecture on how the ladies should dress?

BF: Bp. Williamson is our adversary, why would we invite him?

LT: First, because he is your brother bishop, and most of all, because he does not make a living from spreading the immoral filth that this so-called priest Kilcawley does? I think you are one confused man to invite the likes of a Kilcawley, and call him a good man, while at the same time saying that you would not invite Bp. Willamson because he is your adversary. It is this Kilcawley who is your real adversary, and you are bringing him to teach (poison) your flock? This is very telling. Don't be surprised if everyone walks out of his conference or that few attend your conference at all.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
« previous next »