Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ecclesia Militans on June 01, 2014, 05:51:29 PM

Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Ecclesia Militans on June 01, 2014, 05:51:29 PM
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/06/01/the-recusant-issue-17-june-2014/
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 02, 2014, 05:54:45 PM
Quote from: The Recusant
Following up on the question of the recent so-called “canonisations,” please remember to ask yourself the following question. Has
your local SSPX properly condemned them? Has he made it clear that John-Paul II and John XXIII are not saints, and why they can-not be Saints? If not, why not?

We have heard much talk about the canoni-sations being “problematic”, and so forth. But what does that mean in real terms? Where does that leave us? Does that mean that you just don’t like them being canon-ised, even though you accept that they are so? Grumbling and hand-wringing aside, where is the simple message for the simple man? Are JPII and John XXIII Saints, yes or no?


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.

How can the society do something that the Church thoughout her entire history has never dared do?  The Church reserves all judgment to God.



Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Centroamerica on June 02, 2014, 06:26:21 PM
Quote from: peterp


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.



What about Martin Luther or Joseph Stalin?

Why not canonize everyone, even Buddah, they you can pray to Buddah and claim that the Church never condemned him to hell.


The logic of the Novus ordos behooves me..


Go pray to Judas then.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 02, 2014, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/06/01/the-recusant-issue-17-june-2014/


Ahh!  Another refreshing voice from the wilderness.  The world would not be the same without TheRecusant, a most noble work!  Whataya say we have a peek at what the deluded Modernist petwerp is so worked up about?  Hmmm?


.
.
.

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR:


Dear Reader,

Following up on the question of the recent so-called “canonisations,” please remember to ask yourself the following question(s):  Has your local SSPX properly condemned them?  Has he made it clear that John-Paul II and John XXIII are not saints, and why they cannot be Saints? If not, why not?

We have heard much talk about the canonisations being “problematic”, and so forth.  But what does that mean in real terms?  Where does that leave us?  Does that mean that you just don’t like them being canonised, even though you accept that they are so?  Grumbling and hand-wringing aside, where is the simple message for the simple man?  Are JPII and John XXIII Saints, yes or no?

And if, as it seems, this latest modernist abomination has come and gone with little more than a moan of discontent from “the world of Tradition,” is this not just one more rather significant ‘line-in-the-sand’ which has been crossed?  And if one fails to act whenever such a line is crossed, what was the point of drawing it in the first place?  Will there ever be a line drawn by “the good” priests and faithful (the ’internal resistance’) which will not simply be re-drawn elsewhere the moment it is crossed?  Are a couple of us correct in recalling that a certain District Superior, not so very long ago, indicated to us that these canonisations would for him be the line-in-the-sand?  And yet, that being so, how has he acted now that those ‘canonisations’ have taken place?  In what way is his situation different from the way it was, say, six months or a year ago?  Perhaps our memories are deceiving us.

Either way, we can rest assured that this will not be the last, nor the nastiest insult to be hurled at God by the conciliar sect.  There will be more in due course.  And whilst it is possible to deceive most of the people most of the time, God will not allow there to be nobody left on earth as a witness.

That is why a Catholic resistance exists, and will exist. Even if, in ten years time, you and I and all the priests we know between us had lost the Faith and lapsed (perish the thought!), there would still be a Resistance.  God would find someone and raise them up.  People may come and go, of that I have no doubt, but the Resistance is necessary and it is here to stay.  To the extent that it is about principles and not personalities, the future of the Resistance is secure.

The start of this month of June marks the anniversary of many of us deciding to leave the SSPX, a decision which to this day we do not regret one bit.  Over the past year we have had some disappointments and some frustrations, but also a great many consolations.  Beyond that, one must try not to see the situation only in terms of tangible benefits received:  As Fr. Chazal points out elsewhere in this issue, there can be a time when we are called on to confess the Faith, for: “When the Catholic Faith is attacked there is no other remedy than confessing it.”

And furthermore, that “...those who burn out gradually lose the sense of the confession of the Faith.” There is a great danger in allowing oneself to lose the Faith slowly, by degrees. Therefore, if we have one thing above all to be grateful for to Our Lord, it is that He allows us to confess His Integral Truth, and by doing so, prevent ourselves from succuмbing to the slow process of spiritual lobotomy which is affecting so many erstwhile colleagues.


It was probably the "spiritual lobotomy" part, because it strikes too close to home.  What other than spiritual lobotomy could be the precursor to this kind of talk? :  "This is absolutely ridiculous... The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven."  Yes, petwerp, absolutely.

I've told Modernists this very thing many times:  You have 12 decent and holy Apostles to choose from, 13 if you count THE Apostle, and you choose whom?  Judas Iscariot?  That speaks volumes.


.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 02, 2014, 07:41:01 PM
.

FYI there have been many exorcisms where one of the demons that possessed a person upon divulging his name, said (the only time a devil can be believed, when under the power of Jesus to speak the truth in the process of exorcism) that his name is Judas Iscariot.

Maybe you need an exorcist, petwerp.


.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 05, 2014, 06:01:34 PM
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: peterp


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.



What about Martin Luther or Joseph Stalin?

Why not canonize everyone, even Buddah, they you can pray to Buddah and claim that the Church never condemned him to hell.


The logic of the Novus ordos behooves me..


Go pray to Judas then.


Centroamerica, please point me to one declaration by the Catholic Church that person X is not in heaven. Just one from anytime during her 2000 year history.

And if you cannot (which you can't so don't bother wasting your time) explain why the SSPX is now expect to do something the Church herself has never done.

Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Mithrandylan on June 05, 2014, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: The Recusant
Following up on the question of the recent so-called “canonisations,” please remember to ask yourself the following question. Has
your local SSPX properly condemned them? Has he made it clear that John-Paul II and John XXIII are not saints, and why they can-not be Saints? If not, why not?

We have heard much talk about the canoni-sations being “problematic”, and so forth. But what does that mean in real terms? Where does that leave us? Does that mean that you just don’t like them being canon-ised, even though you accept that they are so? Grumbling and hand-wringing aside, where is the simple message for the simple man? Are JPII and John XXIII Saints, yes or no?


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.

How can the society do something that the Church thoughout her entire history has never dared do?  The Church reserves all judgment to God.





It's pretty obvious that Judas is in Hell from Christ's words.  Unless it would be better to not have been born than to be in Heaven?
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: shin on June 05, 2014, 06:40:18 PM
'But if our Lord do a new thing, that the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, & all things that pertain to them, and they descend quick into Hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed our Lord. '

Numbers 16:30

'As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and unnatural vice, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.'

Jude 7

'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.'

Luke 16:22-26

'Penance Proved To Be A Virtue

That this inward penance is, as we have already said, a virtue, the various commands which have been given regarding it clearly show; for the law commands only those actions that are virtuous.

Furthermore, no one can deny that it is a virtue to be sorrowful at the time, in the manner, and to the extent which are required. To regulate sorrow in this manner belongs to the virtue of penance. Some conceive a sorrow which bears no proportion to their crimes. Nay, there are some, says Solomon, who are glad when they have done evil. Others, on the contrary, give themselves to such melancholy and grief, as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation. Such, perhaps, was the condition of Cain when he exclaimed: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body. Penance, therefore, considered as a virtue, assists us in restraining within the bounds of moderation our sense of sorrow.'

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism)

'The Pope, St. Leo the Great, says that the thieves were crucified, one on either side of Him, so that in the very appearance of the scene of His suffering there might be set forth that distinction which should be made in the judgment of each one of us. St. Augustine has the same thought. "The cross itself," he says, " was a tribunal. In the centre was the judge. To the one side a man who believed and was set free, to the other side a scoffer and he was condemned." Already there was made clear the final fate of the living and the dead, the one class placed at His right, the other on His left.'
St. Thomas Aquinas


'Poor Judas! Above seventeen hundred years have elapsed since he has been in Hell, and his Hell is still only beginning.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

'Three sects take their origin from Valentine. . . The second sect were called Cainites : These venerated as saints all those who the Scripture tells us were damned -- as Cain, Core, the inhabitants of Sodom, and especially Judas Iscariot.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, 'History of Heresies'

. . . 100 + Quotations on Hell. (http://saintsquotes.net/Selection%20-%20Hell.html)
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Magna opera Domini on June 05, 2014, 08:07:57 PM
Good work, shin!
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: MarylandTrad on June 05, 2014, 08:33:36 PM
Quote from: shin
'But if our Lord do a new thing, that the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, & all things that pertain to them, and they descend quick into Hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed our Lord. '

Numbers 16:30

'As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and unnatural vice, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.'

Jude 7

'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.'

Luke 16:22-26

'Penance Proved To Be A Virtue

That this inward penance is, as we have already said, a virtue, the various commands which have been given regarding it clearly show; for the law commands only those actions that are virtuous.

Furthermore, no one can deny that it is a virtue to be sorrowful at the time, in the manner, and to the extent which are required. To regulate sorrow in this manner belongs to the virtue of penance. Some conceive a sorrow which bears no proportion to their crimes. Nay, there are some, says Solomon, who are glad when they have done evil. Others, on the contrary, give themselves to such melancholy and grief, as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation. Such, perhaps, was the condition of Cain when he exclaimed: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body. Penance, therefore, considered as a virtue, assists us in restraining within the bounds of moderation our sense of sorrow.'

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism)

'The cross itself, was a tribunal. In the centre was the judge. To the one side a man who believed and was set free, to the other side a scoffer and he was condemned.'

Pope St. Leo the Great

'Poor Judas! Above seventeen hundred years have elapsed since he has been in Hell, and his Hell is still only beginning.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

'Three sects take their origin from Valentine. . . The second sect were called Cainites : These venerated as saints all those who the Scripture tells us were damned -- as Cain, Core, the inhabitants of Sodom, and especially Judas Iscariot.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, 'History of Heresies'

. . . 100 + Quotations on Hell. (http://saintsquotes.net/Selection%20-%20Hell.html)


Nice post. Is amazing how bold the wicked are who claim we can't know if anyone is in hell.

Numbers 16:30 is interesting. I have seen many news reports in the last year of sinkholes taking people down.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 05, 2014, 09:48:40 PM
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: The Recusant
Following up on the question of the recent so-called “canonisations,” please remember to ask yourself the following question. Has
your local SSPX properly condemned them? Has he made it clear that John-Paul II and John XXIII are not saints, and why they can-not be Saints? If not, why not?

We have heard much talk about the canoni-sations being “problematic”, and so forth. But what does that mean in real terms? Where does that leave us? Does that mean that you just don’t like them being canon-ised, even though you accept that they are so? Grumbling and hand-wringing aside, where is the simple message for the simple man? Are JPII and John XXIII Saints, yes or no?


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.

How can the society do something that the Church thoughout her entire history has never dared do?  The Church reserves all judgment to God.





It's pretty obvious that Judas is in Hell from Christ's words.  Unless it would be better to not have been born than to be in Heaven?

It may be obvious or deduced from biblical passage but that is irrelavent. The Church does not go around declaring people not to be in heaven.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 05, 2014, 09:50:38 PM
Quote from: shin
'But if our Lord do a new thing, that the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, & all things that pertain to them, and they descend quick into Hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed our Lord. '

Numbers 16:30

'As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and unnatural vice, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.'

Jude 7

'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.'

Luke 16:22-26

'Penance Proved To Be A Virtue

That this inward penance is, as we have already said, a virtue, the various commands which have been given regarding it clearly show; for the law commands only those actions that are virtuous.

Furthermore, no one can deny that it is a virtue to be sorrowful at the time, in the manner, and to the extent which are required. To regulate sorrow in this manner belongs to the virtue of penance. Some conceive a sorrow which bears no proportion to their crimes. Nay, there are some, says Solomon, who are glad when they have done evil. Others, on the contrary, give themselves to such melancholy and grief, as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation. Such, perhaps, was the condition of Cain when he exclaimed: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body. Penance, therefore, considered as a virtue, assists us in restraining within the bounds of moderation our sense of sorrow.'

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism)

'The cross itself, was a tribunal. In the centre was the judge. To the one side a man who believed and was set free, to the other side a scoffer and he was condemned.'

Pope St. Leo the Great

'Poor Judas! Above seventeen hundred years have elapsed since he has been in Hell, and his Hell is still only beginning.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

'Three sects take their origin from Valentine. . . The second sect were called Cainites : These venerated as saints all those who the Scripture tells us were damned -- as Cain, Core, the inhabitants of Sodom, and especially Judas Iscariot.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, 'History of Heresies'

. . . 100 + Quotations on Hell. (http://saintsquotes.net/Selection%20-%20Hell.html)


Shin, nice try but none of these quotes show the Church making a declaration that someone is not in heaven.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: shin on June 05, 2014, 10:05:28 PM
So you don't consider the declarations of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, bishops, Holy Scripture, etc. declarations of the Church?

Actually I must correct an apparent error with the Pope St. Leo the Great quote, forgive me, this is the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas, referring to him and St. Augustine:

'The Pope, St. Leo the Great, says that the thieves were crucified, one on either side of Him, so that in the very appearance of the scene of His suffering there might be set forth that distinction which should be made in the judgment of each one of us. St. Augustine has the same thought. "The cross itself," he says, " was a tribunal. In the centre was the judge. To the one side a man who believed and was set free, to the other side a scoffer and he was condemned." Already there was made clear the final fate of the living and the dead, the one class placed at His right, the other on His left.'
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 05, 2014, 10:28:52 PM
Quote from: shin
So you don't consider the declarations of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, bishops, Holy Scripture, etc. declarations of the Church?

Actually I must correct an apparent error with the Pope St. Leo the Great quote, forgive me, this is the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas, referring to him and St. Augustine:

'The Pope, St. Leo the Great, says that the thieves were crucified, one on either side of Him, so that in the very appearance of the scene of His suffering there might be set forth that distinction which should be made in the judgment of each one of us. St. Augustine has the same thought. "The cross itself," he says, " was a tribunal. In the centre was the judge. To the one side a man who believed and was set free, to the other side a scoffer and he was condemned." Already there was made clear the final fate of the living and the dead, the one class placed at His right, the other on His left.'


No, not in the sense that The Recusant is demanding from the SSPX leadership. The Church authorites have never done this, so why expect this of the society.

It may be that it can be deduced from biblical passage(s), and, I think, all your non-scripture references are biblical glosses by their authors. Even your Catechism of the Council of Trent quote carries a reference to a footnote: Matt 27:3.

You (and Mithrandylan) could argue that it is so obvious that no declaration is needed, fair enough, but it doesn't alter the fact that there hasn't been one.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Mithrandylan on June 05, 2014, 11:33:44 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: The Recusant
Following up on the question of the recent so-called “canonisations,” please remember to ask yourself the following question. Has
your local SSPX properly condemned them? Has he made it clear that John-Paul II and John XXIII are not saints, and why they can-not be Saints? If not, why not?

We have heard much talk about the canoni-sations being “problematic”, and so forth. But what does that mean in real terms? Where does that leave us? Does that mean that you just don’t like them being canon-ised, even though you accept that they are so? Grumbling and hand-wringing aside, where is the simple message for the simple man? Are JPII and John XXIII Saints, yes or no?


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.

How can the society do something that the Church thoughout her entire history has never dared do?  The Church reserves all judgment to God.





It's pretty obvious that Judas is in Hell from Christ's words.  Unless it would be better to not have been born than to be in Heaven?

It may be obvious or deduced from biblical passage but that is irrelavent. The Church does not go around declaring people not to be in heaven.


You do realize that the Church composed the canons of scripture, yes?  And infallibly so, yes?  That there were more books for consideration than the canon we have been passed down on, and that the Holy Ghost guided the Church in infallibly composing the scriptures, which are in turn infallibly true?  Her approval of the scriptures IS declaring everything within them to be true, especially (not to imply that any of scripture is untrue, of course) the words of Christ Himself!

And you're a bit off the mark with canonizations, too.  A canonization is more than merely a declaration that N. is in Heaven, it is a prescription to venerate them.  Have you read the text of the canonization formula used to canonize JPII and JXXIII?  That's not a rhetorical question, please answer.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: OldMerry on June 06, 2014, 12:05:55 AM
Collect from the Mass of Holy Thursday -


COLLECT
O God, Who punished Judas for his crime and rewarded the good thief for his penitence, be merciful to us! Our Lord Jesus Christ in His passion gave each one recompense according to his deserts; may He deliver us from our sins of old, and bestow on us the grace of His resurrection; Who lives and rules with Thee . . .
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: JPaul on June 06, 2014, 08:12:17 AM
Quote from: Merry
Collect from the Mass of Holy Thursday -


COLLECT
O God, Who punished Judas for his crime and rewarded the good thief for his penitence, be merciful to us! Our Lord Jesus Christ in His passion gave each one recompense according to his deserts; may He deliver us from our sins of old, and bestow on us the grace of His resurrection; Who lives and rules with Thee . . .


Amen
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 06, 2014, 11:43:21 PM
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: peterp


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.



What about Martin Luther or Joseph Stalin?  Why not canonize everyone, even Buddha, then you can pray to Buddha and claim that the Church never condemned him to hell.  The illogic of the Novus Ordos bewilders me..

Go pray to Judas then.


Centroamerica, please point me to one declaration by the Catholic Church that person X is not in heaven. Just one from anytime during her 2000 year history.
And if you cannot (which you can't so don't bother wasting your time) explain why the SSPX is now expect to do something the Church herself has never done.



My, oh my, how blind can we get?

.

Fr. Pfeiffer recently went to Poland and he spoke to an old exorcist priest there who explained something very important to him.  

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=90#p1
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-David-Hewko-Sermon-Fourth-Sunday-after-Easter-May-18-2014

This recent sermon from Fr. David Hewko, SSPX, has a great segment mentioning Fr. Pfeiffer's trip to Poland, where he spoke to an exorcist priest there, regarding the destruction of the Faith in Poland that JPII has caused:

Quote from: Neil Obstat [url=http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=90#p1
here[/url]]see below

 
And just what "faith" is it, that JPII inspired the people of Poland to "keep?"  

Indifferentism? (Assisi I AND II)  

Universal salvation?  (Under his watch the American bishops demanded priests to say "and for all" instead of "and for many" in the consecration of the wine at Mass, and he never did diddly SQUAT about it.)  

Communion-in-the-hand?  

That last one's a whole topic unto itself -- but the world's eyes were upon him for many years while he personally gave Communion ONLY on the tongue, while other 'ministers' even in his presence gave it out in-the-hand.  

All the while he   A)  never spoke about the abuse,  B)  never issued any directive to prevent it,  C)  never reprimanded anyone on planet earth for practicing it,  D)  never denounced any bishop anywhere who punished priests for refusing to give communion-in-the-hand, E)  heaped praises upon praises toward many open practitioners of communion-in-the-hand, without clarification or mention of the fact:  a typically COMMUNIST tactic.

(Fr. Frederick Schell R.I.P.,  in California was one of these, who lost his salary, pension, health insurance, apartment, access to the church and permission to say Mass, all because he would not give communion-in-the-hand.  And he was not the only one to lose all these things for that reason.  That was under Paul VI, but JPII came along and never set it straight.  He went around apologizing for all manner of things, but never once apologized to Fr. Schell or the hundreds of other insulted priests who were only trying to preserve Sacred Tradition.  JPII only apologized to the Church's enemies, apparently, never to her friends for the injuries the conciliar church has committed against them.)

 Additionally:  

JPII managed to give the impression that he was 'traditional' to those who wanted to believe it, while he did nothing to defend tradition when bishops all over the world openly acted to destroy it.  

You would have to have lived through this to know it happened because hardly anyone spoke about it.  (Similarly, Fr. Pfeiffer learned from an old priest-exorcist in Poland something that he would never find in any dusty library of historical docuмents -- the observations of a living witness who was there to see history happen.)

While it was happening, it was too unbelievable, that it was not possible to put it into words, but now we can look back at it with objectivity, if we dare.  

Curiously, too many can't seem to manage this objectivity when they continue to defend the memory of JPII as if his pontificate was an example of holiness.  

He may have been the Holy Father but his papacy wasn't a very good example of holiness.  And its effect on Poland has been disastrous.



Poland -- Most providentially, just as I was typing this, I was playing a recording of a recent Fr. Hewko sermon, when he explains the effect of JPII on Poland:  

"...Jesus Christ founded His Church on Tradition, so that when any time comes, like at Vat.II when the pope and bishops go with a new doctrine, THEY are the ones schismatic.  They are the ones turning their back on Tradition and the Faith.  They are the ones that have fabricated a new religion.  And that defines our crisis now.  

"We're not schismatic disobedient dissidents!  We haven't changed the Faith!  We want to be FAITHFUL to the religion of all time!  We want to be FAITHFUL to the Mass of all time!  And it is not we who have changed it, but it's modernist Rome and the conciliar church, and that's why we REJECT the conciliar church.  And we make WAR with the conciliar church, because it's taking, literally taking millions of souls to hell!  

"Fr. Pfeiffer was recently in Poland, and an old priest, who is an exorcist told him:  MUSLIMS have tried to destroy Catholic Poland and they never succeeded.  They became stronger in the Faith, and fought -- the great Hussars [17th cent.] went to BATTLE against the Muslims, and WON, through Our Lady.  He said Communists have tried to destroy Catholic Poland [20th c.], and they never succeeded.  There were many martyrs.  The same could be said about Ukraine.  And also, the nαzιs tried to crush Poland [20th c.].  And he said, Poland always kept the Faith.  

"But what made Poland fall?  What destroyed the Faith in Poland?  Pope John Paul II!  The pope of the conciliar church -- the pope who promoted false religious liberty, the false Newmass, the false doctrines and the new doctrines of the fabricated conciliar church.  And this conciliar church is persecuting Tradition.
And that's why we're having Mass here, and it's also why the Society of St. Pius X has already gone over, by accepting the Doctrinal Declaration (AFD) and not fighting against that which undermines the complete Catholic Faith, they have gone over to the enemy.  And they're doing it in a muddled fashion, a seductive fashion, a deceitful fashion, as we all know, and these are all the works of the darkness.  That's how the devil works, in the darkness..."
(25:33)

Hear the rest (dur. 38:25) :
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/m5udvviv2573hp6/Fr+D+Hewko%2C+5-18-14+Milton+ON.mp3





Let me get this straight.  

Poland survived CENTURIES of vicious attacks on her faith, on the Faith of Catholics, and none of it was effective, none of it managed to kill the Catholic Faith in Poland --- until John Paul II came along,,,,,,,,,,,,




JPII the Great Destroyer of Poland's Catholic Faith.  




And for this he has been Newcanonized?!






Stalin tried to destroy the Catholic Faith in Poland but failed, so doesn't that make him holier than JPII?  Why not Newcanonize Stalin, then?  Or Hitler -- same deal -- why not Newcanonize Hitler?




(http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1236779!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)
The sculpture of the late Pope John Paul II during the unveiling ceremony in
Czestochowa, Poland, on Saturday, April 13, 2013. (AP / Czarek Sokolowski)

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/massive-statue-of-john-paul-ii-unveiled-in-poland-1.1236520#ixzz33pcx2OzJ


Now every Pole who actually knows his Faith, within sight of this monster can wake up in the morning and see the stark reminder of how this ghost of the Great Destroyer of the Faith in Poland haunts them to this day.  

How long, O Lord?  

(http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/files/2013/04/john-paul-ii-statue-poland.jpg)



Now it takes a crew for upkeep:
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-130408-pope-statue-02.photoblog900.jpg)


.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Neil Obstat on June 07, 2014, 12:03:34 AM
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: petwerp

This is absolutely ridiculous. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.


It's pretty obvious that Judas is in Hell from Christ's words.  Unless it would be better to not have been born than to be in Heaven?



Maybe petwerp needs some help.  

You see, if Judas had not been born, like, maybe his mother could have had a miscarriage for example, then Judas would have gone to Limbo of the innocent, where he would not have the Beatific Vision in eternity but neither would he suffer pain of sense in the hell of the damned.  That would have been better for him than to what?  What is the alternative, petwerp?

Answer:  suffer the pain of sense.

.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 09, 2014, 07:37:37 PM
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: The Recusant
Following up on the question of the recent so-called “canonisations,” please remember to ask yourself the following question. Has
your local SSPX properly condemned them? Has he made it clear that John-Paul II and John XXIII are not saints, and why they can-not be Saints? If not, why not?

We have heard much talk about the canoni-sations being “problematic”, and so forth. But what does that mean in real terms? Where does that leave us? Does that mean that you just don’t like them being canon-ised, even though you accept that they are so? Grumbling and hand-wringing aside, where is the simple message for the simple man? Are JPII and John XXIII Saints, yes or no?


This is absolutely ridiculous.

A saint is person in heaven. Canonization is the public declaration by the Church that a person is in heaven. The Church has NEVER declared anyone (not even Judas) not to be in heaven.

How can the society do something that the Church thoughout her entire history has never dared do?  The Church reserves all judgment to God.





It's pretty obvious that Judas is in Hell from Christ's words.  Unless it would be better to not have been born than to be in Heaven?

It may be obvious or deduced from biblical passage but that is irrelavent. The Church does not go around declaring people not to be in heaven.


You do realize that the Church composed the canons of scripture, yes?  And infallibly so, yes?  That there were more books for consideration than the canon we have been passed down on, and that the Holy Ghost guided the Church in infallibly composing the scriptures, which are in turn infallibly true?  Her approval of the scriptures IS declaring everything within them to be true, especially (not to imply that any of scripture is untrue, of course) the words of Christ Himself!

And you're a bit off the mark with canonizations, too.  A canonization is more than merely a declaration that N. is in Heaven, it is a prescription to venerate them.  Have you read the text of the canonization formula used to canonize JPII and JXXIII?  That's not a rhetorical question, please answer.


Mithrandylan, I already wrote that it may be deduced from the bible (in my response to shin - you couldn't have missed it), but this is not what The Recusant is demanding from the SSPX leadership. The Church authorites have never done such a thing, as you know.

But, just to move on, if I modify my opening comment to Aside from what has been revealed in Holy Scripture, the Church has declared anyone not to be in heaven, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that. Which still leaves us with the question: Why is The Recusant demanding something from the society that the Church thoughout her entire history has never done?
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: Centroamerica on June 09, 2014, 07:48:34 PM

Deliberately ignoring the heroic virtue practiced by Pius XII and bypassing procedures to "canonize" modernists who had already mangled the canonization process to begin with speaks for itself.
Title: The Recusant - Issue 17 - June 2014
Post by: peterp on June 09, 2014, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Centroamerica

Deliberately ignoring the heroic virtue practiced by Pius XII and bypassing procedures to "canonize" modernists who had already mangled the canonization process to begin with speaks for itself.


Which is why the society say that we cannot be certain about the current canonization process. But they cannot definitively say that X is NOT in heaven (as the Church herself has never done); only that there are doubts about the declaration(s).