If you're the most effective opponent, I think we can bring in the outfield.
Posted on 06/25/2006 5:48:00 AM PDT by NYer
My opposition to the schism is well-informed and I constantly source my opinions with authoritative teachings from the Living Magisterium
Of course you will hit the abuse button.
Despite the fact my opposition to the schism is not a personal attack I understand the psychic pain informed opposition to schism can generate in the minds of those who support the schism. Nevertheless, I find the threat risible and childish and, frankly, I anticipated the threat.
The fact you intend to "hit the abuse buton" signals to me I am the most effective opponent of the schism. Y'all never threaten anyone else :)
I don't know why you can't be satisfied with the angelqueen forum where y'all can have a soi disant traditionalist love-in without any opposition. Is it your intent to have Free Republic adopt the "norms" of angelqueen rather than let us adults have frank and open discussions?
Be satisfied with angelqueen. Saint Monty said, "Let's Make a Deal?" I propose a deal to you. I will stay in Free Republic and defend the Catholic Church and you can keep to angelqueen where attacks against the Pope, the Council and The Mass are appreciated. Do we have a deal?
My opposition to the schism IS normative Christianity and those who support the schism are just going to have to grow-up and learn to take responsibility for their own actions. And they are going to have to learn that attempts to silence principled and informed opposition to the schism is a public admission the schism lacks any cohering Christian rationale for its existence.
However, characterizing an individual Freeper as immature is making the issue personal. Do not do that. Stay with the issues.
On “open” threads, all confessions are open to challenges. On Church-like threads, challenges are removed. Click on my profile page for more guidelines.
This is a news article and therefore is open for all challenges.
Consider that condescension reflects more on the speaker than the object. Therefore in some cases, silence is the more powerful argument.
It has been 35 years since lefevbre founded the sspx and it has progressively become more insane in its doctrine, extreme in its orientation, and shrill in its attacks against what for more than 2000 years have been redoubts of Christian Orthodoxy established by Divine Authority. I am talking about such redoubts as the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, and the Mass. Divine Authority established these redoubts to protect the Faithful from all the assaults of the innumerable heresies, schisms, and private judgment ideas of individuals which were, and are, warring against the Body of Christ.
For the most part, this schism is like all the others that have come and gone and it will traverse the same downward spiraling path into blessed irrelevancy. Deracinated, it can only die.
But woe betide the Faithful Christian who decides to oppose the low and haughty schism.
It is ok, apparently, for the sectaries in the cult of lefevbre to spend nearly two score years making all manner of evil accusations against the Pope, the Council, and the Mass and we Faithful and obedient Christians are supposed to sit supinely by and allow the attacks to go un-responded to. But let a Faithful Christian launch a counter attack in defense of the Faith and the shrieks and objections makes one think he is in a jungle filled with female Howler Monkeys.
When attacking the Church Jesus established the sectaries attack like wolves. When counter-attacked by men who are not deracinated, or feminised, or secularised, they bleat like ewes.
Unaccustomed as they are to actually fighting, and far too accustomed to deserting in a time of spiritual warfare, they are ill-equipped to get as good as they get.
Being schismatic means never having to accept responsibility because, for the most part, in the schism, even the gander are geese.
was intended to read ill-equipped to get as good as they give
To begin with, your owner has received the Pete Rose penalty from former Commissioner John Paul II. He was permanently barred from the game.
Your current manager has also received the Pete Rose penalty. He is permanently barred from the game
All of your Coaches have received the Pete Rose penalty and they all are permanently barred from the game.
All of your professionals are automatically suspended upon joining your team and they are prohibited from playing in any game sanctioned by the Professional League Jesus created.
And all the fans of the illegitimate team can do is to stand in the peanut gallery yelling "We're number one."
Thanks, brother. Thinking by analogy is fun :)
LOL.
;-)
That's interesting. I never knew that.
I suspect that lefevbre's denial he signed the Documents was an example of psychopathic pseudology. Or, maybe the onset of dementia. In any event, I doubt he intended to lie. I think, over time, he became delusional and began to think he really didn't sign the Documents he later repudiated.
To my way of thinking, that places his behavior in the best possible light because any and all psychopathological delusions would render one not culpable for the, objectively, serious sins he was engaged in
It shouldn't be; even satanism acknowledges the existence of God, which is itself a "truth."
|
August 21, 2007
 St. Pius X
(1835-1914)
Pope Pius X is perhaps best remembered for his encouragement of the frequent reception of Holy Communion, especially by children.
The second of 10 children in a poor Italian family, Joseph Sarto became Pius X at 68, one of the twentieth century’s greatest popes. Ever mindful of his humble origin, he stated, “I was born poor, I lived poor, I will die poor.” He was embarrassed by some of the pomp of the papal court. “Look how they have dressed me up,” he said in tears to an old friend. To another, “It is a penance to be forced to accept all these practices. They lead me around surrounded by soldiers like Jesus when he was seized in Gethsemani.” Interested in politics, he encouraged Italian Catholics to become more politically involved. One of his first papal acts was to end the supposed right of governments to interfere by veto in papal elections—a practice that reduced the freedom of the conclave which elected him. In 1905, when France renounced its agreement with the Holy See and threatened confiscation of Church property if governmental control of Church affairs were not granted, Pius X courageously rejected the demand. While he did not author a famous social encyclical as his predecessor had done, he denounced the ill treatment of the Indians on the plantations of Peru, sent a relief commission to Messina after an earthquake and sheltered refugees at his own expense. On the eleventh anniversary of his election as pope, Europe was plunged into World War I. Pius had foreseen it, but it killed him. “This is the last affliction the Lord will visit on me. I would gladly give my life to save my poor children from this ghastly scourge.” He died a few weeks after the war began. Quote:
|
||||
|
|
IIRC, he repented on his death bed. Perhaps someone can check into that.
Then we can all celebrate our prodigal brothers and sisters being reunited with us.
With regards to the "deathbed confession":
There is some mystery about the death of Archbishop Lefebvre--have you heard whether he was reconciled with the Church?
There is, and I am trying to confirm this--there are two priests who are still members of the Pius X Society. And they have in turn told me, in secret--but I have been publicizing it--that when Father Schmidberger, the Superior General at the time walked into the room where he {Archbishop Lefebvre} was lying on his deathbed, Archbishop Lefebvre looked at him and said, 'What are you doing here?' And Father Schmidberger said, 'I am just here to say farewell--to wish you well and that I will be praying for you'. And Archbishop Lefebvre said to him, 'I didn't ask you to come, you can leave now--because of you, I'm in this mess.' I know that Father Schmidburger was very instrumental in forcing the Archbishop's hand, so to speak, to do the consecrations. I'm sure it was the spirit of the Archbishop to go along with the consecrations, but Father Schmidburger definitely was a leading role in pushing him to do the consecrations....
So, I really think there was repentance on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre before he died. One of those who told me this story witnessed this incident and he claims that's what took place. And that's my prayer, that he had that repentance before he died."
A conversation with Fr. John Rizzo That's the closest thing I could find to confirm (or deny) any deathbed confession on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre.
As for Lefebvre signing all 16 Vatican II documents, this seems to be undeniable fact, as even Bishop Fellay doesn't deny it. Source.
Actually that article seems to deserve a thread of its own, (if it doesn't have one already I may post it myself later), of particular relevance is this portion of the interview:
Q: Archbishop Lefebvre signed all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council. After the Council, he was very critical of the documents and even sent a dubia to the Holy See requesting clarification on religious liberty. However, Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected all the documents of the Second Vatican Council in totality.
A: And we don't do so either. It is not a matter of rejecting or accepting.
The questions are, "Are these documents good? Are these documents nurturing the Faith? Are they good for the survival of the Church or not?"
And the more we go on, the more we see the ambiguities in the Council — which at a certain time seemed to be reconcilable to be correctly interpreted with Tradition, not including the very obvious errors — the further we go on, and the more we see that this is an impossible job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
