* Of course it is. The SSPX teaches Jews can not live a moral life. It teaches all Jews are cursed. Do you actually want to be on public record favoring such Nazism? Do you think the question of antisemitism, denounced by an Ecuemnical Coucnil, is not matter of morality? If you are unable to understand that it is, in what way are you "renewing" america?
And you are not my trial judge, so why do you care?
* I am your Christian brother. It is part of Tradition I have a duty to correct you. Or, have you forgotten the Spiritual Works of Mercy?
You are no theologian, just a hack who has lots of quotes you post, as if that makes an argument.
*I am a sub-hack, but that is of little consequence. My authoritative quotes were specifically aimed at defeating your unsubstantiated, unwarranted and unTraditional personal opinions. All who read this thread can read you have nothing authoritative with which to respond and so you make it personal. That doesn't bother me. I have thick skin and I know I am fulfilling my Confirmational Duty to defend the Church.
I side with the Fathers of Church's interpretation of Sacred Scripture just like the Credo of the Council of Trent calls for.
*If you mean by that Nostra Aetate is not binding on you, then you know even less about Tradition that you have revealed up to this point
What level of authority do you believe Nostra Aetate to be? Is every since of the same theological level of authority?
*Are all dedisions, doctrines etc from Vatican Two binding upon you? Do you have a duty to accept the Council with a religious submission of will?
*If you think you can ignore or war against decisions of an Ecumenical Council, then this is a snappy quote fit for you...
Quanta Cura
"We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that 'without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.' But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church."
*As regards your apparent acceptance of the SSPX's antisemitic "doctrine" and apparent rationalisation of it by questioning the authoritatiove level of Nostra Aetate here is Carinal Ratzinger...
It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .
Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the 'right' and 'left' alike) to view Vatican II as a 'break' and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .
I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one's own already-established convictions?
The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31)
* Brother, please repudiate the SSPX's execrable "doctrine" the Jews are cursed. Please take time to think and pray about your areas of weakness and errors concerning Tradition.
*You began by asserting I really didn't know much about Tradiiton or its current movements etc. This thread is proof which one of us really knows Tradition.
* Brother, I was a trad before trad was cool. I used to exchange letters with Solange Hertz and Paula Haigh, well-known Remnant writers. Solange sent me photos of her favorite crucifix and Paula sent me TONS of mimeographed material aboubt GeoCentrism etc.
*I can spot your errors from the Moon. I know them. They used to be mine.
*The Holy Ghost changed my Will. It was only then the errors could be corrected. Please take time to think and pray about what you are doing. Take a break and get a good spiritual director.
*Are all dedisions, doctrines etc from Vatican Two binding upon you? Do you have a duty to accept the Council with a religious submission of will?
Vatican II has not been incorporated into the Church "in light of Tradition" yet as Cardinal Ratzinger said. There is nothing to submit to regarding matters of Faith and morals. I accept that it was a valid ecumenical council, primarily pastoral in nature, and that history will prove that little of its decisions are binding on Catholics. Until then, I submit with a religious mind and will. But then again, what are my "theological errors" you claim to have spotted?
Since I have not made any such proclamations, other than as a Catholic, I submit to the Credo of the Council of Trent, esp. regarding the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, (regarding the Jews and otherwise), I have made no other theological distinctions nor comments for you to comment upon. As usual, you are on a self made crusade and read into writings conclusions that do not follow.
Because YOU, almighty "Bornacatholic" are the self appointed GRAND INQUISITOR...
And no one appointed you as such. Quite amusing. What "errors" that you used to adhere to have I "made my own?" Name one.