Free Republic

Murph, that was just outstanding! This is one to be printed and saved in my missal. Thanks!!

The above article has nothing to do with the "Status of St. Pius X" or "schismatic mentalities." One can't help but see your post #3 as anything other than an attempt to provoke a flamewar.

Thanks for your reply.

Michael Davies in his "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebve" quotes Fr. Congar:

"It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document."

You were right about the propositions :-)

Do you own Fr. Congar's book? Is it possible that the quote used in Fr. Kramer's book is how it appeared in French? It still wouldn't help explain the propositions goof up, though...

Cardinal Ratizinger (Benedict XVI) was the one who said Dignitatis Humanae contradicted Quntra Cura.

I have a quote from Yves Congar (not Ratzinger)"It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document."

This quote was cited in "The Devil's Final Battle" by Fr. Paul Kramer and the footnote gives "Yves Congar, La Crise d'Eglise et Msgr. Lefebvre, (Paris, Cer, 1977) p. 54." as the source of the quote.

Hapax, could you be confusing this with then Cdl. Ratzinger's comment that Gaudium et Spes "is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus..."?

Just putting it up here for your discussion.

Do you think Mother Angelica is a "heretical schizzie" or a "schismatic liar" for saying on her show "As for the Secret, well I happen to be one of those individuals who thinks we didn't get the whole thing."?

See #284.

I have asked you repeatedly to please post where the personal opinions of these saints were adopted. You and your friends have failed to do so.

Vatican Two, an Ecumenical Council, has once and for all and forever closed off any legitimate doubt or denial or debate as to whether or not the Jews as a race are cursed.

You don't understand what the saints meant by this "curse." It doesn't mean that Jews are "evil" and therefore they should be persecuted. It means they have been punished with a sort of spiritual blindness, a darkened veil over their hearts. Some Jews conspired to kill Christ and they did. They who did called down a punishment on themselves and their children. Its this punishment - a darkened veil - which caused them to continue to reject Jesus as the True Messiah.

Up until Vatican II era the Church prayed specifically that this "veil" be lifted. This was a tremendous service to the Jews! She obviously believed that the lifting of this veil was necessary. Traditional Catholics continue to believe it is. Its amazing how the performing of such a service and a desire to see all Jews converted could be so distored - by Catholic nonethless! - that it is now evidence of hatred for the Jews - or "antisemitic" - when it is nothing less then an act of great love for them.

It is horrible that we are being handed such dishonesty by our Church's leaders - suddenly, after all this time, there's no veil, (presumably all the Church's prayers for the Jews up til V2 was a wasted effort based on ignorance) and that the Jews are perfectly right and pleasing to God by waiting for another Messiah. That's a clear departure from our Church's teachings. And its a gross disservice to the Jews.

Ok since I'm sitting in the Spoon-Feeding Only section:

1. Bornacatholic pulled up a snippet of an article from The Angelus as his "evidence" of the "heretical antisemitism" of the SSPX.

2. I pulled up quotes from various saints whose expressions echoed the expressions in said article. My reasons for that was to show that the article was no deviation from anything various saints have taught.

3. My personal agreement/disagreement with those expressions of belief in a "curse" never entered into the picture. I was pointing out that if bornacatholic believes the Society is "heretical" or "antisemitic" then he must condemn St. Alphonsus and other saints who said similar things about this "curse" as heretical antisemites.

Y'all have been asked repeatedly to source the Magisterial Teaching the Jews as a race are cursed. Y'all have failed.

Y'all have not asked we'all for any such thing. We'all never said the Church ever taught such a thing as doctrine. Our'alls point was that if the Church never said St. Alphonsus deviated from Church teaching for believing in this curse, then y'all have no right to condemn as heretics anyone who might see things as St. Alphonsus saw them.

Y'all appear to operate under the error of thinking all personal opinons of saints are Doctrine and that no saint could ever have possibly written or thought something contrary to Tradition.

So's ya'll are sayin' that St. Alphonsus wrote and thought contrary to Tradition. The Church has never said any such thing about St. Alphonsus. Ya'll have proved time and time again that yer judgments and knowledge on most thangs Church ain't so hot. So if someone wants to share St. Alphonsus' opinion on the matter, ya'll can't come along and shout "Heretic!" just cuz ya'll don't like what's bein' said and who might be sayin' it.

Y'all have been exposed as subscribing to the SSPX heresy the Jews as a race are cursed so it is up to y'all to prove your belief is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

And ya'll are a hypocritical coward - So quick to pin ye olde "heretic antisemite" label on the Society but avoiding yer arm-chair declaration of St. Alphonsus' heresy for speaking the same thang simply because it would expose ya'll for the ignoramus ya'll are.

I said the SSPX is antisemitic. I showed how it is in its official "teaching" capacity. It promotes the heresy the Jews are cursed as a race.

And I showed you that St. Alphonsus and some other saints thought the same way. If believing in this curse is a deviation from Church teaching, why did Holy Mother Church elevate a heretic (St. Alphonsus) to Her Altars and name him a Doctor of the Church?

You're trying to move away from the fact that the Society has simply repeated expressions used by various saints. You're making up you're own definitions of heresy in a desperate attempt to keep a hatred for the Society going strong. And now you're accusing me of being an "antisemitic heretic" when all I did was show you that the answer to that question in The Angelus you cited was in keeping with expressions once used by some of those who the Church venerates.

The Catholic Church has NEVER taught the Jews are a cursed race. That makes the sspx and deluded supporters of it, like you, heretics.

Say it right here and now, bornacatholic: St. Alphonsus was a heretic. I know you think you've got the authority to decided which members of FR are Catholics in good standing, and which are...whatever you deem them to be. But I've got to see if you'll use that authority to accuse and condemn one of the greatest Doctors of the Church of heresy.

If the Church has not condemned those I quoted earlier as hateful heretical antisemites, you have no right to accuse either me or any priest or Bishop the SSPX of such things.

All the other wreitings from the saints are immaterial. Unless baptized and approved and promoted as Doctrine by the Maagisterium, they have no authority.

You were accusing the SSPX of "antisemitic heresy" because of their views of the death of Christ and the Jewish people. I showed you that some of the saints spoke the same way. I wasn't trying to argue for or against the doctrinal weight on the subject Jews, Deicide, and curses. My point was that if those I quoted have not been judged as "antisemitic heretics" for their views, then the Society cannot be labeled such, either.

Now, in the meantime, if you think the Jews cursed

If I agree with what St. Alphonsus said in his "The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ" I'm a heretic? An antisemitic? If I believe that there is a hatred for Christianity among many Jews in positions of power, I'm a heretic? An antisemite? If I merely question the existance of gas chambers at Auschwitz, I'm a heretic? An antisemite?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, could you show me which doctrine(s) I've denied and thus making me a heretic? Could you please explain how thinking that a rejection of Christ is not exactly a likeable belief makes one an anti-semite?

*Some Jewish individuals acted out of ignorance and this means the ENTIRE Jewish race is cursed?

I have heard that Mel got these nutball ideas from his Daddy. Mayb ehe did and maybe he didnt. But they sure as hell aint Catholic Doctrine.

Bornacatholic, are you saying that St. Alphonsus is a "nutball" for believing in this curse?!

Can it truly be said that the Jewish race is guilty of the sin of deicide, and that it is consequently cursed by God, as depicted in Gibson’s movie on the Passion? * THe SSPX answers "yes" to the question they posed.

As did many of the saints, popes, Doctors of the Church.

- "Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Saviour, for through their fathers they have killed Christ." [St Augustine AOJ; cf. also JUR vol.III:1536]

- "Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads in saying: 'His blood be on us and our children'; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the end of time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood." [St. Alphonsus Maria Liguouri, The Passion and death of Jesus Christ.P.444]

- "Pilate took water in accordance with that, 'I will wash my hands in innocency', in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man .... Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews: the Lord's blood is not removed from them." [St Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea]

- "The Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord." [Pope Innocent - III Epistle to the Count of Nevers, 1208]

As unpleasant as these quotations might be, they demonstrate that the Society's stance is no different from what the Church taught. If these teachings above were never deemed "heretical" then the Society is not "heretical" for holding to them. A truth does not become heretical simply because you find it distasteful or you don't like who might be speaking it. A truth doesn't become heretical because it's too harsh for your politically correct sensitivities.

I know if you reply to me at all it will be with a "LOL" or some similar reply that you think passes for something witty. I've posted this just to clear up your miserable calumny of the Society and to put an end to your absurd "anti-semitic heresy" charges once and for all.

With regard to the two letters from "Bishop Williamson": My (SSPX) pastor today confirmed that the two most recent email letters were not written by His Excellency. Someone just strung some of his sentences together and slapped his name to them. We've been told if a letter/statement/comment/opinion from a Society bishop does not appear on any official Society webpage, its not to be trusted. Amazing how low some will sink to cause division. More amazing still is the amount of drool most folks around here dripped over what they thought was discord. What a great bunch.

To those who speak and write of new revelations she said: "There is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations I would have told no-one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy Father."

If there have been no new revelations, how could Sr. Lucy know for certain that the 1984 consecration was "accepted by Heaven"?

For some reason, the SSPX thinks it can get away with this public campaign to malign Pope John Paul the Great and to dishonor the actual witness of Sr. Lucy. They are hateful shameless liars.

Don't pin this on the SSPX. They are not responsible for the many inconsistances which the faithful have received from nearly everyone directly in charge of Sr. Lucy and the Fatima events. The only ones who have "dishonored" Sr. Lucy are those who forbade her to speak about the Fatima events freely and then acted as her spokesmen: even going so far as to suggest that much of what Our Lady told her/showed her might not really have happened and were merely the result of Sr. Lucy's own imagination based on pious books she read as a child.

IYO, was Mother Angelica being a "hateful shameful liar" for thinking that "we didn't get the whole thing" with regard to the release of the Third Secret?

And I must say, these words could come straight from Satan's own lips.

And I must say offering prayers to Our Lord and our Lady doesn't remind one of Satan. Blasting music and yelling into microphones so as to make those prayer inaudible, however...

Like SSPXers are the only Catholics who go there. Between May and October each year, millions visit Fatima. Why does their loving presence not make up for the "desecration"

Did those millions of Catholics visiting Fatima make an act of reparation to Our Lady? I wonder how many among them thought such an act was even necessary?

If there was an organized, public act of reparation among those millions at some point, please post details. It would surely be great to know about others who have already done such a thing.

I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted in heaven."

In a 1985 interview in Sol de Fatima, Sister Lucy was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request of Our Lady when he consecrated the world n 1984, Sister Lucy replied, "There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia." She was then asked,"So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?" to which she replied: No. Many Bishops attached no importance to this act."

So, yes, the salvation definitely came from the Jews such as Jesus Christ, Mary and the Apostles. Trouble is that post 33 A.D. Judaism does not consider them Jewish, but blaspheming apostates.

Nicely put!

Our elder brothers in the faith are the first Catholics - who lived the Old Covenant, embraced the New as Christ commanded, and taught all of us to do likewise. Our elder brothers are not those who rejected Christ: neither then nor now. Judaism exists today because of continued rejection of Christ as the Messiah. It is a religion quite foreign to the religion of the old Covenant.

I'll tell you again: I'm not going to answer your stupid questions, I'm not going to help you rant against the Society and it supporters by engaging in this discussion. I stupidly thought at first you wanted to know the truth about the chapel and the people who left. I'm not going to fall for this doe-eyed "I just wanted to knoooww" act again. Nobody's "dissemating" anything like you describe. So take your soapbox and your over-active imagination elsewhere. I will not respond to any further posts by you.