The Lord Jesus in the Synagogue of Nazareth
-
fr. itong part ng novus ordo mass incorporated daw po sa talmudic Judaism: Novus Ordo "Preparation of the Gifts":
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
Talmudic Benedictions for Bread and Wine:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth." (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakoth 38a)
"Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who givest us this fruit of the vine." (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakoth 35a)
source: maurice pinay blog
Fr. parang creepy po eh
-Ray
-
June 20, 2011 9:50 PM
-
Anonymous said...
- eto pa po Fr. tungkol po daw po sa Vatican II at sa "eclipse of the church"
"16. The followers of Antichrist will be marked with a character in imitation of the sign that St. John saw upon the foreheads of the servants of God. This indicates that Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization ―― a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Saviour, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments and their works of magic be heralded as miracles. A similar project was attempted in the fourth century when Julian the Apostate counterfeited Catholic worship with pagan ceremonies in honor of Mithras and Cybele. He established a priesthood and instituted ceremonies in imitation of Baptism and Confirmation."
Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D.
The Apocalypse of St. John
Discussion on Apoc: xiii, 16.
John W. Winterich, Columbus, Ohio, 1921
-Ray-
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[fr. itong part ng novus ordo mass incorporated daw po sa talmudic Judaism: Novus Ordo "Preparation of the Gifts":]
THAT IS ANOTHER PROOF THAT THE ACCUSER IS IGNORANT OF THE BIBLE ITSELF.
[Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.]
HERE IS THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF THAT ANCIENT AND BEAUTIFUL PRAYER WHICH IS JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN IN ORIGIN AS PROVEN BY Catechetics Online:
Liturgy of the Eucharist
*The gifts are brought to the altar. These include the bread and wine and the offering collected from the people. (Malachi 3:10)
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)
People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)
People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)
Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Heb. 12:28)
People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his Church. (Ps 50:23)
HE HE HE...
-
[Talmudic Benedictions for Bread and Wine:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth." (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakoth 38a)]
THIS IS VERY DECEPTIVE AND CLEVERLY DONE. HE HE HE... THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD IS PART OF THE ANCIENT INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JEWS WHICH THEY DEVELOPED DURING THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY WORSHIP OF THE BABYLONIAN gods BUT A REAL INSTRUCTION OF FAITH AND WORSHIP ON THE ONE TRUE GOD.
BY USING THIS THE NOVUS ORDO IS ALL THE MORE GLORIFIED RATHER THAN DEMEANED. BECAUSE THE ROOT OF OUR CHRISTIAN FAITH IS JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN IN ORIGIN. IF THAT PRAYER IS SIMILAR TO THE TALMUDIC PRAYERS IT MEANS THAT IT IS TRULY A PRAYER ADDRESSED TO GOD THE FATHER... TO YHWH - THE ELOHIM, THE EL SHADDAI.
THE ACCUSER IS STUPID AT BEST. WHY? BECAUSE THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHARE WITH JUDAISM. AND THE LAST SUPPER IS ESSENTIALLY CONNECTED WITH THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE OF THE UNLEAVENED BREAD, THE GRAPE WINE AND THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAMB. IF THAT PRAYER IS SIMILAR TO THE TALMUDIC PRAYER THEN SO MUCH THE BETTER. BECAUSE THE MASS IS ALSO PATTERNED AFTER THE SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP AND INTERCONNECTED WITH THE TEMPLE WORSHIP IN JERUSALEM AND EVEN FROM THE 'MEETING TENT' WORSHIP DURING THE TIME OF MOSES AND AARON.
THE ACCUSER IS IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE BELIEFS AND TEACHINGS OF THE JEWS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE 'TYPE' OF CHRIST AND OF THE HOLY MASS. THEY ARE FORESHADOWS OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MESSIAH. THUS, THE PRAYER OVER THE GIFTS ECHOES THE TALMUDIC PRAYERS OF THE JEWS BUT CONTAINS NEW TESTAMENT ELEMENT SUCH AS 'THE BREAD OF LIFE' DISCOURSE OF JESUS IN THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN, CHAPTER 6.
["Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who givest us this fruit of the vine." (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakoth 35a)
source: maurice pinay blog]
AY NAKU MAURICE PINAY MAGTINDA KA NALANG NANG TINAPAY... LALO NA NANG MONAY PARA UMUNLAD ANG IYONG BUHAY AT NG IKAY HINDI PARANG KALANSAY NA NAKALIBING SA HUKAY. HA HA HA...
[Fr. parang creepy po eh
-Ray]
CREEPY SA MGA IGNORANTE SA BIBLIA. SA MGA NAGBABASA NG BIBLIA IT MANIFESTS THE HARMONY OF THE JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN FAITH. HE HE HE... SIEMPRE DAPAT LANG DAHIL SI CRISTO AT SI MAMA MARY AT ANG MGA APOSTOLES AY MGA JUDIO. AT HINDI LANG BASTA JUDIO KUNDI MGA FAITHFUL AND DEVOTED JEWS DURING THEIR LIFETIME. BOBO SA OLD TESTAMENT YANG MAURICE NA YAN.
-
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[eto pa po Fr. tungkol po daw po sa Vatican II at sa "eclipse of the church"]
THIS IS A PIECE OF JUNK. IT HAS NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER. THE ECLIPSE IS EXISTING IN THE MIND OF THE ACCUSER NOT IN THE NOVUS ORDO OR OF THE VATICAN II.
["16. The followers of Antichrist will be marked with a character in imitation of the sign that St. John saw upon the foreheads of the servants of God.]
THIS IS BEING USED BY ANTI-CATHOLICS SUCH AS THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS AND THE IGLESIA NI MANALO WHO ARE BOTH IGNORANT THAT THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS ALSO HAVE SIGNS ON THEIR FOREHEADS. OF COURSE THE SIGN OF THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST IS THE SIGN OF THE CROSS:
Ezek 9:3-6 ‘Ang kaluwalhatian ng Diyos ng Israel ay tumaas sa mga KERUBIN na dating kinaroroonan patungo sa pintuan ng templo at tinawag ang taong nakasuot ng lino at sa kanyang tagiliran ay may hawak na sisidlan ng panulat. Sinabi sa kanya ng Panginoon, lumibot ka sa lunsod, lumibot ka sa Jerusalem at TATAKAN NG KRUS ang mga noon ng mga taong humihibik at umiiyak dala ng lahat ng kasuklam-suklam na bagay na ginagawa sa loob ng lunsod…Patayin ninyo ang matanda, binata, dalaga, bata at babae hanggang sa malipol ang lahat, subalit HUWAG NINYONG GALAWIN ANG SINO MANG MAY TATAK NA KRUS.’ [ABB-Abriol]
Ezek 9:4 [Jerusalem Bible/ New Jerusalem Bible] “Mark a CROSS on their foreheads”
“Trace a CROSS on their forehead” [The Community Bible – Catholic Pastoral Edition]
The Fulfillment of the Prophecy
Rev 7:3 ‘Saying, HURT NOT the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have SEALED the servants of our God IN THERE FOREHEADS.’
Rev 14:1 ‘And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred and forty and four thousand, having HIS FATHER’S NAME WRITTEN IN THEIR FOREHEADS.’
In Ang Biblia: ‘ang apat na put apat na libong may pangalan niya (Cordero), at pangalan ng kanyang Ama, na nasusulat sa kanikaniyang NOO.’
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. [ANG BIBLIA: At makikita nila ang kaniyang mukha; at ang kaniyang pangalan ay sasa kanilang mga noo.]
• What is the Mark being sealed on Catholics’ forehead during Baptism, every Gospel Reading in the Mass, every Ash Wednesday or every Signing of the Cross? The Name of the One and Triune God!
Mt 28:19 ‘in THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.’
-
[This indicates that Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church.]
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN'T INTRODUCE CEREMONIES. IT SIMPLY GIVES THE ANCIENT CEREMONIES COMING FROM THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF THE CHURCH. THE PAULINE MASS, JUST LIKE THE TLM WHEN IT WAS NEW DURING THE 16TH CENTURY, WAS FORMED FROM THE PREVIOUS LITURGICAL TREASURY OF THE CHURCH.
THE ONE THAT IMITATED THE HOLY MASS IN HONOR OF SATAN IS THE BLACK MASS OF SATANISM.
[ In fact there will be a complete organization ―― a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ.]
THAT CHURCH OF SATAN ARE THE SCHISMATICS AND THE HERETICS. I THINK THE SSPX AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS FIT THAT DESCRIPTION.
[Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Saviour, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope.]
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE AUTHOR IS IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH SATAN BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE FULL PLAN OF ACTION OF SATAN. THAT ONE MUST BE AN INSIDER IN THE DEMONIC COUNCIL OF HELL WHERE LEFEBVRE NOW SITS IN ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR DYING EXCOMMUNICATED.
JOHN XXIII AND JOHN PAUL THE GREAT ARE NOW BEATIFIED WHILE THE CORPSE OF LEFEBVRE AND THE SEDEVACANTIST LEADERS ARE ROTTING.
[ Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments and their works of magic be heralded as miracles.]
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONDEMNS THE USE OF MAGIC AND THERE IS NO MAGIC IN THE PAULINE MASS. THIS AUTHOR IS OBVIOUSLY INTOXICATED BY ROMAN CIRCUS AND CARNIVAL. HERE IS THE OFFICIAL STAND OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON DIVINATION, MAGIC AND SORCERY:
Divination and magic
2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.
2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.48 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.
2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.
-
THAT IS THE REASON WHY THAT ACCUSATION FALLS FLAT. IF THERE IS A DEMON
IN DISGUISE IT IS NEITHER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOR THE POPE BUT THAT
AUTHOR.
THE SAINTLY FIGURES OF MODERN TIMES LOVED AND RESPECTED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PAULINE MASS SUCH AS MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA AND SIS. LUCIA OF FATIMA. THEY BOTH REGULARLY AND DAILY ATTENDED THE NOVUS ORDO DURING THEIR LIFETIME.
[A similar project was attempted in the fourth century when Julian the Apostate counterfeited Catholic worship with pagan ceremonies in honor of Mithras and Cybele.]
JULIAN THE APOSTATE WAS A PAGAN AND HE NEVER BECAME POPE. NO POPE HAS EVER TAUGHT HERESY IN AN OFFICIAL MANNER BECAUSE JESUS PROMISED THAT THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE BLESSED PETER [MT. 16:18]. TO CLAIM THAT SATAN SUCCESSFULLY REIGNED IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SEVERAL SUCCESSIONS OF POPE IS PREPOSTEROUS AND DEMONIC BECAUSE IT MAKES THE SOLEMN PROMISE OF JESUS USELESS AND INEFFECTIVE AGAINST THE WILES AND GUILE OF THE EVIL ONE. THE REASONING IS PATHETIC AND HERETICAL AT BEST.
[He established a priesthood and instituted ceremonies in imitation of Baptism and Confirmation."]
HA HA HA... THE BAPTISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A TRUE BAPTISM WITH THE TRINITARIAN FORMULA GIVEN BY THE LORD IN MATTHEW 28:19 AND WATER. TO CLAIM THAT IT IS AN IMITATION SMUCK OF STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE.
[Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D.
The Apocalypse of St. John
Discussion on Apoc: xiii, 16.
John W. Winterich, Columbus, Ohio, 1921]
WHO IS THIS ANIMAL? I DON'T KNOW THIS DEVIL!
THE VICAR OF CHRIST AND THE SUPREME PONTIFF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS POPE BENEDICT XVI. I DON'T RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ONE UNLESS HE IS IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST.
[-Ray]
RAY, I HOPE YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE CONTAMINATED BY THESE STUPIDITIES.
-
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
COMMENT PART 1:
ReplyDelete"JOHN XXIII AND JOHN PAUL THE GREAT ARE NOW BEATIFIED WHILE THE CORPSE OF LEFEBVRE AND THE SEDEVACANTIST LEADERS ARE ROTTING.
"THAT CHURCH OF SATAN ARE THE SCHISMATICS AND THE HERETICS. I THINK THE SSPX AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS FIT THAT DESCRIPTION.
THAT ONE MUST BE AN INSIDER IN THE DEMONIC COUNCIL OF HELL WHERE LEFEBVRE NOW SITS IN ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR DYING EXCOMMUNICATED."
YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU SAYING FR.ABE. KUNG MAGSALITA KA PARANG HINDI KA ISANG PARI O ALAGAD NG SIMBAHAN. WALA KANG PINAGKAIBA KAY ELISEO SORIANO. PAREHO KAYONG BASTOS MAGSALITA.
BAKIT HINDI MO SUNDIN ANG SABI NI SAN FRANCISCO ASSISI AND I QUOTE,
""Blessed is that religious who takes no pleasure and joy except in the most holy words and deeds of the Lord and with these leads people to the love of God in joy and gladness. Woe to that religious who delights in idle and frivolous words and with these provokes people to laughter."
I AM ALSO AGAINST SEDEVECANTISM BUT NOT WITH SSPX. SSPX IS NOT SEDEVACATIST.YOU ARE SAYING THAT SSPX AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WERE EXCOMMUNICATED.
You were not even updated regarding the decree of the Vatican nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication issued from the Congregation for Bishops on January 21, 2009.
And may I ask, who are you to say that the good Archbishop now sits in eternal damnation? So you think yourself as God who can judge? Did Pope Benedict XVI tell that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in hell? Don't you think you are not sinning by your vain presumption and rash judgement?
Let me quote from Pope Benedict's own letter:
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole?"
CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTIONS BY THE POPE?
COMMENT PART 2:
ReplyDeletePope Benedict XVI continued in his letter and I quote,
"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?"
If the Pope has such a great mercy and charity toward the SSPX, who are you not to do the same??
Whatever happened to charity in your speech? “Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart” says our Lord. [St. Mt. XI:19] Do you really think that there are no consequences to what you say on the internet? But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. [St.Mt XII:36]. Do you think that you are really helping anyone or converting souls by the use of bitter sarcasm and malicious words that are designed to wound rather than to edify? charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [2 Tim:II:14]. Are you really proud of your words? Rejoicing that you have “won” the argument? He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions. [1Tim:VI:4] But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness. And their speech spreadeth like a canker... [2Tim:II:16,17]
Are you aware of the gravity of the sin of Detraction and Calumny?
You maybe right;But if you don’t have charity where does that leave you? St Paul tells us that if we speak with the tongues of men and angels and have not charity, we are become like sounding brass, like tinkling cymbals.[1Cor XIII:1] And right now the sound of brass and tinkling cymbal emanating from your blog is simply deafening.
fr. paano po ang pari mag celebrate ng novus ordo mass na katulad sa Tridentine MAss?
ReplyDelete-Ray
[YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU SAYING FR.ABE.]
ReplyDeleteI CERTAINLY HAVE IDEA OF WHAT I WAS SAYING. I WAS REACTING TO THAT ARTICLE DEMONIZING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE PAULINE MASS. EXCUSE ME. WE DO NOT TOLERATE SUCH ABOMINATIONS IN THIS BLOG.
[KUNG MAGSALITA KA PARANG HINDI KA ISANG PARI O ALAGAD NG SIMBAHAN.]
EXCUSE ME, THE WORDS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AGAINST THE HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE WORDS I USED. WELL, IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO USE THOSE WORDS I RATHER CALL THEM BROOD OF VIPERS.
[ WALA KANG PINAGKAIBA KAY ELISEO SORIANO. PAREHO KAYONG BASTOS MAGSALITA.]
ANONG BASTOS SA SINABI KO? MAY SINABI AKONG BASTOS? ANG KABASTUSAN AY NASA ISIP MO. I SIMPLY CONDEMNED WHAT IS CONDEMNABLE. I SIMPLY REFERRED TO THEM PROPERLY AND ACCORDINGLY.
[I AM ALSO AGAINST SEDEVECANTISM BUT NOT WITH SSPX.]
SEDEVACANTISM IS MERE FRUIT OF SSPX. IT ARISES FROM THE SAME LITURGICAL REBELLION AGAINST THE POPE AND AGAINST THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. THEY DIFFER IN NAME BUT THEY BELONG TO THE SAME GENRE OF DEMON.
[SSPX IS NOT SEDEVACATIST.]
IN THEIR OFFICIAL STATEMENTS THEY ARE SAYING THAT BUT IN REALITY THEIR MEMBERS ARE SO FILLED OF POISON AGAINST THE POPE. IN ALMOST EVERY FORUMS AND IN MANY WEBSITES OF PEOPLE ADHERING TO THEM THEY ATTACK THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL AND THE PAULINE MASS. WE CANNOT TAKE THAT SITTING DOWN.
[YOU ARE SAYING THAT SSPX AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WERE EXCOMMUNICATED.]
YOU ARE LYING HERE. I WROTE THAT LEFEBVRE DIED EXCOMMUNICATED. AND IT IS TRUE - THE ANIMAL DIED EXCOMMUNICATED.
[You were not even updated regarding the decree of the Vatican nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication issued from the Congregation for Bishops on January 21, 2009.]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... EXCUSE ME. THE POPE REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE FOUR LIVING BISHOPS OF THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT. BUT THE POPE DIDN'T REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED UNREPENTANT.
WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE PAPAL DOCUMENT THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS REMOVED? NOTHING. NEVER, NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DREAM.
[And may I ask, who are you to say that the good Archbishop now sits in eternal damnation? So you think yourself as God who can judge? Did Pope Benedict XVI tell that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in hell? Don't you think you are not sinning by your vain presumption and rash judgement?]
I AM APPLYING TO HIM HIS ULTRA CONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION OF 'OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION'. HE WANTS A VERY STRICT INTERPRETATION OF IT CONTRARY TO THE MODERATE INTERPRETATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SO HE WILL EARN THE EFFECT OF HIS OWN REBELLION AGAINST THE CHURCH BECAUSE HE DIED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
I AM NOT GIVING HIM JUDGMENT I AM SIMPLY RECOGNIZING THE IMPLICATION ON HIS SOUL OF HIS OWN CLAIMS.
[Let me quote from Pope Benedict's own letter:
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole?"
CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTIONS BY THE POPE?]
THERE IS NO NEED FOR ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF THE POPE BECAUSE I AM IN FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. THAT DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY THE POPE TO EXPRESS HIS PATERNAL LOVE OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE FOUR BISHOPS WHO ASKED HIM TO REMOVE THE EXCOM, HOPING THAT BY DOING SO THEY WILL RETURN TO THE FOLD. BUT YEARS AFTER WHERE ARE THEY? THEY ARE STILL OUTSIDE THE FOLD. THEY HAVE NOT RETURNED TO FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. THE POPE IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED BUT YOUR BISHOPS AFTER GETTING THE REMOVAL OF THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS TREACHEROUSLY RETURNED TO THEIR OLD WAYS.
Pope Benedict XVI continued in his letter and I quote,
ReplyDelete"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?"
[If the Pope has such a great mercy and charity toward the SSPX, who are you not to do the same??]
YES, OF COURSE... THE POPE HAS GREAT MERCY AND CHARITY. HOW ABOUT THE SSPX FOLLOWERS WHERE IS THEIR MERCY TOWARD POPE PAUL VI, ARCH. BUGNINI, BLESSED JOHN XXIII, BLESSED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT AND THE VATICAN II BISHOPS? WHERE? WHERE IS THEIR CHARITY TOWARD THE NOVUS ORDO MASS?
I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE MEANING OF CHARITY AND THAT YOU HAVE WITNESSED IT FROM OUR POPE. UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT SEE THE SAME CHARITY FROM SSPX. IN FACT, YOUR ARCH. FELLAY EVEN ORDERED THE SSPX FOLLOWERS TO PRAY 'AGAINST' THE BEATIFICATION OF POPE JOHN PAUL THE GREAT. HOW DARE HIM!!!
IF YOU WANT TO BE LOVED MAKE YOURSELVES LOVABLE.
Whatever happened to charity in your speech? “Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart” says our Lord. [St. Mt. XI:19] Do you really think that there are no consequences to what you say on the internet? But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. [St.Mt XII:36]. Do you think that you are really helping anyone or converting souls by the use of bitter sarcasm and malicious words that are designed to wound rather than to edify? charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [2 Tim:II:14]. Are you really proud of your words? Rejoicing that you have “won” the argument? He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions. [1Tim:VI:4] But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness. And their speech spreadeth like a canker... [2Tim:II:16,17]
[Are you aware of the gravity of the sin of Detraction and Calumny?]
YES. I AM VERY MUCH AWARE THAT IS WHY LEFEBVRE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL HIS DETRACTION AND CALUMNY AGAINT POPE PAUL VI AND THE VATICAN II. IF THERE IS CALUMNY IT COMES FROM THE SSPX FOLLOWERS WHO KEEPS ON ATTACKING OUR POPES AND BISHOPS.
[You maybe right;But if you don’t have charity where does that leave you?]
OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOT JUDGMENTAL. THANK YOU.
[St Paul tells us that if we speak with the tongues of men and angels and have not charity, we are become like sounding brass, like tinkling cymbals.[1Cor XIII:1] And right now the sound of brass and tinkling cymbal emanating from your blog is simply deafening.]
IT IS DEAFENING BECAUSE YOU BELONG TO A VIRTUALLY HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC GROUP. YOU BELONG TO THE SOCIETY OF THE POPELESS. IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF HEARTLESSNESS BETTER READ THE PUBLICATIONS AND ARTICLES COMING FROM YOUR GROUP. THEY ARE FULL OF POISON.
[fr. paano po ang pari mag celebrate ng novus ordo mass na katulad sa Tridentine MAss?
ReplyDelete-Ray]
RAY, THEY CELEBRATE THE NOVUS ORDO IN LATIN AND FACING THE ALTAR OR AD ORIENTEM. I DID THAT ALREADY SEVERAL TIMES.
HA HA HA... EXCUSE ME. THE POPE REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE FOUR LIVING BISHOPS OF THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT. BUT THE POPE DIDN'T REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED UNREPENTANT.
ReplyDeleteWHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE PAPAL DOCUMENT THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS REMOVED? NOTHING. NEVER, NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DREAM.
Excuse me too!!!:)I think you did not read thoroughly the decree from the Congregation of Bishops lifting the decree of excommunication.
For your convenience, here is the part of the letter:
"On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect". (Emp. added)
Can you not see what's obvious in that statement or you are really blinded by your hate against the SSPX?
Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.
If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well. To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.
The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name.
Why was that you may ask?
Because to do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion and perhaps you yourself will get mad considering you hate the good Archbishop so much.
As the saying goes, " Actions speak louder than words".
Bishop Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of action” in the case of the Society through several examples, most of which have never been previously publicized. First, he mentioned the issue of SSPX confessions. As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone. Under Church law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance. His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent to the Holy See. In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.
What inference are we to draw from this? Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions. If the Society priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions. By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.” The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of what is obviously a difficult legal situation.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteHow can we interpret this incident? First, we have a Cardinal in the Vatican claiming that the Pope does not believe the assertions of a document appearing to come from an official organ in the Vatican. The document released by the Secretary of State says the Society does not exist in the Church, and yet the Pope believes the Society does. The Vatican then agrees to temporarily recognize the Society in exchange for a change in venue for a SSPX ordination. How seriously does the Pope take this lack of legal recognition when it can be offered thus as a mere bargaining chip?
Bishop Fellay attempted to make some sense of these contradictions but all he could tell us is that this is the reality we have to accept for the present. The policy of the Vatican seems to be a contradictory policy which vacillates between “condemnation and admiration,” His Excellency noted. He seems convinced that where the personal sentiments of Benedict XVI himself are concerned, admiration for the SSPX is the word. He explained that in his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, His Holiness twice referred to Archbishop Lefebvre—first as the “venerated Archbishop Lefebvre” and, later in the conversation, as “Archbishop Lefebvre, this great man of the universal Church.”
So are we to believe that the Pope believes a schismatic excommunicant is venerable and a great man of the universal Church? This would be nonsensical. The only logical explanation is that the Pope recognizes the Archbishop for the loyal son of the Church that he is. His Excellency also contends that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos expressed this same attitude when in reference to the work of the Society, His Eminence said that “the fruits are good hence the Holy Ghost is there.”
Now we know that Our Lord gave us this of who is in the Church and who is not— “judge them by their fruits.” The Holy Ghost cannot be outside the Church; hence if He is with the Society, the Society is in the Church. The logic is irrefutable.
How can it be that the Pope and the Vatican can have this policy of saying one thing but doing another? How can they allow clerics to claim confessions heard by Society priests are invalid and then make it clear by their own actions that the SSPX confessions are “all good and licit?” How can the Society be legally recognized for two weeks and then cease to be thus recognized after that time? Does this not manifest a Vatican dismissal of the seriousness of the issue of the SSPX’s “legal” recognition?
PART III:
ReplyDeleteBenedict XVI feels that, given the situation in the Church today and the “wolves” within, that he cannot recognize the Society de jure. Yet, since he knows they are “inside the Church” and “bearing good fruit” he will recognize their legitimacy de facto as much as possible.
Benedict XVI has learned through experience that he will lose what little influence he has over the bishops of most of the world united in their collegial disobedience and disregard of his authority if he goes too far in doing the right thing.
Bishop Fellay illustrated this point with concrete examples. He recounted how, back in 2003, a group of Cardinals, including Joseph Ratzinger, had met to decide what was to be done about the Society and Tradition. They agreed that an apostolic administration had to be organized in order to give legal standing and independence to Traditional groups. There was a disagreement about whether the Society should form the “spine” of this structure with the other groups attached to it, or whether it should just be set up independently within the current Ecclesia Dei communities.
When Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, he started to implement this plan. Bishop Fellay relayed more details of his initial meeting with His Holiness. The meeting included Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger. The Pope asked Cardinal Castrillon “where do things stand.” The Cardinal replied, “Today you can recognize the Society of St. Pius X. I have sent you a document which would do this.”
The Pope replied that he had received the document and sent it on to the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts to determine if it was “right with the Church.”
Bishop Fellay remarked that it must have contained something unusual if it needed to be thus examined. Yet, for whatever reason, the Pope was evidently blocked and so far this document—prepared by Cardinal Hoyos and approved in principle by the Pope (and sent for technical study)— has not seen the light of day. Why not?
Bishop Fellay explained that in 2006 the bishops of Germany went to the Vatican and vigorously opposed the project. So what did the Pope do? He freed the Mass and lifted the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops. We all remember what happened to the Pope after that. Literally, all hell broke loose. The world turned on him.
Bishop Fellay further directed our attention to the recent incident when the Pope had appointed the conservative Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner to become Bishop of Linz, Austria. The Pope again was attacked in the media for this “ultra-conservative” appointment. Clearly the Pope has concluded that the costs of provoking disobedience and rebellion from the world’s bishops are not worth giving de jure recognition to the Society. The only solution is to grant recognition de facto, while the Vatican/SSPX talks continue.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, the details of this 2005 meeting and the mysterious “document of recognition” that had resulted from it, put to rest an argument which has been used by many adversaries of the Society who claim that, although the Society had supplied jurisdiction at one time, they lost it when they “refused the offer of ordinary jurisdiction.” I have heard this argument myself on more than one occasion.
Bishop Fellay pointed out, however, that he had never actually been shown (or presented with) an actual concrete offer of jurisdiction on the occasion of that meeting. Obviously, he had not even seen the document the Pope had sent for review. He told us that that document “must have been” unusual, indicating that his knowledge of its contents had only been deduced. How can one refuse an offer of jurisdiction that was never presented in the first place, and which is now lost in a Vatican review process due to the intervention of the German episcopacy? Thus, this argument fails. It is not Bishop Fellay who “refused to accept” ordinary jurisdiction. It is the disloyal bishops of the world who have bound the Pope’s hand, preventing him from signing it!
So as the storm rages around him, the Holy Father presses ahead. Contrary to the official line demanded by the liberal bishops of the world, the Pope carries on in word and practice (lifting SSPX excommunications, validating their confessions, permitting former priests to exercise their priesthood, “recognizing” the Society for two weeks) as if the Society are Catholic priests validly and licitly caring for souls and the good of the Church. Would it be easier for the whole Church if the Pope would just recognize officially and in writing what he has manifested implicitly? Perhaps, but that is easy for us to say from the comfort of our living rooms halfway across the world.
What Bishop Fellay is trying to make clear is that living with this dichotomy of Vatican public condemnation and quiet approval, is the sacrifice God is asking the priests of the Society to bear for the time being.
Benedict XVI seems to be asking the Society bishops and priests to allow him to pretend to have this public “quarrel” with them in order to help manage an unmanageable collegial bunch of bishops and priests like you Fr.ABE.
Father, meron po bang evidence na si Luther mismo nagtanggal ng Apocrypha sa Bible? Salamat po.
ReplyDelete[Father, meron po bang evidence na si Luther mismo nagtanggal ng Apocrypha sa Bible? Salamat po.]
ReplyDeleteNAIS KO LANG PO MUNANG LINAWIN NA IBA ANG MEANING NG APOCRYPHA SA ISYUNG ITO BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. PARA SA ATING CATHOLICS ANG 7 BOOKS NA PART NG SEPTUAGINT BUT WALA SA HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT AY HINDI APOCRYPHA KUNDI DEUTEROCANONICAL [SECOND CANON]. BUT FOR THE PROTESTANTS THEY ARE APOCRYPHA WHICH MEANS NON CANONICAL.
HINGGIL SA TANONG, MERON PO. MARAMI PONG MGA WRITINGS NI LUTHER AT MGA BOOKS NA NAGPAPATUNAY NA NI-REJECT NIYA ANG BOOK OF MACCABEES NA ISA SA DEUTEROCANONICAL DAHIL ITO AY MATIBAY NA EVIDENCIA FOR PURGATORY. UNA ITO PO ANG SABI NG CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA HINGGIL SA ISSUE:
Old Testament:
It was the exigencies of controversy that first led Luther to draw a sharp line between the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian writings. In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the books was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther's Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments.
...
...
The Protestant Churches have continued to exclude the deutero writings from their canons, classifying them as "Apocrypha". Presbyterians and Calvinists in general, especially since the Westminster Synod of 1648, have been the most uncompromising enemies of any recognition, and owing to their influence the British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1826 to refuse to distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha [i.e. many Protestant Bibles had them in the Appendix until 1826]. Since that time the publication of the deuterocanonicals as an appendix to Protestant Bibles has almost entirely ceased in English-speaking countries. The books still supply lessons for the liturgy of the Church of England, but the number has been lessened by the hostile agitation. There is an Apocrypha appendix to the British Revised Version, in a separate volume. The deuteros are still appended to the German Bibles printed under the auspices of the orthodox Lutherans.
New Testament:
As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament. But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles [i.e. Luther and Lutherans for a time had a NT "deutero-canon" where these NT books were placed at the end of the Bible].
[EXCUSE ME, THE WORDS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AGAINST THE HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE WORDS I USED. WELL, IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO USE THOSE WORDS I RATHER CALL THEM BROOD OF VIPERS.]
ReplyDeleteFather Abe baka pag nabasa niya ang defense ng mga Early Church Fathers eh magulat siya.
Sometimes we have to use harsh words to shake them up so that they will come to their senses.
KAYA DUMAMI ANG MGA HERETICS NGAYON DAHIL TINALIKURAN NA ANG APOLOGETICS NA SINAGAWA NG MGA FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.
ReplyDeleteTotoo po yan Father Abe. Heretical beliefs just kept recycling. The Church already refuted all heretical beliefs, it is just that people who lack knowledge of Christian history thinks that their novelties are biblical and historical; they don't really bother to read history.
ReplyDeleteKaya sabi ko nga eh, kung mababasa lang nila kung paano magsalita at gumamit ng matatalim na salita ang mga ibang apologist natin noon eh baka magulat sila.
YES, BRO. FERDINAND.
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... EXCUSE ME. THE POPE REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE FOUR LIVING BISHOPS OF THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT. BUT THE POPE DIDN'T REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED UNREPENTANT.
ReplyDeleteWHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE PAPAL DOCUMENT THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS REMOVED? NOTHING. NEVER, NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DREAM.
[Excuse me too!!!:)I think you did not read thoroughly the decree from the Congregation of Bishops lifting the decree of excommunication.]
IT IS YOU WHO HAVE NOT READ IT THOROUGHLY BECAUSE YOU ARE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS NOT LIFTED BY THE POPE SO THAT LEFEBVRE DIED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THUS BY SSPX INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS HE IS DEPRIVED OF SALVATION.
[For your convenience, here is the part of the letter:]
THANK YOU!
"On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect". (Emp. added)
[Can you not see what's obvious in that statement or you are really blinded by your hate against the SSPX?]
ARE YOU BLIND OR PLAIN IDIOT? IT IS NOWHERE STATED IN THERE THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE IS REMOVED AS WELL. ONLY THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS WERE REMOVED. AND THEY WERE REMOVED BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT.
LEFEBVRE DIDN'T ASK THE POPE TO REMOVE IT THEN HE IS STILL EXCOMMUNICATED. HE IS OUTSIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST.
[Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... THE FORMER DECREE CONCERNING THE FOUR OF THE SIX BISHOPS SUBJECT TO THE FORMER DECREE. ONLY THOSE NAMED IN THE DOCUMENT ARE GIVEN THE FORGIVENESS. OTHERS ARE STILL EXCOMMUNICATED.
YOU ARE VIOLATING THE DOCUMENT BY REMOVING THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THOSE WHOSE PENALTIES WERE NOT REMOVED. O NO, NO, NO...
[If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.]
IT HAS JURIDICAL EFFECT. THE FACT THAT THE ANIMALS, THE SSPX BISHOPS ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION THEN THEY RECOGNIZED THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND THEIR EXCOMMUNICATION. THE LEGAL EFFECT CEASES WHEN IT WAS REMOVED BUT FOR THOSE WHOSE PENALTY WERE NOT REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATION IS STILL EFFECTIVE JURIDICALLY. HE HE HE... ONLY THE POPE CAN REMOVE WHAT THE POPE DECREED. HA HA HA....
[To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.]
YOU ARE TRYING TO BE SMART. BUT YOU ONLY SHOW IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. THE EXCOMMUNICATION WAS REMITTED. IT MEANS THAT BEFORE IT WAS REMITTED THE EXCOMMUNICATION WAS LEGAL, VALID AND BINDING. IT WAS EFFECTIVE. THE LEGAL EFFECT STOPPED ONLY WHEN IT WAS REMITTED.
IF IT WAS NON EXISTENT THE WORD SHOULD BE 'DECLARED NULL AND VOID' FROM THE BEGINNING. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. HE HE HE...
[The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name.]
WHO TOLD YOU THAT THEY ARE REMOVED, SATAN?
THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBRE AND HIS DEMONIC ALLY ARE NOT REMOVED. SO THEY ARE STILL EFFECTIVE. THE FACT THAT THEIR PENALTY WAS NOT REMOVED EXPLICITLY THEN IT IS STILL ACTIVE AND EFFECTIVE. WHAT HE DID IS UNCANONICAL AND DISOBEDIENCE THUS, IT IS ILLEGAL AND SINFUL.
[Why was that you may ask?
Because to do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion and perhaps you yourself will get mad considering you hate the good Archbishop so much.
As the saying goes, " Actions speak louder than words".]
I HATE ALL THE TRAITORS TO THE POPE. AND I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD AND HAVE WITNESSED FOR MYSELF HOW THE SSPX FOLLOWERS ARE ATTACKING THE POPES AND THE BISHOPS. I CANNOT TAKE IT SITTING DOWN. IF I HAVE LEFEBVRE... YES, I DO. HE IS A TRAITOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL WHOSE DOCUMENTS HE PERSONALLY SIGNED. YET HE ATTACKED AFTERWARDS.
CARDINAL OTTAVIANI, CARDINAL SIRI AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE CARDINALS WHO REALLY SPOKE AND OPPOSED IN THE COUNCIL WERE RESPECTFUL AND GENTLEMANLY. THEY DIED LOYAL AND FAITHFUL TO THE POPE. UNLIKE LEFEBVRE WHO CREATED EXCOMMUNICABLE ACTS.
[Bishop Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of action” in the case of the Society through several examples, most of which have never been previously publicized.]
ReplyDeleteAND WHAT ARE THESE REBELLIOUS ACTS?
[First, he mentioned the issue of SSPX confessions. As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone.]
OF COURSE. AND NOT ONLY THAT EVERY PRIEST RECEIVES HIS FACULTY TO CONFESS SINS FROM THE LOCAL BISHOPS. HOW ABOUT YOUR PRIESTS WHERE DO THEY GET THEIR FACULTY SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH THE LOCAL BISHOPS? AND THEY ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE EITHER?
[Under Church law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance.]
CORRECT. HOW COME YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZING THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE OVER YOUR PRIESTS AND BISHOPS? YOU ARE NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST?
[His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent to the Holy See.]
THAT IS HYPOCRITICAL AND DECEPTIVE.
THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE. YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO THE HOLY SEE AND THEN YOU WILL SEND THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION TO THE HOLY SEE. HA HA HA... YOU ARE DOING THAT IN ORDER TO GAIN A FACADE OF CREDIBILITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE.
YOU NEED THE HOLY SEE TO APPEAR CANONICAL IN YOUR ILLICIT EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO CONFESS. EVEN IF YOU SEND NOTIFICATION TO THE HOLY SEE YOU ARE VIOLATING THE LAW OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE THE HOLY SEE DECLARED YOUR ADMINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS AS ILLICIT -- THEY ARE ILLEGAL. YOUR PRIESTS INCLUDING FELLAY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS. THUS, YOUR SO-CALLED FIRST ACTION IS HYPOCRITICAL AND DECEPTIVE. IT IS DEMONICALLY CLEVER.
[In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.]
HA HA HA... LIAR. THE OFFICIAL STAND OF THE HOLY SEE IS THAT THE SACRAMENTS PERFORMED BY SSPX PRIESTS ARE 'ILLICIT'.
[What inference are we to draw from this?]
THAT FELLAY IS LYING AND A HYPOCRITE.
[Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions.]
VALID BUT ILLICIT. YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE ORTHODOX PRIESTS TO WHOM YOU REFUSE ECUMENISM. HE HE HE... THE DEMONS THAT YOU HATE HAS POSSESSED YOUR GROUP. YOU HAVE BECOME EXACTLY LIKE THEM.
[If the Society priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions.]
HA HA HA... THE HOLY SEE HAS REPLIED THAT THEY ARE 'ILLICIT'.
[By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.”]
ALL IS UNCANONICAL AND ILLICIT.
[The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of what is obviously a difficult legal situation.]
THE HOLY SEE HAS DE FACTO DECLARED ALL THE SACRAMENTS OF SSPX 'ILLICIT'. YOUR CLAIMS IS ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR HALLUCINATIONS OR DELUSIONS OF FELLAY WHICH YOU SHARED VOLUNTARILY. HA HA HA...
YOUR SACRAMENTS ARE ILLICIT. ILLICIT. ILLICIT.
[Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions.]
ReplyDeleteVALID BUT ILLICIT. YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE ORTHODOX PRIESTS TO WHOM YOU REFUSE ECUMENISM. HE HE HE... THE DEMONS THAT YOU HATE HAS POSSESSED YOUR GROUP. YOU HAVE BECOME EXACTLY LIKE THEM.
Correction father Abe, The Society's confession are Null and void because they do not have faculty as expressed by the local ordinary of the diocese:
"The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.
"Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)
Monday of Holy Week Anno Domini 2008
In summary, Masses of the SSPX are valid but illicit but the sacrament of marriage and penance are null and void
[How can we interpret this incident? First, we have a Cardinal in the Vatican claiming that the Pope does not believe the assertions of a document appearing to come from an official organ in the Vatican. The document released by the Secretary of State says the Society does not exist in the Church, and yet the Pope believes the Society does. The Vatican then agrees to temporarily recognize the Society in exchange for a change in venue for a SSPX ordination. How seriously does the Pope take this lack of legal recognition when it can be offered thus as a mere bargaining chip?]
ReplyDeleteTHE BEST INTERPRETATION IS THAT THIS IS ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. THE POPE RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. SO HE IS WORKING HARD TO INVITE THE SSPX TO RETURN TO THE FOLD. THAT IS THE FACT.
[Bishop Fellay attempted to make some sense of these contradictions but all he could tell us is that this is the reality we have to accept for the present.]
THE CONTRADICTION IS PRESENT ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION. THE FACT IS THAT THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE POPE. THE POPE HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER IT BECAUSE FELLAY IS ITS HIGHEST AUTHORITY NOT THE POPE.
[The policy of the Vatican seems to be a contradictory policy which vacillates between “condemnation and admiration,” His Excellency noted.]
THE POLICY OF VATICAN IS VERY CLEAR. TO BE A CATHOLIC ONE MUST BE IN COMMUNION WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER - THE VICAR OF CHRIST. THAT IS VATICAN I.
LEFEBVRE DISOBEYED THE POPE CANONICALLY AND THEREFORE HE WAS EXCOMMUNICATED. THE FOUR OTHERS WERE RELEASED FROM EXCOMMUNICATION YET THEY ARE NOT YET IN FULL COMMUNION BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE.
[He seems convinced that where the personal sentiments of Benedict XVI himself are concerned, admiration for the SSPX is the word.]
HA HA HA... YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE. WHAT ADMIRATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? HA HA HA...
[He explained that in his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, His Holiness twice referred to Archbishop Lefebvre—first as the “venerated Archbishop Lefebvre”]
HA HA HA... HEARSAY. IN FACT, IT WAS RATZINGER WHO WAS THE RIGHT HAND OF BLESSED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT WHEN THAT TRAITOROUS ANIMAL WAS EXCOMMUNICATED. LEFEVBRE TREACHEROUSLY DECEIVED CARDINAL RATZINGER BY NOT HONORING THE AGREEMENT THAT HE SIGNED.
IF LEFEBVRE IS VENERATED THAT VENERATION HAPPENS IN HELL NOT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE VENERATION OF CATHOLICS ARE BEFORE THE TOMBS OF BLESSED JOHN XXIII AND BLESSED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT.
[and, later in the conversation, as “Archbishop Lefebvre, this great man of the universal Church.”]
HA HA HA... THESE ARE PRODUCTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION. HA HA HA...
HA HA HA... THANK YOU VERY MUCH BRO. EDNARD. HA HA HA... IMAGINE THAT. HA HA HA... NULL AND VOID.
ReplyDeleteTHAT SSPX IS SATANIC.
[So are we to believe that the Pope believes a schismatic excommunicant is venerable and a great man of the universal Church?]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... DO YOU THINK THAT WE SHALL BELIEVE YOUR CONCOCTED STORY OF THE POPE CALLING THAT EXCOMMUNICATED ANIMAL 'VENERABLE'? NO, NO, NO... SEND YOUR DECEPTIONS SOMEWHERE ELSE. HA HA HA... RATZINGER IS ONE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT EXCOMMUNICATION DECREE AGAINST LEFEBVRE.
[This would be nonsensical.]
YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.
[The only logical explanation is that the Pope recognizes the Archbishop for the loyal son of the Church that he is.]
THE POPE EXCOMMUNICATED LEFEBVRE AND HAS NOT RELEASED HIM FROM SUCH.
[His Excellency also contends that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos expressed this same attitude when in reference to the work of the Society, His Eminence said that “the fruits are good hence the Holy Ghost is there.”]
HA HA HA... THE HOLY SPIRIT IS PRESENT IN THE CHURCH BUT NOT IN LEFEBVRE WHO WAS A LIAR AND DECEIVER AND A DISOBEDIENT FOOL.
[Now we know that Our Lord gave us this of who is in the Church and who is not— “judge them by their fruits.” The Holy Ghost cannot be outside the Church; hence if He is with the Society, the Society is in the Church. The logic is irrefutable.]
HA HA HA... YOUR LOGIC IS BASED ON DELUSIONS AND IMAGINATIONS. HA HA HA... YOU ARE INVENTING LIES AND YOU ARE SO CONVINCED BY YOUR LIES THAT EVEN YOU HAVE STARTED THINKING THAT IT IS TRUE. HA HA HA... YOU ARE FRYING YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN MEAT-OIL. HA HA HA... THE HOLY SPIRIT IS PROMISED BY JESUS TO THE BLESSED PETER AND HIS SUCCESSOR. NOT TO ANY WACKY OLD FOOL LIKE LEFEBVRE WHO WAS EXCOMMUNICATED. DREAM ON. HA HA HA...
[How can it be that the Pope and the Vatican can have this policy of saying one thing but doing another?]
HA HA HA... THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING ARE NOT VATICAN POLICY BUT INVENTED STORIES. HA HA HA... YOUR FELLAY IS A LIAR AND YOU HAVE BELEIVED HIS LIES AND THEREFORE YOU ARE WALLOWING IN YOUR LIES JOINED TOGETHER.
DON'T INLCUDE US IN YOUR LIES. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING WITH YOU UNLESS YOU RETURN TO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE.
[How can they allow clerics to claim confessions heard by Society priests are invalid and then make it clear by their own actions that the SSPX confessions are “all good and licit?”]
ACTUALLY, THE PROPER TERM IS THAT YOUR SACRAMENT OF PENANCE IS NULL AND VOID. AND THE CLAIM OF FELLAY THAT THE HOLY SEE ACCEPTS THE CONFESSIONS OF THE SSPX IS A MYTH OR RATHER HEARSAY. HA HA HA...
[How can the Society be legally recognized for two weeks and then cease to be thus recognized after that time?]
HA HA HA... WHO RECOGNIZED YOU, SATAN? HA HA HA...
[Does this not manifest a Vatican dismissal of the seriousness of the issue of the SSPX’s “legal” recognition?]
HA HA HA... VERY PATHETIC. HA HA HA... HA HA HA...
[Benedict XVI feels that, given the situation in the Church today and the “wolves” within, that he cannot recognize the Society de jure. Yet, since he knows they are “inside the Church” and “bearing good fruit” he will recognize their legitimacy de facto as much as possible.]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... TRYING HARD TO BE THE SPOKESPERSON OF THE POPE. HA HA HA... THE SSPX ARE THE 'WOLVES' OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WHERE THERE IS NO SALVATION.
[Benedict XVI has learned through experience that he will lose what little influence he has over the bishops of most of the world united in their collegial disobedience and disregard of his authority if he goes too far in doing the right thing.]
POPE BENEDICT KNOWS THAT HE IS THE POPE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXCEPT OF THE SSPX OF WHICH HE HAS NO JURIDICAL AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. THESE LITURGICAL ANIMALS ARE USING HIS NAME DURING THEIR MASSES TO HAVE A SEMBLANCE OF CREDIBILITY YET THEY ARE ATTACKING HIM AND DO NOT RECOGNIZE HIS AUTHORITY.
[Bishop Fellay illustrated this point with concrete examples.]
YEAH, ANOTHER INVENTED STORIES ONCE AGAIN. HA HA HA...
[He recounted how, back in 2003, a group of Cardinals, including Joseph Ratzinger, had met to decide what was to be done about the Society and Tradition.]
RATZINGER IS THE CHIEF PROPENENT OF TRADITION IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AFTER POPE JOHN PAUL THE GREAT DURING HIS LIFETIME. LEFEBVRE FOLLOWED THE DEMONIC TRADITION OF LUTHER, THAT IS, DEFIANCE AND REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE. THE SAME DEMON THAT POSSESSED LUTHER ACTUALLY POSSESSED LEFEBVRE ALSO. THEY ARE BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER.
[ They agreed that an apostolic administration had to be organized in order to give legal standing and independence to Traditional groups.]
HA HA HA... ANOTHER HALLUCINATORY STORY. HA HA HA... IT IS SIMPLY PREGNANT WITH MALICE BUT BEREFT OF CREDIBILITY.
[ There was a disagreement about whether the Society should form the “spine” of this structure with the other groups attached to it, or whether it should just be set up independently within the current Ecclesia Dei communities.]
HA HA HA... IT IS VERY STRIKING THAT DURING THOSE TIME THAT FELLAY WAS AN EXCOMMUNICATED ANIMAL AND SUDDENLY HE WAS PRIVY TO THE SECRET MEETINGS OF CARDINALS. HA HA HA... SPEAKING OF THE DEVIL. HA HA HA...
[When Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, he started to implement this plan. Bishop Fellay relayed more details of his initial meeting with His Holiness.]
ReplyDeleteTHE POPE IS HIS HOLINESS WHEN YOU NEED HIM EH. BUT WHEN YOU DON'T NEED HIM HE BECOMES 'MODERNIST'. YOU SEE HOW HYPOCRITICAL YOU ARE. VERY DECEPTIVE.
[The meeting included Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger. The Pope asked Cardinal Castrillon “where do things stand.” The Cardinal replied, “Today you can recognize the Society of St. Pius X. I have sent you a document which would do this.”]
HA HA HA... ANOTHER HALLUCINATION. HA HA HA...
[The Pope replied that he had received the document and sent it on to the Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts to determine if it was “right with the Church.”]
OK, I'M ENJOYING YOUR DREAMS. C'MMON JUST CONTINUE. HE HE HE....
[Bishop Fellay remarked that it must have contained something unusual if it needed to be thus examined. Yet, for whatever reason, the Pope was evidently blocked and so far this document—prepared by Cardinal Hoyos and approved in principle by the Pope (and sent for technical study)— has not seen the light of day. Why not?]
BECAUSE IT EXIST ONLY IN YOUR MIND AND IN THE LYING MOUTH OF FELLAY. HA HA HA....
[Bishop Fellay explained that in 2006 the bishops of Germany went to the Vatican and vigorously opposed the project. So what did the Pope do? He freed the Mass and lifted the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops. We all remember what happened to the Pope after that. Literally, all hell broke loose. The world turned on him.]
THE WORLD PROTESTED BECAUSE THE WORLD KNOWS HOW EVIL THE SSPX ARE. THE WORLD KNOWS THAT THE SSPX ARE LIARS AND DECEIVERS LIKE THEIR FOUNDER, THE EXCOMMUNICATED WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE. IF THEIR LEADER WAS A TRAITOR, THEN THE FOLLOWERS WILL DO THE SAME. SUDDENLY THE PRO-NAZI STATEMENT OF WILLIAMSON APPEARED AND THE HOLY FATHER WROTE IN HIS BOOK 'THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD' THAT IF HE HAD KNOWN THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE ACTED AS SUCH.
THE POPE WAS GENEROUS BUT THE SSPX ARE NOT. THEY ARE LIARS AND DECEIVERS AND ARE DISOBEDIENT LOT. HE HE HE....
[Bishop Fellay further directed our attention to the recent incident when the Pope had appointed the conservative Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner to become Bishop of Linz, Austria. The Pope again was attacked in the media for this “ultra-conservative” appointment.]
WELL, AT LEAST IT WAS ONLY CRITICISM BUT WHAT LEFEBVRE DID WAS NOT ONLY CRITICISM BUT REBELLION. YOU ARE TRYING TO APPEAR AS IF YOU LOVE THE POPE... YOU ARE LIKE A PROSTITUTE TRYING TO APPEAR AS VIRGIN. HA HA HA... YOU DISAGREE WITH THE OTHER SIDE BUT YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING. YOU ARE CRYING BABIES IF YOUR REQEUSTS ARE NOT GRANTED.
[Clearly the Pope has concluded that the costs of provoking disobedience and rebellion from the world’s bishops are not worth giving de jure recognition to the Society.]
THE POPE BEING A MAN OF WISDOM KNOWS THAT HE HAS TO CONSULT THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD. THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD DISLIKES THE SSPX BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN FAULT. YOU TAUGHT THEM TO HATE YOU. IT WAS ALSO MY EXPERIENCE. I WAS CELEBRATING THE TLM AND THE SSPX FOLLOWERS DID NOTHING BUT TO CRITICIZE THE POPE, THE BISHOPS, THE COUNCIL... YOU ARE DEMONIC IN YOUR CRITICISMS. IF YOU WANT RESPECT THEN EARN IT. IF YOU WANT TO BE LOVED MAKE YOURSELVES LOVABLE. IF YOU ARE HATED THEN PUT THE BLAME ON YOURSELVES BECAUSE YOU CAUSED IT.
[The only solution is to grant recognition de facto, while the Vatican/SSPX talks continue.]
ONLY A FOOL WILL GRANT RECOGNITION TO LITURGICAL AND CANONICAL SNAKES LIKE YOU. HE HE HE... YOU CAN DECIEVE SOME PEOPLE SOMETIME BUT YOU CANNOT DECEIVE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. WE ALREADY KNOW YOUR TRUE COLORS.
[As an aside, the details of this 2005 meeting and the mysterious “document of recognition” that had resulted from it,]
ReplyDeleteIT IS THE LYING MOUTH OF FELLAY AND YOUR UNQUESTIONING BELIEF IN HIS FABLES THAT IS MYSTERIOUS. HE HE HE... YOU STUPIDLY ACCEPT EVERY STORIES FLOWING FROM HIS MOUTH AND THEN YOU ARE ASKING WHY YOU ARE IN A DILEMMA. HA HA HA...
[put to rest an argument which has been used by many adversaries of the Society who claim that, although the Society had supplied jurisdiction at one time, they lost it when they “refused the offer of ordinary jurisdiction.” I have heard this argument myself on more than one occasion.]
IT DOES NOT REST THERE. AS LONG AS THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE POPE IT IS NOT PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. STOP YOUR GOBBLEDYGOOK. YOU ARE COMPLICATING THINGS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE DEMONIC DEFIANCE OF YOUR GROUP. NO AMOUNT OF DEODORANT CAN MAKE THE SSPX SMELL GOOD. AND INVENTING STORIES THROUGH THE MOUTH OF FELLAY IS BUT A PIECE OF GARBAGE THAT DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT FACT.
[Bishop Fellay pointed out, however, that he had never actually been shown (or presented with) an actual concrete offer of jurisdiction on the occasion of that meeting. Obviously, he had not even seen the document the Pope had sent for review.]
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO SEE THEY NEVER SEE ANYTHING. ONLY THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO SEE CAN RECOGNIZE SUCH A DOCUMENT.
[He told us that that document “must have been” unusual, indicating that his knowledge of its contents had only been deduced.]
YOU SEE. HE HAS NOT SEEN THE DOCUMENT AND SUDDENLY NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT HE CLAIMS THAT THE DOCUMENT IS UNUSUAL. HA HA HA... YOU AND FELLAY ARE BEING CAUGHT IN YOUR OWN MOUTHS.
[How can one refuse an offer of jurisdiction that was never presented in the first place, and which is now lost in a Vatican review process due to the intervention of the German episcopacy?]
IF THERE IS NO OFFER OF JURISDICTION WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING? DO YOU WANT A JURISDICTION OR NOT? HE HE HE... IF YOU WANT A JURISDICTION SIMPLE. JUST ANNOUNCE TO THE WHOLE WORLD THAT YOU SUBMIT WILLINGLY AND ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY CONDITION TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY FATHER THE POPE AND THAT'S IT. HE HE HE...
[Thus, this argument fails.]
THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT FAILS. IT IS VALID STILL AND EFFECTIVE. THE SSPX HAS NO JURISDICTION. THE ANIMALS IN THE ZOO ARE IN BETTER STATE THAN THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHERE THEY BELONG. THE SSPX ARE LIKE WILD ANIMALS IN A RAMPAGE. THEY ARE CHAOTIC, DISORDER AND UNREASONABLE.
[It is not Bishop Fellay who “refused to accept” ordinary jurisdiction. It is the disloyal bishops of the world who have bound the Pope’s hand, preventing him from signing it!]
HA HA HA... VERY NICE SLOGAN. THE POPE'S HANDS ARE PREVENTED. HA HA HA... THE HAND OF THE POPE CANNOT BE PREVENTED BY ANYONE. HE CAN JUST ANNOUNCE SOMETHING SURPRISINGLY ON VATICAN RADIO AND TV OR IN SECULAR BROADCAST IN A LIVE PRESS CONFERENCE AND THE BISHOPS CAN DO NOTHING TO CHANGE HIS WILL. ONLY IDIOTS WILL POSIT THAT THE HAND OF THE POPE IS PREVENTED. THAT IS MORE PROPER FOR JAMES BOND MOVIES OR THE NOVELS OF DAN BROWN INSTEAD OF THE PAPAL AUTHORITY IN THE VATICAN. HE HE HE...
[So as the storm rages around him, the Holy Father presses ahead.]
ReplyDeleteTHE POPE IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORM. HE IS ON THE SEAT OF PETER. HE IS ON THE BARQUE OF PETER. NO STORM CAN HARM HIM. HE KNOWS THAT. BECAUSE THE LORD JESUS ASSURED HIM THAT THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINT HIM.
BUT THE GATES OF HELL HAS PREVAILED ON SSPX. IT HAS POSSESSED LEFEBVRE TO REBEL AGAINST THE POPE AND THAT REBELLION SPREADS LIKE THE ONE OF LUTHER. THE SSPX IS A CANCER IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. THANK GOD IT IS CURABLE BECAUSE OF THE DIVINE PROMISE OF THE MESSIAH.
[Contrary to the official line demanded by the liberal bishops of the world,]
THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD ARE THE TRUE CATHOLICS. THE SSPX ARE THE LIBERALS. BECAUSE LIBERALISM IS ROOTED IN REFUSAL TO OBEY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AND THAT IS WHAT LEFEBVRE DID IN HIS DEMONIC REBELLION. THE BISHOPS SOMETIMES DISAGREE WITH THE POPE BUT AT THE END THEY OBEY AND SUBMIT TO THE POPE.
[ the Pope carries on in word and practice (lifting SSPX excommunications,]
BECAUSE THEY REQUESTED FOR IT. HE HE HE...
[validating their confessions,]
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR...
[permitting former priests to exercise their priesthood,]
LIAR,LIAR, LIAR...
[“recognizing” the Society for two weeks)]
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR... HA HA HA...
[as if the Society are Catholic priests validly and licitly caring for souls and the good of the Church.]
THE SSPX ARE ONE OF THE EVIL IN THE CHURCH WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED.
[Would it be easier for the whole Church if the Pope would just recognize officially and in writing what he has manifested implicitly?]
NO. BECAUSE RECOGNITION MUST COME AFTER THE SSPX SUBMIT THEMSELVES COMPLETELY AND WILLINGLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST. OTHERWISE IT IS USELESS TO RECOGNIZE THEM.
[Perhaps, but that is easy for us to say from the comfort of our living rooms halfway across the world.]
WE LIVE THAT MATTER TO THE POPE AND THOSE HE HAS ASSIGNED FOR THAT MATTER. I WILL ONLY BELEIVE THE STATEMENTS -- OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF MY POPE AND THE HOLY SEE ON THAT MATTER, NOT THE FABLES, STORIES OF A FOOL LIKE FELLAY.
[What Bishop Fellay is trying to make clear is that living with this dichotomy of Vatican public condemnation and quiet approval, is the sacrifice God is asking the priests of the Society to bear for the time being.]
THERE IS NO SACRIFICE FOR YOUR PRIESTS BUT MERELY PAIN CAUSED BY YOUR SIN OF BEING THE LATEST 'PROTESTANTS' IN THE CHURCH AS LUTHER DID. YOUR PAIN IS SELF-INFLICTED.
[Benedict XVI seems to be asking the Society bishops and priests to allow him to pretend to have this public “quarrel” with them in order to help manage an unmanageable collegial bunch of bishops and priests like you Fr.ABE.]
HA HA HA... I DO NOT TROUBLE TO MY POPE AND MY BISHOP UNLIKE YOUR ANIMAL BISHOPS FROM LEFEBVRE TO FELLAY. I NEVER FORM A SOCIETY NOT IN COMMUNION WITH MY BISHOP AND MY POPE.
I SUBMIT MYSELF TO POPE BENEDICT XVI, WILLINGLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AS MY POPE - THE VICAR OF CHRIST AND THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER. MAY THE LORD GRANT ME THE GRACE TO REMAIN FAITHFUL UNTIL DEATH AND NOT SUFFER THE ABOMINABLE CONDEMNATION OF EXCOMMUNICATION SUFFERED BY THE DOGS AND LEECHES OF LUCIFER LIKE MARCHEL LEFEBVRE. AMEN.