EXCHANGE WITH SSPX FOLLOWER, Part 15

St. Peter, the First Pope and Keeper of the Keys of Heaven

Anonymous said...

Father Abe,

Vatican II did not declare to be a dogmatic council. In matters of Faith and Moral no council can override what have been declared by previous 'DOGMATIC COUNCIL'. You for one should know that.

[quote]
"Yes it is LAWFUL and Official Mass of the Roman Rite Church- not of the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH- because there are distinct rites and masses from the Roman rite that were retained, and that Includes the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Catholics."
[/quote]

As said, it has always been the LAWFUL mass and not just selected Church. The Catholic Church as declared by Pope St. Pius V allowed celebration of other norms, if and only if, it has been practiced for more than 200 years. Others are bound to observe the Tridentine Latin Mass and no bishop can stop any priests wanting to celebrate it. There is Wisdom to that, because St. Pope Pius V knew then that there will be people who shall adulterate the mass and distort the Faith of the Church.

If then it is lawful why then you should follow one which was concocted by PROTESTANTS? Light have no part in darkness. And today, a many Catholics no longer know left from right and vice versa.

Then we go to obedience and disobedience. Would st. paul then allow the action of St. peter that is not in line with Church's doctrine? Of course not. St. Paul in Acts corrected St. Peter. Correction does not mean schism. And, in matters of confusion, one can follow what the Church has handed down with Infallible declaration by the Dogmatic Council -- Vatican 1.

This is one thing Catholics need to discern. THE POPE IS NOT ABOVE TRADITION --- THE FAITH DEPOSITED THROUGHOUT THE TIMES AND HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH.

When does infallibility apply on the Pope? Is the Pope infallible at all times? You should also be aware Father that a many bishops and priests today do not even follow the Holy Father in affirming the Faith. Where do you give the host ... hand? or tongue? The Holy Father expressed kneeling while receiving the host with the tongue and yet a many priests do not obey that call. And, now you qualify what is obedience and disobedience?

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090801065749zzzz.nb/topstory.html

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_prefers_communion_on_the_tongue_msgr._marini_says/

Therefore father, when a Pope no longer confirm the faith of the Church -- it is not disobedience to the Church of not following a Pope's bad example. Infallibility does not rest on the Pope at all times.

Moreover, what the SSPX reject are teachings that goes contrary to what the Church have taught and declared Dogmatically. They do not question the Pope as successor of Peter. With that, the SSPX pray that the Pope continue to fight for the True Faith.

Do not be confused with the Anglicans. While the Anglican kept their own structure separate from the Church --- (a true sign of disobedience); the SSPX does not desire to have a new structure but only to continue what the Church have Infallibly taught throughout the times. Because of their desire to continue what the Church have brought to the world, they are scorned and declared to be disobeying the Pope.

Father Abe, cite one false Dogmatic teaching of Vatican 1 that Vatican II have corrected. Why then continuing what the Church clearly taught is a sin?

November 1, 2010 4:06 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[Vatican II did not declare to be a dogmatic council.]

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL IS BOTH DOGMATIC AND PASTORAL. ALL ECUMENICAL COUNCILS ARE BOTH DOGMATIC AND PASTORAL.

VATICAN II ISSUED TWO DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS:

1. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH [LUMEN GENTIUM]

2. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION [DEI VERBUM]

AND 1 PASTORAL CONSTITUTION: GAUDIUM ET SPES.

[In matters of Faith and Moral no council can override what have been declared by previous 'DOGMATIC COUNCIL'.]

ONLY AN IDIOT WILL CLAIM THAT VATICAN II OVERRIDE ANY DOGMA OF THE CHURCH. IT IS IN PERFECT HARMONY AND CONTINUITY WITH THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS. AND IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE, THOSE WERE ON THINGS THAT ARE PASTORAL AND NOT DOGMATIC BECAUSE VATICAN II DEALT ALSO ON PASTORAL MATTERS.

[You for one should know that.]

I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU ARE IGNORANT OF IT.

[As said, it has always been the LAWFUL mass and not just selected Church.]

THE MASS IS LAWFUL IF IT IS CELEBRATED IN COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST. IF IT IS NOT THEN IT IS ILLEGAL. THE MASSES OF SSPX ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

[The Catholic Church as declared by Pope St. Pius V allowed celebration of other norms, if and only if, it has been practiced for more than 200 years.]

POPE ST. PIUS V WAS REFERRING TO ALL THE VALID MASSES OF THE CHURCH. HE WAS NOT SAYING 'TRIDENTINE LATIN MASS ONLY'. THAT IS WHY IT IS FOOLISH TO INTERPRET HIS DECREE AS IF REFERRING TO TLM ALONE. BESIDES, THE POPE WAS REFERRING TO THE HOLY MASS BUT NOT TO THE PERPETUITY OF RITE OR LITURGICAL ACTIONS. THE MASS IS THE SAME AND UNCHANGING BUT THE LITURGY AND THE RITES ARE EXPERIENCING CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES.

[Others are bound to observe the Tridentine Latin Mass and no bishop can stop any priests wanting to celebrate it.]

THE BISHOP OF ROME CAN STOP ANY PRIEST IN USING ANY RITE OF THE CHURCH. THE TLM IS NOT DIVINE IN ORIGIN. IT WAS A LATER INVENTION ALSO. BUT THE POWER TO BIND AND TO LOOSE OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST IS DIVINE IN ORIGIN. HE CAN APPROVE OR DISALLOW ANY RITE IN THE CHURCH.

ARE YOU IGNORANT OF THAT?

[There is Wisdom to that, because St. Pope Pius V knew then that there will be people who shall adulterate the mass and distort the Faith of the Church.]

POPE ST. PIUS V NEVER TAUGHT THAT THE VICAR OF CHRIST WILL BE THE ONE TO ADULTERATE THE MASS. INSTEAD, THE TRUE MASS SHALL BE PRESERVED BY THE VICAR OF CHRIST. IT IS THE SSPX WHO ARE ADULTERATING THE TLM WITH THEIR CANONICAL DISOBEDIENCE AND LITURGICAL REBELLION.

[If then it is lawful why then you should follow one which was concocted by PROTESTANTS?]

PROTESTANTS? EXCUSE ME. IVE BEEN DEBATING PROTESTANTS HERE IN THIS GROUP AND AM DOING SO FOR MANY YEARS SINCE I WAS A LAD BUT I NEVER HEARD OF A PROTESTANT LOVING OUR VERNACULAR MASS. THEY HATE IT. PROTESTANTS HATE THE NOVUS ORDO JUST LIKE THE SSPX HATE THE NOVUS ORDO.

IT MEANS THE SSPX AND THE PROTESTANTS ARE POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON OF REBELLION AGAINST THE CHURCH AND THE POPE.

[Light have no part in darkness.]

THE SSPX IS IN DARKNESS BECAUSE INSTEAD OF CHOOSING PETER IT CHOSE LEFEBVRE THE CONTEMPORARY AGENT OF LUCIFER.

[And today, a many Catholics no longer know left from right and vice versa.]

DON'T INCLUDE US IN YOUR EVIDENT IGNORANCE.

[Then we go to obedience and disobedience.]

LEFEBVRE AND HIS MINIONS DISOBEYED THE CHURCH AND THE VICAR OF CHRIST AS LUCIFER DID TO GOD AND AS LUTHER DID CENTURIES BACK.

[Would st. paul then allow the action of St. peter that is not in line with Church's doctrine? Of course not.]

YOU SEE, YOU ARE ALREADY USING THE PROTESTANT ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PAPACY. HA, HA, HA... THAT IS CLASSIC PROTESTANT ARGUMENTATION.

TO CORRECT YOUR IGNORANCE, ST. PETER DIDN'T COMMIT ANY INFRACTION ON MATTERS OF DOCTRINE BUT OF CONDUCT. IT WAS HIS ATTITUDE THAT ST. PAUL WAS CORRECTING. BUT ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS ST. PAUL IS NOTHING EQUAL WITH ST. PETER. IN FACT IN ACTS 15 ST. PAUL AND ST. BARNABAS WERE NOT BELIEVED BY THE CHRISTIANS AND IT WAS ST. PETER WHO SETTLED THE ISSUE. THE CHRISTIANS LISTENED TO PAUL AFTER ST. PETER SUPPORTED HIM.

[St. Paul in Acts corrected St. Peter.]

IDIOT. THAT IS NOT IN ACTS THAT IS IN GALATIANS 2:11. I'VE MEMORIZED THAT BY CONSTANT DEBATES WITH PROTESTANTS. THEY ARE USING THE SAME ARGUMENT AND REASONING THAT YOU DO.

ARE YOU THAT STUPID OF THE BIBLE? THAT IS ELEMENTARY MY DEAR DUDE D DUDE. HA, HA, HA... IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE LEARNING FROM LEFEBVRE, STUPIDITIES?

[ Correction does not mean schism.]

LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX ARE NOT CORRECTING THEY ARE REBELLING. THEY ARE COMMITTING ACTIVE REBELLION FROM THE HOLY FATHER. THAT IS SCHISMATIC. YOU AND THEY ARE ACCUSING THE POPE OF HERESY, NOT ONLY THE POPE BUT ALSO THE LATEST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE PAULINE MASS.

[And, in matters of confusion, one can follow what the Church has handed down with Infallible declaration by the Dogmatic Council -- Vatican 1.]

HA, HA, HA... THE VATICAN I DECLARES THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE OVER THE CHURCH. THUS IN TIMES OF CRISIS THE FAITHFUL MUST CLING TO THE POPE NOT ON ANY SOCIETY FOUNDED BY A WACKY OLD FOOL.

[This is one thing Catholics need to discern.]

THE VATICAN 1 DECLARES THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE OVER THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. NO AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH IS OVER AND BEYOND THAT OF THE BISHOP OF ROME, THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

[THE POPE IS NOT ABOVE TRADITION ---]

THE POPE IS NOT ABOVE TRADITION BUT LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX ARE NOT ABOVE THE POPE. HA, HA, HA...

THE SSPX AND LEFEBVRE ARE INFERIOR ANIMALS IN COMPARISON WITH THE POPE.

THE POPE IS THE SUPREME GUARDIAN AND INTERPRETER OF TRADITION... NOT THE SSPX AND NOT THEIR WACKY OLD FOOL FOUNDER NAMED MARCEL LEFEBVRE.

[THE FAITH DEPOSITED THROUGHOUT THE TIMES AND HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH.]

THE SSPX IS NOT THE CHURCH. IT IS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. LEFEBVRE WAS AN EXCOMMUNICATED FOOL.

[When does infallibility apply on the Pope?]

WHEN DOES INFALLIBILITY APPLY ON LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX? DO THEY HAVE A GIFT OF INFALLIBILITY SO THAT WE CAN ENTRUST OUR SOULS TO THEM?

[Is the Pope infallible at all times?]

THE SSPX AND LEFEBVRE ARE NOT INFALLIBLE AT ALL TIMES. ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE THEY ARE NOT INFALLIBLE AT ALL. NO, NO, NO... THERE IS NO ANY IOTA OF INFALLIBILITY IN THAT SATANIC CULT.

IS BERNARD FELLAY INFALLIBLE AT ALL TIMES? HOW ABOUT WILLIAMSON THE PRO-HITLER SSPX BISHOP? HA, HA, HA... BEFORE YOU QUESTION THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE APPLY IT TO YOURSELVES FIRST. YOUR ALTERNATIVE IS SATANIC AND UNACCEPTABLE.
[ You should also be aware Father that a many bishops and priests today do not even follow the Holy Father in affirming the Faith.]

IF THAT IS THE CASE THEY ARE IMITATING LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. SO YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. AREN'T YOU HAPPY WITH THAT?

[Where do you give the host ... hand? or tongue?]

THE VICAR OF CHRIST APPROVED BOTH: OFFICIALLY ON THE TONGUE AND BY SPECIAL APPROVAL BY THE HAND. WHY? IS THERE A DOGMA LIMITING THE RECEPTION OF THE EUCHARIST TO THE TONGUE, FOREVER?

[The Holy Father expressed kneeling while receiving the host with the tongue and yet a many priests do not obey that call.]

THE HOLY FATHER DID THAT AS A PERSONAL CHOICE. BUT IF HE WILL ISSUE A DECREE REMOVING ALL APPROVAL FOR COMMUNION BY THE HAND AND IMPOSE COMMUNION ON TONGUE ONLY THEN EVERY BODY WILL FOLLOW.

[ And, now you qualify what is obedience and disobedience?]

OBEDIENCE AND DISOBEDIENCE STRICTLY SPEAKING IS BEING IN CANONICAL COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST AND UPHOLDING EVERYTHING THAT HE TEACHES. DEFINITELY, LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THAT.

[Therefore father, when a Pope no longer confirm the faith of the Church -- it is not disobedience to the Church of not following a Pope's bad example.]

HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE ACCUSING THE POPE OF APOSTASY. HA, HA, HA... AND NOT ONLY THAT OF HERESY.

IF THE POPE DOES NOT CONFIRM THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH THEN THAT POPE IS HERETICAL AND HAD APOSTATIZED. HOW COME THE SSPX ARE STILL RECITING HIS NAME IN THE MASS? IF I AM CONVINCED THAT THE POPE IS NO LONGER CONFIRMING THE CATHOLIC FAITH IT WILL BE AGAINST MY CONSCIENCE TO RECITE HIS NAME IN THE ANAPHORA.

YOU ARE LYING HERE. YOU SAID THAT YOU ARE STILL IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE. HOW CAN YOU BE IN COMMUNION WITH A POPE WHO IS A HERETIC? OR HAS APOSTATIZED?

STOP THROWING AT THE POPE THE EVIL THAT YOU HAVE EMBRACED. THE POPE IS CONFIRMING AND HAD AFFIRMED THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH. IT IS LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX WHO HAD SUCCUMBED TO LITURGICAL AND CANONICAL DISOBEDIENCE TO THE CHURCH AND TO THE POPE.

[Infallibility does not rest on the Pope at all times.]

BUT INFALLIBILITY SHALL NOT REST ON ANYONE WITHOUT THE POPE WITH HIM. THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS CAN BE INFALLIBLE ONLY IF THE POPE IS WITH THEM. THE CATECHETICAL MANUAL COULD BE INFALLIBLE ONLY AFTER THE POPE APPROVED IT BY APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.

NO POPE, NO INFALLIBILITY AT ALL. NOT WITHOUT PETER. INFALLIBILITY IS GIVEN TO THE CHURCH UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PETER. NOT WITHOUT PETER AND HIS SUCCESSOR.

[Moreover, what the SSPX reject are teachings that goes contrary to what the Church have taught and declared Dogmatically.]

THAT IS JUST AN ALIBI TO FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR LUCIFERIAN REBELLION. EVERY SCHISMATIC AND PROTESTANT HAS REASONS AND ALIBI TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES. THE SSPX AND LEFEBVRE HAS LOST ANY CREDIBILITY ON THAT MATTER WHEN IT AIMED ITS GUN ON THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER.

[They do not question the Pope as successor of Peter.]

HYPOCRISY.

[With that, the SSPX pray that the Pope continue to fight for the True Faith.]

THE POPE IS ALREADY SUCH THEY ARE JUST TOO PROUD LIKE SATAN TO ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE IN THE WRONG AND THAT THE POPE IS RIGHT AFTER ALL.

[Do not be confused with the Anglicans. While the Anglican kept their own structure separate from the Church --- (a true sign of disobedience); the SSPX does not desire to have a new structure but only to continue what the Church have Infallibly taught throughout the times.]

THAT IS ONCE AGAIN HYPOCRITICAL. YOU ARE ALREADY HAVING YOUR OWN STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION. ACTUALLY YOU ARE ALREADY INFILTRATING LOCAL DIOCESES WITHOUT COMMUNION WITH THE LOCAL BISHOPS AND ARE ESTABLISHING COMMUNITIES AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BISHOPS.

WE KNOW YOUR ACTIVITIES. YOUR CLAIMS ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU ARE DOING IN THE GRASSROOTS.

[Because of their desire to continue what the Church have brought to the world, they are scorned and declared to be disobeying the Pope.]

HA, HA, HA... NOW YOU ARE APPEALING TO PITY. AFTER YOU PRIDEFULLY ACCUSED THE POPE OF NOT AFFIRMING THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH IT IS HYPOCRITICAL OF YOU TO CLAIM THAT YOU ARE IN OBEDIENCE WITH HIM. HA, HA, HA... HOW CAN YOU BE IN OBEDIENCE WITH SOMEONE WHO IS NO LONGER A SERVANT OF THE CHURCH AND A TRUE GUARDIAN OF THE FAITH? YOUR CLAIMS ARE CONTRADICTORY.

[Father Abe, cite one false Dogmatic teaching of Vatican 1 that Vatican II have corrected.]

WHY SHOULD I? BOTH VATICAN I AND VATICAN II ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE OTHER. BUT THE SSPX IS VIOLATING VATICAN I FOR ITS DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POPE.

JUST BY TEACHING THAT THE POPE IS NOT AFFIRMING THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH IS ALREADY A HERESY AGAINST THE DOGMA OF VATICAN I.

[Why then continuing what the Church clearly taught is a sin?]

VATICAN II NEVER CONTINUE SOMETHING THAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AS A SIN. NEVER EVER.

November 1, 2010 6:04 PM

EXCHANGE WITH SSPX FOLLOWER, Part 14 Bro. Ednard Kim la Rosa's Reply

The Unity of the Church

Ednard Kim said...

[While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, together with a rumour from Rome spell danger for traditionalist Catholics.]

The True Traditionals are those who are in Communion with the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. The act of fight tradition- be it the Tridentine mass or the ancient form of the discipline of the Church- apart from the Successor of Peter is a form of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff which is called “Schism” and not “Traditional Catholics”. De Galaretta and other SSPX bishops found themselves not hitting from a huge wall but found themselves a crushed with the Rock where Jesus Built his Church.

[That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine.]

What does secular law has to come up with internal matters of the Church? The Holy See has independence from state laws. Have you red the Lateran treaty?

[a few months ago a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. If - repeat, if -- this is true, it is very serious. ]

The population of those who support SSPX is far from the population of Catholics who accepts the Teaching Authority of Vatican II and the Pope. Have you seen the funeral mass of John Paul II which used the Novus Ordo? Have you heard the demand of hastening up the process for his sainthood? Have you seen Benedict XVI’s Inauguration Mass who used also the Novus Ordo? There are more people who attend the legitimate Novus Ordo than those illegitimate tridentine mass of SSPX. So many that even the parish church who uses novus ordo cannot contain the congregation. There are many congregation who uses the Pauline Missal- the Dominicans, the Discalced Carmelites – who have their own variant of the Roman Missal prior to the 1970 liturgical reforms uses Novus Ordo and the SSPX supporters does not even reach their population. And is the SSPX priest are the only one who can celebrate the mass according to the 1962 edition? Excuse me, just so you know father Abe had celebrated the mass not only in 1970 edition but also in the 1962 edition. The Society of Saint Peter (who separated from the Popeless SSPX) celebrates also the the 1962 mass andenjoys “Pontifical right” unlike SSPX who has “NO CANONICAL STATUS”. The Ecclessia Dei here in Sikatuna, Philippines also celebrate the tridentine Mass but is in full communion with the Pope and recognizes the teachings of Vatican II. Also here in Davao, our cathedral is planning to build a traditional altar that would cater both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo. When a visiting SSPX priest arrive here in our city, only few of the faithful attended the mass and the chapel was still had vacant pews due to its low attendance. Ask a lay faithful here what is SSPX and they will never have an idea who are the SSPX. IT ONLY MEANS WE DO NOT NEED THE SSPX TO ENJOY THE TRIDENTINE MASS. In fact bishops do not openly embrace SSPX because they know its canonical irregularities. So They do not receive local support from the diocese where they are now especially here in Davao.

[Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church.]

Let me repeat to you what Pastor Aeternus told us about papal infallibility:

"This See of St. Peter ALWAYS REMAINS UNBLEMISHED BY ANY ERROR, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus)

By accusing the council of Heresy, you are negating what the fathers of Vatican I has taught. Vatican II never taught any modernistic Ideas. Its just you are having illusion so just to justify your reason to reject Vatican

[Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre .]

When Lefebvre died he neither refused to say sorry or admit his sins nor showed any remorse for ordaining bishops without papal mandate. He died excommunicated and disobedient and that is not a good model for us. That is the sin of disobedience. When he died, ordinary Catholics, even until now, never heard of him. He was not even in the headlines and very few attended his funeral. But when the great Pope John Paul II died, saint Peter's Square was not even enough contain the crowd with their cries of "Santo Subito".

[They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.especially to BASTARDS like you hehehe...]

Bastard is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "an illegitimate child". Remember well that the ordinations of bishops by Lefebvre to de Gallaretta, Williamson, Fellay and de Mallerais in the absence of Papal Mandate were valid but "ILLICIT". The sacraments they dispense are "valid but ILLICIT" because they are suspended "ad divinis" and no canonical status with the Church. Illicit means "not permitted : unlawful" according to Merriam-Webster dictionary. BASING ON THESE DEFINITION IT IS YOUR BISHOPS WHO FITS THE TERM "BASTARDS" BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGALLY CONSECRATED AS BISHOPS AND THE SACRAMENTS THEY DISPENSE ARE UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL AND NOT PERMITTED.

OH AND BY THE WAY, ACCORDING TO THE TALKS OF MICHAEL DAVIES, (A SUPPORTER OF BISHOP LEFEBVRE), MODERNIST- DURING THE REIGNS OF LEO XIII AND ST. PIUS X (LIKE THE EXCOMMUNICATED PRIEST ALFRED FIRMIN LOISY )- WROTE THEIR ARTICLES AND IDEAS WITH PSEUDONAMES TO HIDE THEIR NAMES SO THAT THEY WON'T BE CAUGHT. IN YOUR STYLE YOU ARE IMITATING THE STRATEGY OF THE MODERNIST LIKE ALFRED LOISY BY NOT STATING YOUR NAME. IT IS YOU WHO IS NEO MODERNIST BECAUSE YOU ARE IMITATING THEIR STYLE... HA, HA, HA. THOSE PEOPLE LOYAL AND HUMBLY SUBJECTS TO THE BISHOP OF ROME WILL NEVER BE ASTRAYED OF HERESY UNLIKE YOU WHO THINKS TO BE SO TRADITIONAL BUT IN FACT POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON FOR REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST

[Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement.]

You seem to forget the TRUTH in the fundamental basis of Ecclesial authority. Was it not "By Divine Institution" that Jesus willed that his Church will be shepherded by Peter and his successors? Was it not in Peter that the power of the keys- to bind and to loose, to open or to close, to allow and to forbid by Christ? Well that is what we do, we obey him because we believe in the promise of Christ to the Apostles: "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16). Was it not also that Jesus willed the unity of every Christians? It is the responsibility of the pope to safeguard not ONLY THE PURITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BUT ALSO UNITY! You on the other hand failed to see fruits of ecumenical relations. Have you read Benedict XVI's "Anglicanorum Caetoribus"? Soon, those Anglicans who wish to join on Rome will come home while maintaining their patrimony. John Paul II and Benedict XVI met and exchange words of love with our separated brethren through ecumenical Dialogues. Ecumenical efforts is based on our Jesus mandate to "love our enemies" and his desire of Unity. SSPX on the other hand are like the Jews of Jesus' Times. As the Jews who sees themselves superior above the gentiles and Samaritans because they are the only one worshiping the True God, SSPX by rejecting ecumenism refuse to enter dialogue to our separated Christian brethren despite they worship the same God we love to.

[Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them.]

They found themselves banging their heads to the Foundation Rock of the Church. SSPX bishops knew that very well that is why Fellay asked the excommunication be lifted and that means they cannot deny the fact of the burdening sanction that the Church imposed on them.

[Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. ]

Haha.... have you read the document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of faith regarding our separated brethren which the Pope Approves? It is stated that the True Church is the Catholic Church and that the oriental Churches are churches also but defective because they do not accept the AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME (LIKE WHAT LEFEBVRE DID), but it also states that "Christian denomination born out of the 16th century have no apostolic succession hence they are not true churches."

(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)

You may also want to read what he as cardinal and Lefebvre signed for a protocol agreement:

THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT OF THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988

I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:

1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.

2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.

3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.

See? Even as cardinal he safeguard the unity of the church and Lefebvre was mandated to accept Vatican II! So in this document Benedict XVI as the visible head of the "True Church of Christ" renewed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (and not some New CHURCH) both values the True Doctrine of Faith and at the same time values unity! He is not religiously indifferent as you think

Ednard Kim said...

{Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well - and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! ]

Who are you to set the life limit of the pope? Our pope Benedict XVI may be advance in age but take a look at how long Leo XIII reigned despite he was elected as pope with advance age.

[So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.]

IF the SSPX does not wish to respond to the call of the pope's call to accept the authority of the pope well its up to them. But Outside of the Vicar of Christ, there the gates of hell exist.

[The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.]

On the contrary, pope Benedict XVI has affirmed the Teaching Authority of Vatican II and he calls the SSPX to accepts the decrees of Vatican II:

"Precisely in fulfilment of this service to unity, which qualifies my ministry as Successor to Peter in a specific way, I decided several days ago to grant the remission of the excommunication to which the four Bishops, ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a Papal mandate, were subject. I fulfilled this act of paternal compassion because these Bishops repeatedly manifested their active suffering for the situation in which they had found themselves.

I HOPE THAT HIS GESTURE OF MINE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY AN EARNEST COMMITMENT ON THEIR BEHALF TO COMPLETE THE NECESSARY FURTHER STEPS TO ACHEIVE FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH, THIS WITNESSING TRUE FIDELITY TO, AND TRUE RECOGNITION OF THE MAGETERIUM AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

You are really having your own illusions. The Pope has affirmed the teaching authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. In fact he made Lefebvre agree to accept Vatican II but that promise-breaker broke it. Thus, for SSPX to be receive full communion, they are obligated to RECOGNIZE THE MAGESTERIUM, THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL INCLUDING THE CATHECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PROMULGATED UNDER THE POPE JOHN PAUL II

[Kyrie eleison.]

BEGGING FOR LORD'S MERCY BUT ATTACKING HIS VICAR? STOP YOUR HYPOCRISY. BY ATTACKING JOHN PAUL II AND BENEDICT XVI YOU ATTACKED THE ONE WHO SENT THEM.

October 4, 2010 5:30 PM

THE CHURCH OF GOD 'SUBSISTS' IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Cardinals and Bishops gathered around the Tomb of St. Peter and his Successor the Pope.

Anonymous said...

A Problem with Vatican II's Lumen Gentium:

Concerning the Church itself, there is one word that in this text , which is perhaps the most harmful word in the whole Council documents.

In the Latin text, it is: "Ecclesia Dei subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica" #8. This means "the Church of God subsists or takes its concrete form, is realised 'in the Catholic Church'.

The truth of the matter is that. The whole truth is: 'Ecclesia Dei est Ecclesia Catholica - the Church of God is the Catholic Church'. If you say that the Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church, you mean that there are two different entities: the Church of God and the Catholic Church and it is quite by chance that these two entities come together.

October 3, 2010 11:44 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[A Problem with Vatican II's Lumen Gentium:]

THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF VATICAN II BUT YOUR OWN CREATED PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS NOT IN VATICAN II DOCUMENTS BUT IN YOUR MIND.

[Concerning the Church itself, there is one word that in this text , which is perhaps the most harmful word in the whole Council documents.]

IT IS YOUR MALICIOUS MIND THAT CREATES THE HARM IN YOUR FAITH NOT THE DOCUMENT OF VATICAN II.

[In the Latin text, it is: "Ecclesia Dei subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica" #8. This means "the Church of God subsists or takes its concrete form, is realised 'in the Catholic Church'.]

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT IS A THEOLOGICAL PRESENTATION OF THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

[The truth of the matter is that. The whole truth is: 'Ecclesia Dei est Ecclesia Catholica - the Church of God is the Catholic Church'.]

THAT IS EXACTLY THE CORRECT MEANING OF THE VATICAN II TEXT. IT PROCLAIMS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONE AND TRUE CHURCH. THE CHURCH IS TOTALLY PRESENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

OF COURSE, VATICAN II EMPLOYED A THEOLOGICAL MANNER OF PRESENTATION RATHER THAN THE SIMPLE SLOGAN MANNER THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING WHICH IS VERY CHEAP.

FOR INSTANCE, THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICAEA DIDN'T JUST SIMPLY STATE: 'JESUS IS GOD' BUT IT EMPLOYED 'HOMOOUSIOS' WITH THE FATHER OR IN ENGLISH 'CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER'. LOOK AT THAT. WHY NOT SIMPLY SAY 'JESUS IS GOD'? WHY DID THEY USE A PHILOSOPHICAL TERM THAT ONLY SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHERS AND THEOLOGIANS CAN FULLY GRASP? SEE WHAT I MEAN?

NOW, IF THERE IS ONE WHO IS CRAZY AND START QUESTIONING IT: "IF JESUS IS CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER WHAT IS THE MEANING OF 'CON'? DOES IT MEAN THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF JESUS IS CONTRARY TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER?" NOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE INTERPRETATION IS FAULTY AND INCORRECT. HOW? BY FOLLOWING THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. NOT OUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

HOW ABOUT TRANSUBSTANTATION? IS IT FREE FROM WRONG INTERPRETATION? NO! ONE CAN ARGUE THAT IT IS WRONG. WHY? BECAUSE THE WORD 'TRANS' COULD MEAN 'TRANSFER'. THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF DIVINITY OF JESUS TRANSFERS ONLY TO THE BREAD.

HOW ABOUT THEOTOKOS? I HAVE ENCOUNTERED A PERSON WHO CLAIMS THAT MARY IS NOT MOTHER OF GOD. WHY? BECAUSE THEOTOKOS SIMPLY MEANS 'GOD BEARER'.

THE SAME WITH SUBSISTIT. IF YOU WANT TO DISTORT ITS MEANING IT IS YOUR FAULT BUT FOR US CATHOLICS IT MEANS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE CHURCH OF GOD.

[If you say that the Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church, you mean that there are two different entities: the Church of God and the Catholic Church and it is quite by chance that these two entities come together.]

WE DO NOT MEAN THAT. SUCH INTERPRETATION IS CONCOCTED BY YOUR MIND PREGNANT WITH MALICE. IT IS JUST THE LIES INVENTED BY THE SSPX AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS.

October 3, 2010 1:09 PM

EXCHANGE WITH SSPX FOLLOWER, Part 12 The SSPX Demands to Rome

The Pope's Cathedra in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome

Anonymous said...

first let me remind you Dude, the sspx merely wants,does every true catholic, the vatican to admit the truth
theat tridintine Mass has never been forbiden and all priest are free to celebrate it with out a special indult from the bishops
in simillar vein, the sspx is not asking the vatican to "lift"excommunications since SSPX does not recognize any such excommunication exist
again SSPX only wants Rome to admit the truth of the situation and declare then excommunication null. and so it does.
other important point which would be an absolute condition of the SSPX for regularization .by recognizing the right to criticize the certain aspescts of Vatican II
, especially it's teaching on religious liberty. one Vatican Cardinal said he doubted the Holy See could accept the conditions posed by the society for returning.

especially a rigth to disagreement with elements of Vatican II. hthat would have very serious implications for the Unity of the church. he said the unnamed prelate further stated he believes the Pope understands this very well and thus would be cautious about moving forward. the Pope B XVI, has not been cautious
about moving forward the post concilliar revolution.

a brief review of some of the most poignant moments: B XVI issued a pathetic document on Seminary formation that for the first time in church history, said that
those who engage in homosexual activity should be "profoundly respected". the document allows a homosexual to become a priest provided he has been celibate for three years. this led a number of Novus Ordo Catholics to regard B XVI as even more liberal than John XXIII who in a1961 document banned homosexuals
from the priesthood because of their evil tendencies. and of course you are already the product of the modern times, an "IDIOTCATOR" hehehe...
more examples could be given but i think the point is made...

by the way, pls. response in a more logical manner rather than your PIGGY FREAK reasoning for you don't still hit the points. and minimize your space by not laughing on your face all the time. whatever you do your still no match with the SSPX Priests. hehehe...nail that on your head Dude.hehehe....

Kyrie eleison.

October 2, 2010 6:03 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[first let me remind you Dude,]

HEY DUDE. YOU SOUND LIKE THE BEETLES DUDE... HA, HA, HA...

[the sspx merely wants,does every true catholic,]

YOU ARE FAKE CATHOLICS. STOP DREAMING.

[the vatican to admit the truth theat tridintine Mass has never been forbiden]

WHETHER IT WAS FORBIDDEN OR NOT IS NOT AN ISSUE. THE POWER OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST AS THE BEARER OF THE KEY IS TO OPEN AND SHUT, TO ALLOW AND NOT TO ALLOW, TO CLOSE AND TO OPEN. DEFINITELY, ONLY FOOLS WILL CLAIM THAT THE POPE HAS NO POWER TO TELL THE FLOCK TO REFRAIN FROM CELEBRATING CERTAIN RITE AND TO IMPLEMENT ANOTHER EQUALLY VALID RITE.

THIS POWER OF THE POPE IS GIVEN BY THE LORD JESUS PERSONALLY AND SPECIFICALLY. BUT I NEVER HEARD OR READ THE LORD JESUS SPEAKING ABOUT THE PERPETUAL CELEBRATION OF THE 'LATIN' 'TRIDENTINE MASS'. NEVER EVER.

THERE IS THE MASS... THE HOLY EUCHARIST. BUT NO PARTICULAR RITE WAS HANDED AS THE SUPERLATIVE RITE. THAT HERESY IS INVENTED BY LEFEBVRE AND THE LEFEBRISTS LIKE YOU.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE TLM WAS NOT PROHIBITED TOTALLY BECAUSE THERE WERE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS WHO WERE STILL CELEBRATING IT DESPITE THE RISE OF THE NOVUS ORDO. BUT, IF POPE PAUL VI MADE AN ORDER TO MINIMIZE IT OR EVEN STOP IT FOR A WHILE IN FAVOR OF THE VERNACULAR LITURGY THEN IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE BEARER OF THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

NO POWER ON EARTH CAN OVERRULE THAT BECAUSE IT IS UPHELD IN HEAVEN. DEFINITELY NOT YOUR OLD WACKY FOOL LEFEBVRE AND YOUR SENILE WILLIAMSON. HE, HE, HE...

[and all priest are free to celebrate it with out a special indult from the bishops in simillar vein,]

IF THE POPE ISSUED A REQUIREMENT OF AN INDULT SO BE IT. BUT WHEN HE REMOVED THE INDULT SO IT SHALL BE. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. IN EACH CASE, THE PRIESTS MUST OBEY THE VICAR OF CHRIST NOT ANY WACKY OLD FOOL WHO CLAIMS TO BE MORE AUTHORITATIVE AND MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN THE VICAR OF CHRIST. WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL. WE INSTEAD HEAR THE VOICE OF THE REAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD - THE BISHOP OF ROME.

[the sspx is not asking the vatican to "lift"excommunications since SSPX does not recognize any such excommunication exist]

THEN WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXISTENCE EITHER. THERE ARE ONLY HANDFULS OF LITURGICAL BASTARDS IN THAT SOCIETY SO FEW YET SO NOISY COMMON TO THE DRUNKARDS ON THE STREETS.

[again SSPX only wants Rome to admit the truth of the situation and declare then excommunication null.]

WHO ARE THESE SSPX ANIMALS TO DEMAND SUCH A THING FROM THE NOBLE ROME, THE SEAT OF THE BLESSED APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL - THE CHURCH WATERED BY THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS LOYAL TO PETER AND DESTROYER OF HERESIES AND REBELLION FROM LUCIFER TO LEFEBVRE?

[ and so it does.] HA, HA, HA... PRETENTIOUS AND HALLUCINATORY. YOU ARE FREE TO WALLOW AND PLAY WITH THE HYDRAS IN YOUR DREAMS. [other important point which would be an absolute condition of the SSPX for regularization.by recognizing the right to criticize the certain aspescts of Vatican II]

HA, HA, HA... WHAT A VERY FOOLISH CONDITION. EVERY HUMAN PERSON IS FREE TO CRITICIZE. IS THERE A NEED TO MAKE AN ABSOLUTE CONDITION FOR THAT? HA, HA, HA... IT IS LIKE PRESENTING AS ABSOLUTE CONDITION THE RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO 'BREATHE'. HA, HA, HA... OR THE RIGHT TO 'EAT'. HA, HA, HA...

[, especially it's teaching on religious liberty.]

YEAH, YOU ARE FREE TO CRITICIZE IT. CRITICIZE IT ON TV AND RADIO. C'MMON. DO A WILLIAMSON. EXPRESS YOUR CRITICISM AND SPEAK AGAINST OTHER RELIGION FREELY. LET ME SEE IF YOU HAVE THE BLOOD FOR IT. HE, HE, HE...

YOU ARE FREE TO CRITICIZE. EVERY BODY CAN CRITICIZE IN A FREE SOCIETY. BUT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CRITICISM AND BE OPEN. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOUR LEADERS ARE COWARDS. THEY ARE NOT APPEARING ON MAINLINE MEDIA TO DEFEND THEIR POSITIONS. THEY PREFER HIDING LIKE FOXES IN THEIR LAIR AND THEY JUST EXPRESS THEIR ATTACKS ON OUR BACKS. TELL WILLIAMSON TO SHOUT ON A TELIVISED MASS HOW THE OTHER RELIGIONS WILL NOT RECEIVE SALVATION. HA, HA, HA...

[one Vatican Cardinal said he doubted the Holy See could accept the conditions posed by the society for returning.]

I AGREE WITH HIM. WE WILL PETITION THE HOLY FATHER TO REJECT YOUR DEMONIC DEMANDS. YOUR DEMANDS ARE PREPOSTEROUS AND PRETENTIOUS, FOOLISH AND PATHETIC.

[especially a rigth to disagreement with elements of Vatican II.]

IF YOU CANNOT TAKE IT THEN LEAVE. I PREFER THAT THE HOLY FATHER WILL EXCOMMUNICATE EACH ONE OF YOU UNLESS YOU RETURN. WELL, YOU WILL STILL SURVIVE FOR SOME CENTURIES LIKE THE NESTORIANS, DON'T WORRY BUT YOU WILL ALL DIE SEPARATED FROM THE SEE OF PETER.

[hthat would have very serious implications for the Unity of the church.]

THE CHURCH IS ALWAYS UNITED BY ITSELF. AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT WITH US WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE CHURCH DISUNITED. IT REMAINS UNITED AND COMPLETE, THERE ARE ONLY A VERY VERY SMALL BRANCH THAT DIED OUT AND HAS FALLEN AWAY FROM THE TREE.

[he said the unnamed prelate further stated he believes the Pope understands this very well and thus would be cautious about moving forward.]

OF COURSE, THE POPE HAS SEEN THE POISON IN YOUR POSITION.

[the Pope B XVI, has not been cautious about moving forward the post concilliar revolution.]

HA, HA, HA... OF COURSE, IT MEANS THAT HE WILL NOT BE FOOLED AND BE COMPELLED BY TRAITORS LIKE YOU AND THE SSPX. HA, HA, HA...

[a brief review of some of the most poignant moments: B XVI issued a pathetic document on Seminary formation that for the first time in church history, said that those who engage in homosexual activity should be "profoundly respected".]

YOU ARE LYING HERE. WHAT IS THAT DOCUMENT AND IN WHAT PART IS YOUR CLAIM STATED IN THE SAID DOCUMENT? WE MUST BE WEARY OF YOUR QUOTES BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR LIKES ARE CERTIFIED LIARS.

[the document allows a homosexual to become a priest provided he has been celibate for three years. this led a number of Novus Ordo Catholics to regard B XVI as even more liberal than John XXIII who in a1961 document banned homosexuals from the priesthood because of their evil tendencies.]

THE REASON WHY YOU CANNOT NAME THE DOCUMENT AND YOU CANNOT PRESENT A CITATION IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING ABOUT SUCH A DOCUMENT. IT IS BENEDICT XVI WHO IMPOSED SEVERE PENALTY FOR HOMOSEXUALS IN THE SEMINARY.

DON'T BE HYPOCRITE. THERE WERE HOMOSEXUALS IN THE SEMINARIES DURING THE PRE-VATICAN II PERIOD. THEY WERE SIMPLY LUCKY THAT IT WAS NOT YET THE ERA OF MODERN COMMUNICATIONS. NO MEANS TO SPREAD THE NEWS IN A MODE FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND AND LIGHT.

[and of course you are already the product of the modern times, an "IDIOTCATOR" hehehe...]

HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE SO INTELLIGENT THAT THE READERS OF THIS BLOG HAS FOUND OUT THAT MANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED HERE ARE WRITINGS OF WILLIAMSON. HA, HA, HA...

WELL, THE PEOPLE ARE READING THE EXCHANGE AND THEY HAVE SEEN THE LOW LEVEL OF YOUR REASONING. YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL NOT ONLY OF YOURSELVES BUT ALSO OF THE ENTIRE SSPX - SOCIETY OF THE POPELESS. HA, HA, HA...

[more examples could be given but i think the point is made...]

YOUR POINTS ARE POINTLESS. YOU'VE FAILED TO JUSTIFY ANY OF YOUR POSITION FROM LATIN TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. HA, HA, HA... AFTER YOU ARE DEBUNKED YOU ARE ONLY GETTING ANOTHER MATERIAL TO COPY AND PASTE BUT YOU NEVER COUNTER MY REBUTTALS. HA, HA, HA...

[by the way, pls. response in a more logical manner rather than your PIGGY FREAK reasoning for you don't still hit the points.]

HA, HA, HA... BECAUSE YOUR 'DOGGY FREAK' DOES NOT HAVE ANY POINT AT ALL. HA, HA, HA... YOU ONLY KNOW COPY AND PASTE STYLE FROM THE ARCHIVE OF WILLIAMSON. HA, HA, HA...

[and minimize your space by not laughing on your face all the time.]

HA, HA, HA... BECAUSE I FIND YOU VERY FUNNY AND PITIFUL.

[whatever you do your still no match with the SSPX Priests. hehehe...]

REALLY? TELL THEM TO VISIT HERE WITH FULL IDENTIFICATION. I WANT TO EXCHANGE IDEAS WITH THEM. LET ME TEST HOW GOOD THEY ARE AS YOU CLAIM. WE WILL GREASE THEM ON THEIR OWN DOGGY OIL. HA, HA, HA... LET ME SEE IF THEY WILL HAVE THE COURAGE DEBATING ON THE NET WITH THEIR FULL IDENTITY ON. I THINK THEY WILL HIDE LIKE DOGS AS YOU DO. HA, HA, HA...

[nail that on your head Dude.hehehe....]

REALLY? YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE. LEFEBVRE IS ALREADY ROTTING IN HELL WITH ARIUS, NESTORIUS, LUTHER AND THE HERESIARCHS WHO FOLLOWED THE REBELLION OF LUCIFER. IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEIR PATHS.

C'MMON. CONTINUE YOUR REBELLION AGAINST THE ROCK CALLED PETROS. CONTINUE DUDE... HA, HA, HA... SHALL I SAY: "RINGO STAR!"

October 2, 2010 8:35 PM