OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Jetavan on October 24, 2012, 08:23:14 PM

Title: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Jetavan on October 24, 2012, 08:23:14 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on October 24, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 24, 2012, 09:02:24 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.
I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on October 24, 2012, 09:09:08 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.
I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.
At one point throughout the negotiations, Bp. Fellay was starting to sound very positive about normalization of relations with Rome. Suddenly, the ultra-anti-VII crowd started moaning and groaning, and Bp. Fellay reversed his position. We know that Bp. Williamson is the most vocal proponent of the ultra-anti-VII idea and I would have a hard time believing that he didn't influence the reversal of position on the part of Bp. Fellay.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Jetavan on October 29, 2012, 01:47:25 PM
VATICAN CITY "Patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed (http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-says-it-willing-be-patient-sspx-reconciliation-bid)" as the Vatican continues talks aimed at full reconciliation with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, said a statement from the Vatican commission overseeing the discussions.

The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," in a statement released Saturday, said the leadership of the SSPX had requested "additional time for reflection and study" before responding to Pope Benedict XVI's latest efforts to reintegrate them into the church.

"A culminating point along this difficult path" was reached June 13 when the commission gave the SSPX a final "doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalization of its status within the Catholic Church," the statement said.
....
Just three days before the Vatican statement was published, the SSPX announced it had ousted British Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops ordained by SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal approval in 1988.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 02:26:31 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on October 29, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 02:52:23 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops :p
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on October 29, 2012, 03:33:31 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops :p
The bizarre cult-like behavior of the williamites is the very thing that will cause them to become irrelevant.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops :p
The bizarre cult-like behavior of the williamites is the very thing that will cause them to become irrelevant.

True, but they will remain annoying for some time before they disappear into obscurity.  I wonder though how many of their followers are actually leaning towards Williamson than Fellay.  If only Williamson's views aren't bordering lunacy, it would actually be admirable for someone to stick to their guns and say, "you've abandonned Tradition and we won't reunite until you return to it."
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on October 29, 2012, 03:40:01 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.

I don't think so.  They are the radical, die-hard, ultra-trads.  I have a friend who used to be ultra-trad and is now Romanian Greek Catholic.  He does say there is some attraction for some people to ultra-traditionalism.  Given the wide variety of Christianity today and even non-Christian religions people adhere to, there is attraction to almost anything.  They will have their niche market.  They might even gather together the various sedevacantist groups and form a unified group.  Although I don't know how that would work out, they're not really known for obedience to bishops :p
The bizarre cult-like behavior of the williamites is the very thing that will cause them to become irrelevant.

True, but they will remain annoying for some time before they disappear into obscurity.  I wonder though how many of their followers are actually leaning towards Williamson than Fellay.  If only Williamson's views aren't bordering lunacy, it would actually be admirable for someone to stick to their guns and say, "you've abandonned Tradition and we won't reunite until you return to it."
I've spent some time on a particular traditionalist Catholic website. To be honest, I think these people are more concerned with belonging to "Peter" or "Paul" than they are with Christ. Otherwise, they would return to full communion with Holy Mother Church. I think one of the Church Fathers said that If one does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 03:47:18 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.
I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.
At one point throughout the negotiations, Bp. Fellay was starting to sound very positive about normalization of relations with Rome. Suddenly, the ultra-anti-VII crowd started moaning and groaning, and Bp. Fellay reversed his position. We know that Bp. Williamson is the most vocal proponent of the ultra-anti-VII idea and I would have a hard time believing that he didn't influence the reversal of position on the part of Bp. Fellay.
That is one way of looking at it, but I think you are giving too much importance to Bishop Williamson.  I think the "anti-Vatican II" crowd is still alive and well in the SSPX, and I think Bishop Fellay, as sympathetic as he is to reuniting with Rome, ultimately decided in favor of that group.  I think Vatican II remains the main sticking point between Rome and the SSPX and I do not see that changing any time soon.  In fact, some recent comments from Pope Benedict in support of Vatican II make it seem unlikely that communion will be restored between Rome and the SSPX in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 03:49:26 PM
Postscript to my previous comment:  Bishop Williamson cannot be all that powerful, or he really could not have been ousted.  :D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 03:49:53 PM
I've spent some time on a particular traditionalist Catholic website. To be honest, I think these people are more concerned with belonging to "Peter" or "Paul" than they are with Christ. Otherwise, they would return to full communion with Holy Mother Church. I think one of the Church Fathers said that If one does not have the Church as his mother, he cannot have God as his Father.

But there is the question about true teaching.  If they truly believe that Rome has erred in her teaching, then they should stand up for the Truth.  But like I said, Williamson has proven what kind of tree he is with the fruits that have come from him.

To be honest, when RCs now say that they believe in something because the Church says so, to me that sounds like cultish mentality.  I know a few cults that are like that, "our leaders said the Bible reads this way so therefore it is the truth."  I think it is dangerous because you put so much into the hands of one man.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
It is probably pretty clear - based on my posts on theological topics - that I am not a big fan of the SSPX, but I will say this:  I do not doubt that those faithful to the SSPX are - in most cases - acting from good intentions, and see themselves as defenders of the Latin Church's tradition.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 03:59:13 PM
It is probably pretty clear - based on my posts on theological topics - that I am not a big fan of the SSPX, but I will say this:  I do not doubt that those faithful to the SSPX are - in most cases - acting from good intentions, and see themselves as defenders of the Latin Church's tradition.

Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 04:22:04 PM
Defending it from who though?
The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?
I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.
That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.
That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience? (http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Blind%20Obedience.pdf)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 04:46:48 PM
Defending it from who though?
The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?
I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.
That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.
That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience? (http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Blind%20Obedience.pdf)

Blind obedience seems to be espoused by may RCs today, whether it is actual Church teaching or not.  One reason I'm leaning heavily towards Orthodoxy is that many would not even want to know what the Church believed in the past, but just follow what the Magisterium teaches today because they should know.

Another problem with the SSPX is, who do they appeal to? Every Pope since Vatican II has not been on their side.  Pope Benedict is the closest and yet they still couldn't be regularized with him.  Given that Latin belief is the Pope is the highest authority on earth, there is no hope for appeal.  No council, no Emperor, no nothing.  Which is even the clause for a Pope vacating a seat by virtue of heresy does not seem plausible.  Who will declare a Pope a heretic?  A council can't.  Only a Pope can declare a Pope a heretic.  So you are hoping the next Pope's aren't "in" on the heresy of the pervious one for that to happen.  And given that the beatification for Pope Paul VI is moving along positively (not that I am suggesting that it shouldn't or that I think he is a heretic, I do not), this is an even dimmer prospect for the sedes in their case.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 06:27:03 PM
Defending it from who though?
The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?
I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.
That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.
That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience? (http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Blind%20Obedience.pdf)

Blind obedience seems to be espoused by may RCs today, whether it is actual Church teaching or not.  One reason I'm leaning heavily towards Orthodoxy is that many would not even want to know what the Church believed in the past, but just follow what the Magisterium teaches today because they should know.

Another problem with the SSPX is, who do they appeal to? Every Pope since Vatican II has not been on their side.  Pope Benedict is the closest and yet they still couldn't be regularized with him.  Given that Latin belief is the Pope is the highest authority on earth, there is no hope for appeal.  No council, no Emperor, no nothing.  Which is even the clause for a Pope vacating a seat by virtue of heresy does not seem plausible.  Who will declare a Pope a heretic?  A council can't.  Only a Pope can declare a Pope a heretic.  So you are hoping the next Pope's aren't "in" on the heresy of the pervious one for that to happen.  And given that the beatification for Pope Paul VI is moving along positively (not that I am suggesting that it shouldn't or that I think he is a heretic, I do not), this is an even dimmer prospect for the sedes in their case.
Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 06:30:38 PM
Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 06:33:22 PM
Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.
No, not really.  Even Vatican II, which the SSPXers don't like, says that the Magisterium is not above the word of God.  The hierarchs are not the source of Tradition, but are merely it guardians, and even their function as guardians is not something they possess in isolation, because the faithful are also called upon to protect the gift of divine revelation given to the Church.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 06:45:18 PM
Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.
No, not really.  Even Vatican II, which the SSPXers don't like, says that the Magisterium is not above the word of God.  The hierarchs are not the source of Tradition, but are merely it guardians, and even their function as guardians is not something they possess in isolation, because the faithful are also called upon to protect the gift of divine revelation given to the Church.

But the caveat is that the Pope is the supreme interpreter of everything.  So if the SSPX says Tradition says "A" and the Pope says same Tradition says "B", therefore it is "B" in the RC.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 06:50:47 PM
Even though I am not an SSPXer I will try to answer your question in a manner consistent with their view of things:  Thus, who does the SSPX appeal to?  They appeal to no particular individual, save perhaps Christ alone; instead, they appeal to Tradition, that is, to the Apostolic Teaching as handed down in the Church, and not merely by the bishops, but by all approved Catholic theologians, and those who have been faithful to what has been held at all times, in all places, and by all, as firmly to be believed.

If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense?  Though I shudder to think if they would come into communion with the Orthodox as is.  I believe there is a lot of pride among them and their current "spirituality" (if you can call it that) is poisonous.  I certainly didn't feel it was helpful to me given my very brief exploration of Traditional Catholicism.
No, not really.  Even Vatican II, which the SSPXers don't like, says that the Magisterium is not above the word of God.  The hierarchs are not the source of Tradition, but are merely it guardians, and even their function as guardians is not something they possess in isolation, because the faithful are also called upon to protect the gift of divine revelation given to the Church.

But the caveat is that the Pope is the supreme interpreter of everything.  So if the SSPX says Tradition says "A" and the Pope says same Tradition says "B", therefore it is "B" in the RC.
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 06:53:54 PM
One other thing should be said:  The members of the SSPX are well within their rights as Catholics to say that simply because a pope says something it does not follow that what he said is true or binding, that is, unless you want to argue that anything and everything a pope says is by definition de fide, and even the modern Roman Church doesn't say that.  Many Roman Catholics may act like that is the case, but the teaching of the modern Roman Church does not affirm that to be true.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 06:55:02 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on October 29, 2012, 06:58:23 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?

Some people seem to have such a crush on the Pope, they can't stop writing about him, and the magic powers he supposedly has. Why, just yesterday, he called me up and told me to punch a random person in the face. And yet, I did not.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 07:08:40 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 07:53:32 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.
I agree that a lot of Roman Catholics have an exaggerated sense of the importance of the pope, and sometimes sound as if - and maybe even believe that - the pope can declare anything to be a part of the faith, but that viewpoint is a novelty.  The pope is not the source of tradition in the Roman Church, and so he cannot simply change it willy-nilly.  Alas some of the confusion in the modern Roman Church is a consequence of the decision by Pope Paul VI to arbitrarily change the historic Roman liturgy by establishing a committee to re-create and modernize it. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 08:11:24 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.
I agree that a lot of Roman Catholics have an exaggerated sense of the importance of the pope, and sometimes sound as if - and maybe even believe that - the pope can declare anything to be a part of the faith, but that viewpoint is a novelty.  The pope is not the source of tradition in the Roman Church, and so he cannot simply change it willy-nilly.  Alas some of the confusion in the modern Roman Church is a consequence of the decision by Pope Paul VI to arbitrarily change the historic Roman liturgy by establishing a committee to re-create and modernize it. 

But Popes have proven to work unilaterally.  Motu Proprios are just that, things by his own initiative.  Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio for the Latin Mass was passed unilaterally, and no diocesan RC bishop can do anything about it.  In fact, if they don't comply, the laity has a right to appeal to Rome.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 08:22:16 PM
That is the point at issue between the SSPX and the Vatican IIers.  The SSPX say that the "interpretations" given since the close of the council are not "interpretations," but are instead corruptions of the original divine deposit.  I guess it all boils down to a matter of perspective.

And the problem with lack of true conciliarity, who will decide?  It's always the Pope's word against their.  Even if they are right, how can they prove that they are?
We are not dealing with something that can be determined by created reason alone, and so faith comes in, and if the person has "faith" that tells him the pope is right on Vatican II he will no doubt remain in communion with the pope, but if he lacks that particular "faith" and holds that the popes have fallen into error on specific theological points he will likely attach himself to the SSPX or some other group.

My point in saying this is not to support the SSPX, which I really have no interest in, but is simply to point out that the SSPX position can be reasonably defended.  Or to put it another way, my point is to simply affirm that SSPXers are not irrational or crazy (although some individuals may be, but that is probably true of some of the members of every Church and religion).

I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think the RC works that way today.
I agree that a lot of Roman Catholics have an exaggerated sense of the importance of the pope, and sometimes sound as if - and maybe even believe that - the pope can declare anything to be a part of the faith, but that viewpoint is a novelty.  The pope is not the source of tradition in the Roman Church, and so he cannot simply change it willy-nilly.  Alas some of the confusion in the modern Roman Church is a consequence of the decision by Pope Paul VI to arbitrarily change the historic Roman liturgy by establishing a committee to re-create and modernize it. 

But Popes have proven to work unilaterally.  Motu Proprios are just that, things by his own initiative.  Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio for the Latin Mass was passed unilaterally, and no diocesan RC bishop can do anything about it.  In fact, if they don't comply, the laity has a right to appeal to Rome.
I know that they have issued documents on their own authority, but Pope Paul VI went a bit further when he threw out the Roman Church's historic liturgy and created a new liturgy by committee.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
I know that they have issued documents on their own authority, but Pope Paul VI went a bit further when he threw out the Roman Church's historic liturgy and created a new liturgy by committee.

Yup, I'm just saying that those who say that the Pope can do anything according to his whim is not just a bunch of paranoid freaks.  He has the authority to do it.  I for one do not agree with Summorum Pontificum.  Not that I do not want our Traddie brethren to have Latin Mass, but rather it takes away the authority of Bishops over their own diocese.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 08:32:39 PM
I know that they have issued documents on their own authority, but Pope Paul VI went a bit further when he threw out the Roman Church's historic liturgy and created a new liturgy by committee.

Yup, I'm just saying that those who say that the Pope can do anything according to his whim is not just a bunch of paranoid freaks.  He has the authority to do it.  I for one do not agree with Summorum Pontificum.  Not that I do not want our Traddie brethren to have Latin Mass, but rather it takes away the authority of Bishops over their own diocese.
Yes, I get your point.  Although I would move things one step further back, because I do not believe that Pope Paul VI had the authority to dump and then recreate the Roman Church's liturgy, and if he had never done what he did, Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum.  :D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 29, 2012, 08:38:14 PM
Yes, I get your point.  Although I would move things one step further back, because I do not believe that Pope Paul VI had the authority to dump and then recreate the Roman Church's liturgy, and if he had never done what he did, Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum.  :D

Wasn't it the Melkite Patriarch who encouraged Rome to drop the exclusive use of Latin ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Apotheoun on October 29, 2012, 08:44:32 PM
Yes, I get your point.  Although I would move things one step further back, because I do not believe that Pope Paul VI had the authority to dump and then recreate the Roman Church's liturgy, and if he had never done what he did, Pope Benedict would not have issued Summorum Pontificum.  :D

Wasn't it the Melkite Patriarch who encouraged Rome to drop the exclusive use of Latin ;)
I do not know if he suggested that or not, but the language of the liturgy is really unimportant to me.  What I am concerned about is not the use of Latin or the vernacular, but the wholesale dumping of the Roman Church's liturgical tradition and its replacement with a new liturgy created by a committee (i.e., the Consilium).
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on October 30, 2012, 06:02:19 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Whoa.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on October 30, 2012, 07:15:44 PM
Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

I would say that's a Latin tradition, not "the Latin tradition".
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on October 30, 2012, 07:16:41 PM
If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense? 

No, it doesn't make them Orthodox ... if anything, we could perhaps conclude that they are even more "old school" Catholic than typically thought (i.e. not just "pre-VaticanII" but even "pre-VaticanI").

Then again, I think they might object to their position being described as "Tradition > Pope".
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 30, 2012, 08:02:52 PM
Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

I would say that's a Latin tradition, not "the Latin tradition".

Well, it is THE tradition since Vatican I.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on October 30, 2012, 08:03:54 PM
If they think Tradition > Pope, then doesn't this make them Orthodox in a sense? 

No, it doesn't make them Orthodox ... if anything, we could perhaps conclude that they are even more "old school" Catholic than typically thought (i.e. not just "pre-VaticanII" but even "pre-VaticanI").

Then again, I think they might object to their position being described as "Tradition > Pope".

But RCs are very Pope-centric.  It seems that if there is any issue between tradition and the Pope, they instantly take the side of the Pope and say, "well, he should know better."
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on October 30, 2012, 08:21:39 PM
I don't know many SSPX followers but the few I know are very loyal to Bishop Williamson.  Whatever faction reintegrates with the RC, for sure there still would be a hardline SSPX faction that would remain outside the RC.  And I think this time the schism will be formal.
And the Williamson faction will slip into irrelevance.
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on October 30, 2012, 08:25:58 PM
Defending it from who though?
The majority of people in the SSPX would probably say from the innovations of the modern Roman Church.

The Post Vatican II Popes?
I would say that to answer that question in the affirmative probably represents the viewpoint of the majority of people in the SSPX.

Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.
That is one way of reading the Latin tradition, but it is not the only way of doing so, as the SSPX - by their refusal to assent to the innovations promoted at Vatican II - have demonstrated.

So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.
That is a modern interpretation of the situation.  But blind obedience[/b] has never been extolled as a virtue in the Roman Church.

Blind Obedience? (http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Blind%20Obedience.pdf)
You mean False Obedience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXoRd9UQJw
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on October 30, 2012, 09:07:45 PM
Defending it from who though?  The Post Vatican II Popes?  Because that is the Latin Tradition, complete submission and adherance to the decrees of the Pope.  So it is kind of an oxymoron to rebel against the Pope and yet profess the Latin faith.

I would say that's a Latin tradition, not "the Latin tradition".

Well, it is THE tradition since Vatican I.

But RCs are very Pope-centric. 

To an extent, yes; but I think it is also true that those who aren't tend to keep their heads down.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 04, 2012, 12:26:52 AM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 04, 2012, 10:40:34 AM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 05, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on November 05, 2012, 03:22:12 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 05, 2012, 04:23:07 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

And me. I have found that traditionalists are very good at getting me to see the problems with neo-conservative Catholicism (e.g. Peter W. Miller's A Brief Defense of Traditionalism (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html), but not as good with respective to offering an alternative.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 05, 2012, 04:40:27 PM
And me. I have found that traditionalists are very good at getting me to see the problems with neo-conservative Catholicism (e.g. Peter W. Miller's A Brief Defense of Traditionalism (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20011221_A_Brief_Defense_of_Traditionalism.html), but not as good with respective to offering an alternative.

I believe they are the same problem packaged differently.  They have the externals that are appealing to those disenfranchised by the modernization of the Roman Church, but their spirituality is just as bad.  I haven't met an SSPXer who has argued well for Traditionalism (maybe the book you linked does, I don't know).  Every rhetoric and polemic is out of hubris.  You wouldn't hear anything but "we're right, you're wrong."  I've even had one ultra trad tell me that Orthodox are heretic schismatics whose god is Satan, and that Eastern Catholics are nothing more than half-way houses that proves how wrong the modern ecumenist mindset is.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 05, 2012, 05:07:48 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Strange days indeed.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 05, 2012, 05:13:18 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Strange days indeed.
Oh geesh, it's Bishop Williamson against the world. rrrrrrrrrrright.  ::)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Alpo on November 05, 2012, 05:22:03 PM
Martel, why don't you come home inside? It must be terribly lonely out there to be the lone last proper Christian. We have cozy beards and baklava!
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 05, 2012, 05:23:54 PM
and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics.

An SSPX supporter calling someone else a schismatic? The irony!


PS: it was the west which schismed from the east, not the other way around.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 05, 2012, 05:43:33 PM
Martel, why don't you come home inside? It must be terribly lonely out there to be the lone last proper Christian. We have cozy beards and baklava!
Baklava most defintely, but you can keep those scruffy beards.  ;D

Thanks for the offer anyway.  ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 05, 2012, 05:47:05 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome

Strange days indeed.
Oh geesh, it's Bishop Williamson against the world. rrrrrrrrrrright.  ::)
Not really, but mostly a few fanatical Modernists and Judaizers in and out of the Vatican.

I'm sure the rest of the world would support +Williamson given the facts.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 05, 2012, 05:50:15 PM
and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics.

An SSPX supporter calling someone else a schismatic? The irony!


PS: it was the west which schismed from the east, not the other way around.
Um, yea, sure they did, if you say so.

And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 05, 2012, 05:51:06 PM
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Strange days indeed.

You can say I am a true Traditionalist.  I am looking for something more traditional than Trent, which is only 500 years ago.  I think that is one of the biggest holes of Traditional Roman Catholicism and the SSPX, to claim tradition and yet only go as far back as 500 years ago.  It is as if the Church never existed in the First Millennium.  Something that is very clear when you look at Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 05, 2012, 07:39:54 PM
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 01:07:50 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 01:32:28 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.

Ooohhh burn!
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 02:15:27 PM
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us.
  ???
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 06, 2012, 02:17:37 PM
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Strange days indeed.

You can say I am a true Traditionalist.  I am looking for something more traditional than Trent, which is only 500 years ago.  I think that is one of the biggest holes of Traditional Roman Catholicism and the SSPX, to claim tradition and yet only go as far back as 500 years ago.  It is as if the Church never existed in the First Millennium.  Something that is very clear when you look at Orthodoxy.
No. No. I'm more traditional than you, and my dad is more traditional than your dad!  ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 02:20:55 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
The topic here is  the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.

Let's try and stay focused here.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 02:26:47 PM
Which bishop?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 02:42:37 PM
Which bishop?

The one in the subject you silly  :P
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 02:42:46 PM
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Strange days indeed.

You can say I am a true Traditionalist.  I am looking for something more traditional than Trent, which is only 500 years ago.  I think that is one of the biggest holes of Traditional Roman Catholicism and the SSPX, to claim tradition and yet only go as far back as 500 years ago.  It is as if the Church never existed in the First Millennium.  Something that is very clear when you look at Orthodoxy.
No. No. I'm more traditional than you, and my dad is more traditional than your dad!  ;)
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 02:44:05 PM
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 06, 2012, 02:44:36 PM
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us.
  ???

Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)

Do you pray Pope Noster?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 02:46:01 PM
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".

Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net?  ??? :police:
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 06, 2012, 02:46:28 PM
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)

Do you pray Pope Noster?
Pater noster qui est in caelis.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 02:46:58 PM
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.

Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us.
  ???

Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
You know what I'm getting at, no need for semantics.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 06, 2012, 02:49:23 PM
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)

Do you pray Pope Noster?

Wikipedia says "pope (from Latin: papa ...)".

So I guess we could say that "pope" is English for papa. ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 02:50:13 PM
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)

Do you pray Pope Noster?
Pater noster qui est in caelis.
Ecclesiastical Latin that is.......
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 06, 2012, 02:56:43 PM
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)

Do you pray Pope Noster?
Pater noster qui est in caelis.
Ecclesiastical Latin that is.......
que?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 02:58:23 PM
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein.

Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 02:59:06 PM
Isn't coelis ecclesiastical latin for caelis?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 06, 2012, 02:59:31 PM
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein.

Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed.
We Catholics believe he is a bishop, just not a bishop in good standing.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 03:02:06 PM
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein.

Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed.

Latin Sacramental theology states that the mark of ordination is indelible and someone outside the Church retains their ordination.  A priest is still a priest, a bishop is still a bishop, and they can perform Sacraments validly but illicitly as they are outside the Church.  The Sacraments are at the command of the priests and bishops, not something that is bound to the Church itself.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".

Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net?  ??? :police:

I wouldn't be surprised.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 03:12:17 PM
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".

Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net?  ??? :police:

I wouldn't be surprised.

Why here?  CAF would be a better place for him ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 03:16:00 PM
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".

Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net?  ??? :police:

I wouldn't be surprised.

Why here?  CAF would be a better place for him ;)

I imagine he's been banned there at least 9000 times. The mods on the traditional catholicism subforum are tough as iron.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 03:20:54 PM
I imagine he's been banned there at least 9000 times. The mods on the traditional catholicism subforum are tough as iron.

In fairness though, I do know someone who speaks as higly about Bishop Williamson and he is not Bishop Williamson.  He does have quite a following within the SSPX.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 03:30:04 PM
Having read quite a bit of Traditionalist (the Latin variant) forums, I think they're quite obsessed with apparitions and private revelations.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 06, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".

Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net?  ??? :police:

I wouldn't be surprised.

Why here?  CAF would be a better place for him ;)

Actually, not all traditionalists like the traditional-wing of CAF -- in much the same way that not all Eastern Catholics like the eastern-wing of CAF.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 04:18:42 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
The topic here is  the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.



I see what you did there
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
The topic here is  the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.



I see what you did there
22 posts later and now   the light  goes off.......not much gets by you eh?  ;D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 05:09:19 PM
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein.

Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed.
Would you even concede Benedict being the Bishop of Rome?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 05:15:25 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
The topic here is  the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.

I see what you did there
22 posts later and now   the light  goes off.......not much gets by you eh?  ;D

I'm very slow.


Would you even concede Benedict being the Bishop of Rome?

I'm one of those hipster sedevacantists.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 05:21:41 PM
Funny you mention that because  the word pope is Latin for papa (father). ;)

Do you pray Pope Noster?
Pater noster qui est in caelis.
Ecclesiastical Latin that is.......
que?
And what?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 06, 2012, 05:22:54 PM
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.

Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition.
The topic here is  the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.

I see what you did there
22 posts later and now   the light  goes off.......not much gets by you eh?  ;D

I'm very slow.


Would you even concede Benedict being the Bishop of Rome?

I'm one of those hipster-doofus sedevacantists.
fixed it for you. ;D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 06, 2012, 05:27:45 PM
Hey man, I'm of the saner kind of sedevacantist  :D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 06, 2012, 05:42:00 PM
Actually, not all traditionalists like the traditional-wing of CAF -- in much the same way that not all Eastern Catholics like the eastern-wing of CAF.

Which is exactly why they are a better audience ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 06, 2012, 07:28:46 PM
Martel, why don't you come home inside? It must be terribly lonely out there to be the lone last proper Christian. We have cozy beards and baklava!
Baklava most defintely, but you can keep those scruffy beards.  ;D

Thanks for the offer anyway.  ;)

Scruffy's going to get one of them $300 haircuts. This one's lost its pizzazz.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: VarangianGuard on November 13, 2012, 10:28:20 AM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
Hallelujah.
I hope this will reboot negotiations with the Vatican.
I don't think that Bishop Williamson is the reason for the failed negotiations.  In fact, it sounds like he hasn't really been "in the loop" at the SSPX for a while.  I think the real sticking point between the SSPX and the Roman bureaucracy continues to be the place of Vatican II in Roman Catholic teaching.
At one point throughout the negotiations, Bp. Fellay was starting to sound very positive about normalization of relations with Rome. Suddenly, the ultra-anti-VII crowd started moaning and groaning, and Bp. Fellay reversed his position. We know that Bp. Williamson is the most vocal proponent of the ultra-anti-VII idea and I would have a hard time believing that he didn't influence the reversal of position on the part of Bp. Fellay.
That is one way of looking at it, but I think you are giving too much importance to Bishop Williamson.  I think the "anti-Vatican II" crowd is still alive and well in the SSPX, and I think Bishop Fellay, as sympathetic as he is to reuniting with Rome, ultimately decided in favor of that group.  I think Vatican II remains the main sticking point between Rome and the SSPX and I do not see that changing any time soon.  In fact, some recent comments from Pope Benedict in support of Vatican II make it seem unlikely that communion will be restored between Rome and the SSPX in the foreseeable future.

Correct. Vatican II is the sticking point.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: VarangianGuard on November 13, 2012, 10:37:39 AM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

- From a different perspective than at least Choy, I would have to say me too.
If SSPX is what the RCC was - which is confirmed basically by taking a brief look at pre-conciliar catechisms -  then the Novus Ordo VaticanII church of Rome cannot be reconciled with its own past.
There are 2 different religions in play here. With VaticanII a new one was invented (Not to say there were no such innovations before, as I have become aware of during the last year)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion and an option, but rests on the belief that the RCC is the true church. That is very hard to believe.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 13, 2012, 11:36:55 AM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

- From a different perspective than at least Choy, I would have to say me too.
If SSPX is what the RCC was - which is confirmed basically by taking a brief look at pre-conciliar catechisms -  then the Novus Ordo VaticanII church of Rome cannot be reconciled with its own past.
There are 2 different religions in play here. With VaticanII a new one was invented (Not to say there were no such innovations before, as I have become aware of during the last year)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion and an option, but rests on the belief that the RCC is the true church. That is very hard to believe.

The attitude of the traditionalists confirms that they are not bearers of Truth.  By their fruits you will know them.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: VarangianGuard on November 13, 2012, 04:28:33 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

moi aussi.

- From a different perspective than at least Choy, I would have to say me too.
If SSPX is what the RCC was - which is confirmed basically by taking a brief look at pre-conciliar catechisms -  then the Novus Ordo VaticanII church of Rome cannot be reconciled with its own past.
There are 2 different religions in play here. With VaticanII a new one was invented (Not to say there were no such innovations before, as I have become aware of during the last year)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion and an option, but rests on the belief that the RCC is the true church. That is very hard to believe.

The attitude of the traditionalists confirms that they are not bearers of Truth.  By their fruits you will know them.

In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 13, 2012, 06:36:22 PM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 13, 2012, 08:44:20 PM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  ;D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 13, 2012, 08:45:13 PM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  ;D
Nah, they should be on FishEasters working themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Catholics believe that God might save a non-Catholic.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 13, 2012, 08:49:44 PM
In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.

Yes, there are Orthodox loonies as well, no doubt.  I've come across them too.  But there is a verifiable set of teachings that the Orthodox adheres to and what I can say is true Orthodoxy.  For Traditionalists, aside from "the Pope is wrong and we're right, give us our Latin back," I don't know what else they actually stand for.  There is no depth to the cause other than a fanatical attachment to externals which is not resiprocated with the spiritual aspect of such practices.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 13, 2012, 08:52:11 PM
In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.

Yes, there are Orthodox loonies as well, no doubt.  I've come across them too.  But there is a verifiable set of teachings that the Orthodox adheres to and what I can say is true Orthodoxy.  For Traditionalists, aside from "the Pope is wrong and we're right, give us our Latin back," I don't know what else they actually stand for.  There is no depth to the cause other than a fanatical attachment to externals which is not resiprocated with the spiritual aspect of such practices.
Well, let's be careful. The traditionalists are at least correct about the fact that we need to get our liturgical home in order, and we need to continue to get modernist priests and bishops to retire. I'm in agreement with them there.
That being said, you are correct about a lot of what you have said. Consequently, I'd prefer a Byzantine Catholic parish or traditionalist one.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 13, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  ;D
Nah, they should be on FishEasters working themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Catholics believe that God might save a non-Catholic.

I love how an ultra-trad I know explained to me how they can be a Church (the SSPX) without a bishop (he denies they are under Fellay in any ecclesiastical sense).  Just a bunch of legalisms which he claims canon law supporting their existence.  I don't see how a lack of bishop can be replaced by canon law to justify the existence of a Church.  I thought they are traditionalists, I don't know how they could have missed St. Ignatius of Antioch's teaching which is by all intents and purposes, traditional.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 13, 2012, 08:57:43 PM
Well, let's be careful. The traditionalists are at least correct about the fact that we need to get our liturgical home in order, and we need to continue to get modernist priests and bishops to retire. I'm in agreement with them there.
That being said, you are correct about a lot of what you have said. Consequently, I'd prefer a Byzantine Catholic parish or traditionalist one.

That is what I do not get.  Of all the wonderful things to say about traditionalism and traditions (and the Orthodox has a ton of these, they don't have to make stuff up on their own), I wonder why they stuck to baseless polemics that sound more fitting with cults than with an Apostolic Church.  I agree with you about the need to get the Liturgy right, but with the traditionalists it seems that they don't see anything more than the externals.  Like how they defend kneeling.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 13, 2012, 08:57:53 PM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

Yeah, shouldn't they be over at CAF bugging the OF crowd?  ;D
Nah, they should be on FishEasters working themselves into a frenzy over the fact that Catholics believe that God might save a non-Catholic.

I love how an ultra-trad I know explained to me how they can be a Church (the SSPX) without a bishop (he denies they are under Fellay in any ecclesiastical sense).  Just a bunch of legalisms which he claims canon law supporting their existence.  I don't see how a lack of bishop can be replaced by canon law to justify the existence of a Church.  I thought they are traditionalists, I don't know how they could have missed St. Ignatius of Antioch's teaching which is by all intents and purposes, traditional.
Agreed. I sympathize with their desire for continuity with the past, but I don't think they really understand what that means.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 13, 2012, 10:25:05 PM
In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.

Yes, there are Orthodox loonies as well, no doubt.  I've come across them too.  But there is a verifiable set of teachings that the Orthodox adheres to and what I can say is true Orthodoxy.  For Traditionalists, aside from "the Pope is wrong and we're right, give us our Latin back," I don't know what else they actually stand for.  There is no depth to the cause other than a fanatical attachment to externals which is not resiprocated with the spiritual aspect of such practices.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 14, 2012, 12:00:38 AM
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: VarangianGuard on November 14, 2012, 04:48:06 AM
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

We will let YOU carry on with YOUR delusions about Catholic traditionalism, its adherents and denial of spirituality within the movement. It is utter nonsense and absolute rubbish to judge the entire traditional movement based on the few examples you know yourself. I have been a part of it for more than 10 years and I have to say I take offence by this, since I am myself included in your sweeping statements and neither I nor anyone else knows me as the caricature you are presenting.
There are nutters everywhere, mate.

However, I agree with you regarding Trent and I agree with you about legalism. The latter is prevalent everywhere in the RCC, including in post-VII Rome where on the surface it seems that it is a closed chapter, but where reality is very different.
There are reasons for that I am inquiring into Orthodoxy and amongst those is spirituality. Not because there is necessarily a lack of it, but because the Eastern spirituality is different and appeals very much to me. Legalism is absolutely another of those treasons, along with Trent being(often) "the beginning" of everything.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: VarangianGuard on November 14, 2012, 05:02:07 AM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Alpo on November 14, 2012, 07:56:25 AM
Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought. 

And banished some of the potential converts like me. I would have converted to Orthodoxy even if the traditional mass was still the standard mass but it certainly didn't do any good to find out that the regular Finnish RC mass is more low church than the regular Finnish Lutheran mass.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 14, 2012, 09:17:53 AM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

I think you've got the wrong impression of Papist (Chris). Of all posters here, I'd say he is one of the most friendly toward traditionalist Catholics.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 14, 2012, 09:19:07 AM
The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent. 

I would even go back 2 councils earlier than that. The Council of Florence defined (re)union in a way completely unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox, and thereby set the direction for centuries to come. This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: VarangianGuard on November 14, 2012, 10:23:43 AM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

I think you've got the wrong impression of Papist (Chris). Of all posters here, I'd say he is one of the most friendly toward traditionalist Catholics.

Peter J,

Maybe I did. It was probably the wholesale caricature which preceded that post which led me to read it as insulting and unnecessary.
Papist, if it wasn't your intention, I am sorry for becoming a bit aggressive.
Let us start again  :)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on November 14, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 14, 2012, 11:20:21 AM
This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: jmbejdl on November 14, 2012, 11:35:22 AM
This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 14, 2012, 11:37:14 AM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
You misunderstand me. I have no problem with SSPXers being here (honestly, it wouldn't matter one way or another if I did). I was just curious as to why two suddenly showed up when we have really never had much of a SSPX presence here. That's all.
And for the record, I totally empathize with the plight of the SSPX. I know that the SSPX, for the most part, actually agree with more of Vatican II than do most modernist priests.
That being said, I also see serious problems with the SSPX.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 14, 2012, 11:40:07 AM
Where the heck did these SSPXers suddenly come from?

I am here to learn about Orthodoxy out of a genuine interest, because I seek the Truth and because I have come to suspect there is more Truth there than in the Catholic church.
Apparently, I am not the only one doing so.
If you don't want people on an honest search around here, I bet the moderators will disagree with you. If people with my background aren't welcome here, then let someone with authority say the word and I'll be gone.

I did not come here on a quest to defend the SSPX or traditional Catholics, but when attacked unjustly, I will defend those who have been my brothers and a safe haven for so long.
They saved my belief in God and for that I am eternally grateful.
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

I'll let you carry on with your delusion.  Hopefully someone does figure it out, but the fact of the matter is the SSPX is nothing but a fad made with beautiful externals to hide the ugliness underneath which is a bunch of lies and empty traditions of man which has no connection to any spiritual growth or to any true Tradition of the Church.  Fact is, most traditionalists can't even point to a Church before Trent.  How traditional is that? The Catholic Church actually started losing her way with Trent, not with Vatican II.  All the problems today are caused by the extreme legalisms of Trent.  And much more, the Catholic Church actually changed her ways to counter the Reformation.  Instead of being true to her own identity, she instead started veering away from who she was in an effort to distinguish herself from Protestants.  Unfortunately she chose a path into more legalism rather than Orthodoxy.  The decline in faith in the West today is brought much by the fruits of the Reformation, which naturally takes a long time to grow and bear.  Because the Western faith was made more legalistic, it made it easier for the minds of the heretic Reformers to counter the faith with reason.  Thus you have what you have today.  And it was easy for the Traditionalists to make Vatican II as the scapegoat.  But the truth is, the Church was already on the decline and Vatican II was an effort to try and stop the inevitable.  Which it didn't.  And worse, it gave rise to this fantasy world of the Traditionalists where the Church was perfect until 1962.  But really, who are you guys kidding here? By the 60s the sexual revolution was gaining steam, it was inevitable.  A lot more people would have left the Catholic Church by today if it hadn't been for vernacular Masses.  Like the OF or not, it has made the Church still significant to this day, and not an afterthought.  Which what the Traditionalist movement will be in a few decades when people realize it is nothing more than just a show with no real spirituality behind it except for the spirit of contempt, distrust, and malice.

I think you've got the wrong impression of Papist (Chris). Of all posters here, I'd say he is one of the most friendly toward traditionalist Catholics.

Peter J,

Maybe I did. It was probably the wholesale caricature which preceded that post which led me to read it as insulting and unnecessary.
Papist, if it wasn't your intention, I am sorry for becoming a bit aggressive.
Let us start again  :)
Yes, let us start again. Perhaps I wasn't clear on what I meant. Just so you know, I love the Latin mass, and prefer it to the Novus Ordo. I am alwo quite the Thomist and long for a return to a more traditional practice of the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 14, 2012, 12:30:13 PM
This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James

My impression is that "the Latins" of the 15th century were genuinely surprised to learn that "the Greeks" counted 7 ecumenical councils and not 8. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but in any case, we can be sure that they didn't have a perfect knowledge of the events in question, so I wouldn't say that they were "clearly signifying" anything by calling Constantinople IV "the 8th ecumenical council". (In fact, I believe the way it came up at Florence is that "the Latins" said something like: We don't have a copy of the 8th ecumenical council. Can you give us one?)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: jmbejdl on November 14, 2012, 12:47:44 PM
This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James

My impression is that "the Latins" of the 15th century were genuinely surprised to learn that "the Greeks" counted 7 ecumenical councils and not 8. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but in any case, we can be sure that they didn't have a perfect knowledge of the events in question, so I wouldn't say that they were "clearly signifying" anything by calling Constantinople IV "the 8th ecumenical council". (In fact, I believe the way it came up at Florence is that "the Latins" said something like: We don't have a copy of the 8th ecumenical council. Can you give us one?)

But Pope John VIII accepted our Constantinople IV (which Orthodox are quite at liberty to consider the 8th Ecumenical) condemnation of filioque and all at the time, so to claim that this had been forgotten a couple of centuries later when the prior robber council was named ecumenical by the post-Schism Roman church seems rather convenient - hence my reference to an Orwellian re-writing of history.

James
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 14, 2012, 01:47:09 PM
The only "fad" here is much of the post-VII conciliar modernist "church" that is slowly beginning to select itself for extinction which is pretty much evident by the waves of refugees of former "catholics" landing themselves in Evangelical congregations, Eastern Orthodoxy and the ranks of unbelieving agnostics or "spiritualists". Traditionalism is the hope for the future for the True Church evident with recent concessions by the Vatican slowly bringing Latin into the N.O "masses". The more the word gets out and the younger generation is enlightened about the "spirit" of VII and all it's errors and the more it's liberal, hippie priests with their clown masses and rock concerts begin dying off, so too will the last vestige of this bizarre experiment at trying to ecumenize themselves into oblivion.

You can spout off all you want about the demise of SSPX and Tradition, the fact of the matter is, they are the future because they never broke with the past, the True Faith will endure and the Gates of Hell and Postmodernism will not prevail. Tradition will be here long after NewChurch and the Concillarists go the way of the Dodo.

Well, every delusion I have about traditionalism in the Catholic Church has been soundly refuted by Orthodoxy.  So don't worry about me ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 15, 2012, 12:11:27 AM
Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 15, 2012, 12:04:32 PM
Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
Maybe because he has already found the faith in the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 15, 2012, 01:51:06 PM
This is one of those situations where I read your post shortly after you posted it, but then was busy most of the day; I'll try to remember everything I was going to say in reply.

This was set in stone by the naming of Florence as an ecumenical council (initially as # 9, later re-designated as # 17) despite the clear Orthodox rejection of it.

Why would it be the factor? Why haven't accepted any of your Ecumenical Councils after the 7th one.

Nowadays it is taken for granted that us calling a council "Ecumenical" has nothing to do with you Eastern Orthodox (or "the Greeks" as they would have said back then) accepting or rejecting it; but that was a novelty back when Florence became the "9th Ecumenical Council" (notwithstanding the disagreement that already existence concerning the designation of the "8th Ecumenical Council", Constantinople IV). Essentially, it signified that the Eastern Orthodox were out.

I'd have said that had already been done quite effectively when the robber council that deposed St. Photios was designated as the Eighth Ecumenical by Rome in the 12th century. Ignoring the council of 879 that reinstated St. Photios, annulled the previous and condemned the filioque in favour of the council of 869, when the latter had been universally accepted for over 200 years, was clearly signifying that we were out (not to mention re-writing RC history in an almost Orwellian manner).

James

My impression is that "the Latins" of the 15th century were genuinely surprised to learn that "the Greeks" counted 7 ecumenical councils and not 8. It's possible I'm wrong about that, but in any case, we can be sure that they didn't have a perfect knowledge of the events in question, so I wouldn't say that they were "clearly signifying" anything by calling Constantinople IV "the 8th ecumenical council". (In fact, I believe the way it came up at Florence is that "the Latins" said something like: We don't have a copy of the 8th ecumenical council. Can you give us one?)

But Pope John VIII accepted our Constantinople IV (which Orthodox are quite at liberty to consider the 8th Ecumenical) condemnation of filioque and all at the time, so to claim that this had been forgotten a couple of centuries later when the prior robber council was named ecumenical by the post-Schism Roman church seems rather convenient - hence my reference to an Orwellian re-writing of history.

James

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm open the possibility that naming Constantinople 869 as an ecumenical council is suspicious and/or Orwellian. But even if it was, a relatively small number of people were guilty of that. Most "Latins" simply passed on what was handed to them.

But what's more, I don't think anyone, even whoever first had the idea of calling it an ecumenical council, meant that the "Greeks" were "out". (Sorry for all the quotation marks.)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 15, 2012, 02:16:55 PM
Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
I am an Orthodox, an Orthodox Roman Catholic.

Although I will admit I came on here to learn exactly where the EOC was coming from and our differences and similarities.

I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Speaking of laying down weapons, I first starting posting on here for a call for unity with Eastern Christians against Muslim persecution  against Christians in Syria and other countries in that region and many Orthodox came at me with guns blazing still jaded about differences from a thousand years ago with Rome. It's almost as if you Orthodox despise the Latins more than the Mohammedans and pagans that are at your throats in your own nations. I had no idea there was so much animosity for the Vatican still existed in the East.


But I am still willing to take up your offer and be reasonable choy.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 15, 2012, 02:44:18 PM
Charles Martel,

Let us put down our swords and guns for a moment and why don't you try exploring Orthodoxy?  I guarantee you that you will find the Traditional and True Christian faith that you are looking for, without the angst you have to go through within Roman Catholicism.
Maybe because he has already found the faith in the Catholic Church.

Not if he's with the SSPX.

And sorry but I just want to be honest here.  I'm not a priest or anyone with the capacity to be a spiritual father or someone who can decently assess one's spiritual growth.  But from what I see from people with the SSPX, I don't see good spirituality.  It is an honest assessment on my part.  I see them do nothing but complain and accuse and be all negative.  I absolutely do not see Christ in all that.  I'm not trying to start a second round of arguments here, just being honest about what I see with the SSPX.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 15, 2012, 03:11:42 PM
I am an Orthodox, an Orthodox Roman Catholic.

Not meaning to divert the thread onto grammar, but I find your statement a tad strange. The capital O implies that you mean "Orthodox" as a proper name.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on November 15, 2012, 03:44:43 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who believe in papal supremacy or filioque?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 15, 2012, 03:50:10 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

 ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 15, 2012, 03:51:44 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 15, 2012, 05:19:09 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.


I'm on Batman's side

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/35006_402060689863899_641780206_n.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on November 15, 2012, 05:23:39 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.


I'm on Batman's side

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/35006_402060689863899_641780206_n.jpg)
Bruce Wayne was raised Episcopalian. Hence, when he recited the creed as a child, he professed the filioque.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 15, 2012, 05:26:57 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who [don't] believe in papal supremacy or filioque?

Depending which side of the issue you're on.


I'm on Batman's side

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/35006_402060689863899_641780206_n.jpg)
Bruce Wayne was raised Episcopalian. Hence, when he recited the creed as a child, he professed the filioque.

But as the World's Greatest Detective, he soon found out the Filioque to be heretical ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cyrillic on November 15, 2012, 05:27:29 PM

Bruce Wayne was raised Episcopalian. Hence, when he recited the creed as a child, he professed the filioque.

That's bad, man.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Jetavan on November 15, 2012, 05:50:06 PM
The Dark Heretic Rises
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on November 15, 2012, 06:00:17 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who believe in papal supremacy or filioque?
Really? Not very "ecumenical" of you now Mi-khal is it. ;D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: choy on November 15, 2012, 06:09:23 PM
Really? Not very "ecumenical" of you now Mi-khal is it. ;D

In Orthodoxy, ecumenism doesn't involve sacrificing the Truth. ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on November 15, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
I also believe in our uniting under common causes like defending ourselves from infidels and heretics.

Like from those heretics who believe in papal supremacy or filioque?
Really? Not very "ecumenical" of you now Mi-khal is it. ;D

That's not really much of a criticism, in view of the way the word "ecumenical" is typically used on this forum.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on December 29, 2015, 05:04:05 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

Regarding "lapsed catholics" I believe SSPX is good in bringing them back to God.

But when you are christian again and strong in your christian values and beliefs you start to question a LOT of things regarding RC thanks to SSPX this time...

Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on December 29, 2015, 05:13:59 PM
In what way? The fact that they are growing? The fact that they have vibrant families with many children, unlike the Novus Ordo? The fact that their Mass is reverent and a billion times more traditional than the Nervous Ordeal? That they are actually missionary and not ecumenising themselves into oblivion?
What do you mean here?
I seriously doubt the truth of the whole thing, as you know, but your painting of traddies is rather grotesque and bears witness to that you cannot possibly have fared much in traddie waters.
I am sure we can dig up Orthodox lunatics as well, but it isn't really fair to call them representative  of your average Orthodox, is it?

Growth has nothing to do with it.  I can cite a few neo-arianist groups that are growing as well.  I don't see how growth in membership proves anything here.  I believe Traditionalism is a fad, and right now it is the "in" thing, that is why there is a growth.  At some point people will grow tired with it with all this hating and complaining and accusing and the obvious disregard for the Pope.  The focus of Traditionalism isn't spiritual growth, but a focus on novelty such as Latin and external practices but completely devoid of the spiritual aspect of it.  I've heard Traditionalists market Latin as some magical language, "the devil hates it, it is very effective for exorcisms."  I have yet heard any Traditionalist explain how one gets to heaven speaking Latin.



Now, close to 2016 I dont believe they are growing.
So called Resistance has split in two or three branches... a lot of apocalypticism, private revelations, cult like mentality, real hatred among williamites and pffeiferrites, internet traditionalist wars, attacks ad hominem, acussations of withcraft and paedophilia...etc...
Fellay branch dont go to any place and If I were a convinced trad closer to Fellay branch RC I would go to an FSSP or indult mass rather than Fellay and his oddities... ("I'm inside but outside at the same time").
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on December 30, 2015, 03:41:46 AM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
News flash: they are.

Cf. the New Testament
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 30, 2015, 03:54:35 AM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on December 30, 2015, 03:58:14 AM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2015, 05:54:20 AM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 30, 2015, 12:25:19 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.

There's a difference between denial and lack of belief. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 30, 2015, 12:41:43 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Even you know that quoting Scripture is, for even you do it.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on December 30, 2015, 12:53:27 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 30, 2015, 12:57:12 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Even you know that quoting Scripture is, for even you do it.

I asked about anti-Semitism. Don't be cutesy.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 30, 2015, 12:57:43 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Give me a break.  ::)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Alpo on December 30, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Except that you just did. Unless you have a habit of calling your neighbours as enemies of Christ.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on December 30, 2015, 01:08:17 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Except that you just did. Unless you have a habit of calling your neighbours as enemies of Christ.
OK then, Jews, Muhammadans, Pagans, heretics, schismatics and my own sinful self are all the enemies of Christ.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 30, 2015, 01:16:16 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Except that you just did. Unless you have a habit of calling your neighbours as enemies of Christ.
OK then, Jews, Muhammadans, Pagans, heretics, schismatics and my own sinful self are all the enemies of Christ.

 ::)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on December 30, 2015, 01:36:32 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Being anti-Arab is now all the rage at OC.net now?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on December 30, 2015, 01:41:52 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Even you know that quoting Scripture is, for even you do it.

I asked about anti-Semitism. Don't be cutesy.
For what it's worth, your defintion of "anti-semitism" doesn't apply here.

Anti-Semitism in the classic sense is hatred of a person/people simply for the fact that they are ethnically a "jew".

That is antithetical to Catholicism and anything that Bp Willamson ever stated.

Or anyone else in this thread from what  I've read.

Get your facts straight.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Minnesotan on December 30, 2015, 01:47:53 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Being anti-Arab is now all the rage at OC.net now?

We've had some posters who are.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 30, 2015, 01:50:17 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Even you know that quoting Scripture is, for even you do it.

I asked about anti-Semitism. Don't be cutesy.
Don't tell me not to be cutesy. FWIW, I said what I said because Severian did not express anti-Semitism in any form. What he did in citing Scripture was prove a valid point that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 30, 2015, 01:54:55 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Except that you just did. Unless you have a habit of calling your neighbours as enemies of Christ.
OK then, Jews, Muhammadans, Pagans, heretics, schismatics and my own sinful self are all the enemies of Christ.

 ::)
Do us all a big favor and stop with the dismissive, low content posts. If you wish to object to what someone else posts, please post a reasoned explanation for your objection. These "Gimme a break", "::)" shows of contempt are just juvenile and annoying. You're much too intelligent to make yourself look as irrational as this.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on December 30, 2015, 01:59:43 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Even you know that quoting Scripture is, for even you do it.

I asked about anti-Semitism. Don't be cutesy.
Don't tell me not to be cutesy. FWIW, I said what I said because Severian did not express anti-Semitism in any form. What he did in citing Scripture was prove a valid point that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
Thank you, good sir.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 30, 2015, 02:23:36 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Except that you just did. Unless you have a habit of calling your neighbours as enemies of Christ.
OK then, Jews, Muhammadans, Pagans, heretics, schismatics and my own sinful self are all the enemies of Christ.

 ::)
Do us all a big favor and stop with the dismissive, low content posts. If you wish to object to what someone else posts, please post a reasoned explanation for your objection. These "Gimme a break", "::)" shows of contempt are just juvenile and annoying. You're much too intelligent to make yourself look as irrational as this.

Severian repeatedly posts anti-Semitic drivel, but when I roll my eyes at him, I'm juvenile and annoying.

Yep, you've got your priorities straight.

You have just helped me make a very important decision; God willing, I get it accomplished today.

Spare me the backhanded compliments. I know we don't like each other, let's just be honest.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 30, 2015, 02:30:46 PM
Severian repeatedly posts anti-Semitic drivel,
Show me where, for I've never seen it.

but when I roll my eyes at him, I'm juvenile and annoying.
There are much more intelligent, adult ways of expressing your disapproval of one's anti-Semitism, even if it is real, than posts that do nothing but roll your eyes.

Yep, you've got your priorities straight.
Yes, I try to keep them that way. Maybe you could learn from that.

You have just helped me make a very important decision; God willing, I get it accomplished today.
I hope you do.

Spare me the backhanded compliments.
No, it's not a backhanded compliment. I actually remember the "good old days" when you consistently expressed yourself much more rationally and with much less histrionic. I know what you're capable of when you don't let your contemptuous emotions enslave you.

I know we don't like each other, let's just be honest.
I like what you were years ago and think you capable of bringing that back.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on December 30, 2015, 03:42:47 PM
Severian repeatedly posts anti-Semitic drivel, but when I roll my eyes at him, I'm juvenile and annoying.
I have espoused theological anti-Judaism and political anti-Zionism many times, I will concede this. But I don't seem to recall ever espousing antisemitism. In fact, I've repeatedly said that any religious Jew who accepts Christ is our brother. Of course, this isn't exclusive to the Jews. All must accept the Only-begotten Son, for His is the only name by which any man will be saved.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2015, 11:40:22 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.
Certainly, it's not my intention to single them out.

Intention is not the point, rather how it is perceived. The point is that theological anti-Juadaism rhetoric has a far different context and connotation today (due to certain well known historical patterns and events) than it did when the Christians were the persecuted underdogs against a Jewish majority. It changes the parameters of what's responsible and what's not, especially if you don't want to wind up an unwitting fellow traveler of a Holocaust-denying buffoon like Charles.


This is not the Private Forum, Volnutt. That means you are not permitted to insult other posters as you have done here. I'm sure you know this, seeing how you've been warned twice before for ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I am giving you this 40-point warning to cease and desist from posting such insults again on the Public Forum. If you wish to appeal this warning, please PM me.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on December 30, 2015, 11:44:14 PM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.

There's a difference between denial and lack of belief.

Fair enough, but that means Severian's point is even further negated. I doubt there's very many Jews who stay in their religion just to spite Christ.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on December 30, 2015, 11:49:21 PM
didn't Bishop Williamson start a offshot of SSPX somewhere in Latin America? I just remember it was a big stink when he denied the holocaust, and was promting 9/11 conspiracy theories, because the SSPX was talking to the Vatican. Is there any Orthodox equvelant to Bishop Williamson out there?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on December 31, 2015, 11:17:14 AM
i BELIEVE THE PROBLEM WITH MW IS NOT HIS REVISIONIST VIEWS ABOUT HOLOCAUST.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 31, 2015, 11:32:25 AM
i BELIEVE THE PROBLEM WITH MW IS NOT HIS REVISIONIST VIEWS ABOUT HOLOCAUST.
Please turn your caps lock key off. Otherwise you look as if you're shouting.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 31, 2015, 11:51:26 AM
i BELIEVE THE PROBLEM WITH MW IS NOT HIS REVISIONIST VIEWS ABOUT HOLOCAUST.

What could be worse?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on December 31, 2015, 12:30:00 PM
i BELIEVE THE PROBLEM WITH MW IS NOT HIS REVISIONIST VIEWS ABOUT HOLOCAUST.
Please turn your caps lock key off. Otherwise you look as if you're shouting.

Sorry.

Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on December 31, 2015, 12:51:51 PM
i BELIEVE THE PROBLEM WITH MW IS NOT HIS REVISIONIST VIEWS ABOUT HOLOCAUST.

What could be worse?


A lot of things.

In my honest opinion:

One thing is being a revisionist (a lot of people is revisionist towards the Holodomor and that not makes them communists at all so being revisionist about Holocaust IMHO doesnt make you a nazi or apologist of murder as long as you examine things very carefully ). You can express your opinion about numbers and methods without denying the whole horrible murder.

Other is being an Holocaust denialist, denying ALL Holocaust and saying "No jew died in WWII".

Other is being a nazi and being happy about jewish murders and saying "oh, jews deserve that". (Usually denialists and nazis can go together).

In that TV interview BW was more a revisionist than a denialist IMHO.

Does that make him a good guy? Not in my opinion. Why? Because he has said a lot of bad things and his thought line represents the most reactionary catholic teaching only below radical sedevacantists... and scares me to death, but not for the "revisionist" thing expressed on TV.

No one can acuse me of being anti jewish. In the thread about "RC and jewish conversions" I was very angry about RC historical policies towards jewish people. I expressed that RC must leave jews alone because they are hiper sensitive because of past sufferings. Not all jews are bad people and you cannot force conversions on people. I said that very clearly and that I'm also ashamed because RC historical treatment of jews. We cannot view jews as intrinsically evil people and Christ killers. Not all jews killed Christ and today's jews are not guilty for 1st century sanhedrin decisions and even not all sanhedrin was against Christ (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimatea). Bad jewish people pleaded for Christ murder instead of Barrabas... but not all jewish people...so...

Well:

*In that specific interview BW wasnt denialist IMHO, only revisionist
*He could be a denialist but we cannot said this based only in that TV interview.
*He has very wrong views about jews because he follows reactionary RC teachings: jews as intrinsically evil, Christ killers and all of that so I'm not his fan of supporter. We know that not for his TV interview but for his speeches, Eleison Comments, and a lot of commentaries of SPPXers and ex members of that congregation.
*He also has very misoginystic views. Women should not go to university in his opinion."Ideas are not for true girls".
*His love for Ancient Regime: this includes believing in slavery as a good system?????????
*His beliefs about Inquisition as a good thing.

Etc etc etc

So:  the problem is much worse than expressing revisionist views in TV ... he has a LOT of trash ideas... that I will not support ever...including ones about jews...  but I have to make the distinction between revisionism and denialism... because we apply revisionism to a lot of other historical events... involving murder ... so don't be hipocritical.. IMHO.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on December 31, 2015, 01:00:30 PM
i BELIEVE THE PROBLEM WITH MW IS NOT HIS REVISIONIST VIEWS ABOUT HOLOCAUST.

What could be worse?


A lot of things.

In my honest opinion:

One thing is being a revisionist (a lot of people is revisionist towards the Holodomor and that not makes them communists at all so being revisionist about Holocaust IMHO doesnt make you a nazi or apologist of murder as long as you examine things very carefully ). You can express your opinion about numbers and methods without denying the whole horrible murder.

You're technically not wrong, especially in regard to legitimate historiography. But I think in this particular case, 9 times out of 10 the people calling themselves "Holocaust revisionists" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/) are just trying to deceive.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on December 31, 2015, 01:22:28 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on December 31, 2015, 02:11:27 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.

I wasnt call you specifically an hipocrite and Im sorry if I expressed it in a wrong way.


Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 02, 2016, 02:25:01 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
News flash: they are.

Cf. the New Testament

Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?

What, didn't you ever read what Galatians 3:28 says: "Neither Jew nor Greek"? (Although we seem to be a little slow with our anti-grecoism.)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 02, 2016, 02:26:30 PM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
News flash: they are.

Cf. the New Testament

Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?

What, didn't you ever read what Galatians 3:28 says: "Neither Jew nor Greek"? (Although we seem to be a little slow with our anti-grecoism.)

That ^^ was a joke BTW. (I have to say that because otherwise, I feel certain, someone who doesn't get it will post a response to "explain".)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 02, 2016, 03:32:53 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

Regarding "lapsed catholics" I believe SSPX is good in bringing them back to God.

But when you are christian again and strong in your christian values and beliefs you start to question a LOT of things regarding RC thanks to SSPX this time...

That was certainly true for me. (I don't mean that I was involved with the SSPX, but looking into traditionalist ideas helped me to question things.)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Severian on January 02, 2016, 03:35:41 PM
Intention is not the point, rather how it is perceived. The point is that theological anti-Juadaism rhetoric has a far different context and connotation today (due to certain well known historical patterns and events) than it did when the Christians were the persecuted underdogs against a Jewish majority.
I redacted your ad hominem.

[sarcasm]Anyway, you sure have an open-minded and objective way of looking at things![/sarcasm]
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 02, 2016, 10:29:19 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 03, 2016, 01:34:46 PM
Intention is not the point, rather how it is perceived. The point is that theological anti-Juadaism rhetoric has a far different context and connotation today (due to certain well known historical patterns and events) than it did when the Christians were the persecuted underdogs against a Jewish majority.
I redacted your ad hominem.

[sarcasm]Anyway, you sure have an open-minded and objective way of looking at things![/sarcasm]

It's not open-minded to entertain arguments that have been debunked almost as often as Geocentrism, it's just a silly waste of time. And this goes double when seemingly every one of the prominent people pushing those arguments is obviously doing so to advance an (almost always repugnant) agenda.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on January 06, 2016, 09:58:45 AM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

Regarding "lapsed catholics" I believe SSPX is good in bringing them back to God.

But when you are christian again and strong in your christian values and beliefs you start to question a LOT of things regarding RC thanks to SSPX this time...

That was certainly true for me. (I don't mean that I was involved with the SSPX, but looking into traditionalist ideas helped me to question things.)

For me , too

I came back to Christ thanks to a traditional priest ... I will always have him in my prayers because of this...

This priest is a good man but he has a lot of things that scared me to death... and 90% of his speeches are related to chastisement, SSPX problems, Fatima, the evils of Bergoglio... I don't find Jesus there... they also talk a lot of the Blessed Virgin but I find this very dangerous also because they talk more about her than Jesus.

And a lot of other stuff... If the RC is the real true church and the ONLY church as they say it's very difficult to believe the only true church remains only in 2-3 small groups that fight among them all the time in the ciber space ... ::) and all the rest are wrong... very difficult to believe...

Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 06, 2016, 10:25:33 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on January 06, 2016, 11:02:13 AM
I think just about all of us here believe the holocaust happened, and 6 million jews died. However it unfair to label Serverian a anti-semite, I haven't seen where he said hateful things towards your average Jew. While holocaust denial is wrong, and academicaly dishonest, the charges of anti-semitism by some people go overboard, and render any real meaning to real acts of anti-semitism as hype in the public eyes.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 06, 2016, 11:11:24 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2016, 11:20:25 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Iconodule on January 06, 2016, 11:22:25 AM
Supposing the number is off (which it may well be), why does it matter?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Iconodule on January 06, 2016, 11:31:03 AM
Holocaust revisionism invariably has something behind it other than an earnest quest for facts. That said, there is a legitimate place for looking at the way the holocaust was exploited and even commodified by the victorious powers as a cover for their own crimes and the atrocities of colonialism. The Nazi bogeyman served to draw attention away from the humdrum brutality of capitalism in general. The Martinican surrealist Aime Cesaire makes this point well in his Discourse on Colonialism. The Italian Marxist Amadeo Bordiga, in his essay Auschwitz: the Great Alibi makes a similar point.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Alpo on January 06, 2016, 01:36:19 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Please, don't do that. You're awaking Cthulhu.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2016, 02:16:42 PM
Holocaust revisionism invariably has something behind it other than an earnest quest for facts. That said, there is a legitimate place for looking at the way the holocaust was exploited and even commodified by the victorious powers as a cover for their own crimes and the atrocities of colonialism. The Nazi bogeyman served to draw attention away from the humdrum brutality of capitalism in general. The Martinican surrealist Aime Cesaire makes this point well in his Discourse on Colonialism. The Italian Marxist Amadeo Bordiga, in his essay Auschwitz: the Great Alibi makes a similar point.

Agreed. Though that very critique is also easily exploited by Holocaust "revisionists." It's a bit of a Catch-22, isn't it?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 06, 2016, 02:26:30 PM
I think it's fair -- and I've seen in it done in many mainstream history sources -- to report various numbers from various reports and means of tallying. So if we learn the Allies originally reported 600,000, the Jews originally reported 1.5 million, and the first survey of the Nazi records yielded 3 million (I'm not standing behind any of these numbers, just demonstrating the nature of this kind of research), then that's surely acceptable information. Then learning how the number was revised in time to amount to 6 million is also good information. I don't think any of this is what's referred to as "holocaust revisionism," which is not a matter of learning but of promotion; i.e., it's a movement: note the "-ism."
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 06, 2016, 08:43:26 PM
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.

True tradition won't.  Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance.
Without men like +Williamson it will.

Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously.  I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do.  In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included.  While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy.

Regarding "lapsed catholics" I believe SSPX is good in bringing them back to God.

But when you are christian again and strong in your christian values and beliefs you start to question a LOT of things regarding RC thanks to SSPX this time...

That was certainly true for me. (I don't mean that I was involved with the SSPX, but looking into traditionalist ideas helped me to question things.)

For me , too

I came back to Christ thanks to a traditional priest ... I will always have him in my prayers because of this...

This priest is a good man but he has a lot of things that scared me to death... and 90% of his speeches are related to chastisement, SSPX problems, Fatima, the evils of Bergoglio... I don't find Jesus there... they also talk a lot of the Blessed Virgin but I find this very dangerous also because they talk more about her than Jesus.

And a lot of other stuff... If the RC is the real true church and the ONLY church as they say it's very difficult to believe the only true church remains only in 2-3 small groups that fight among them all the time in the ciber space ... ::) and all the rest are wrong... very difficult to believe...
And yet Christianity was started by one Person and twelve of his followers.

And even they fought amongst themselves.

And now ALL of them do nothing but fight with each other over who is the True Church.

Not much has changed.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 07, 2016, 09:54:18 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?
no, you obviously haven't put much thought into this issue
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 07, 2016, 09:58:23 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 07, 2016, 10:02:21 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

Please tell me that you're a troll account. I knew sedevacantism was a fringe thing, but I never thought it was this fringe...



I honestly don't know what else to say. I'm kind of depressed now to be honest...
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 07, 2016, 11:03:40 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?
no, you obviously haven't put much thought into this issue
How many do you think died and how did you arrive at your number?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 07, 2016, 11:08:03 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a victim.

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 07, 2016, 11:10:52 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes.

I read Mike's post as saying "Do we really need an answer to "Do you?""

I would say No: I don't really know sedevacantist and don't particularly care what his/her answer to that question is (all the more so if it's a conspiracy theory).
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 07, 2016, 11:11:26 PM
Regarding "lapsed catholics" I believe SSPX is good in bringing them back to God.

But when you are christian again and strong in your christian values and beliefs you start to question a LOT of things regarding RC thanks to SSPX this time...

That was certainly true for me. (I don't mean that I was involved with the SSPX, but looking into traditionalist ideas helped me to question things.)

For me , too

I came back to Christ thanks to a traditional priest ... I will always have him in my prayers because of this...

This priest is a good man but he has a lot of things that scared me to death... and 90% of his speeches are related to chastisement, SSPX problems, Fatima, the evils of Bergoglio... I don't find Jesus there... they also talk a lot of the Blessed Virgin but I find this very dangerous also because they talk more about her than Jesus.

And a lot of other stuff... If the RC is the real true church and the ONLY church as they say it's very difficult to believe the only true church remains only in 2-3 small groups that fight among them all the time in the ciber space ... ::) and all the rest are wrong... very difficult to believe...

In my case I used to associate with a lot of, if you will, "selectively traditionalist Catholics" -- and I still do, but not to such a great extent. (Come to think of it, I guess I'd have to say that I was one myself, albeit unwittingly.) There were many things about them that I didn't really question, for a while; "traditionalist Catholicism" was one of the things that helped me to question.

Nuff said. :)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 01:12:50 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes.

I read Mike's post as saying "Do we really need an answer to "Do you?""

I would say No: I don't really know sedevacantist and don't particularly care what his/her answer to that question is (all the more so if it's a conspiracy theory).
why would you know who I am? bizarre, who cares who you know, if you don't care about the issue why waste your time posting? I like how you add the government tactic of dismissing anyone with a different view as a conspiracy theory, do you believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone? if you don't you have been labelled a conspiracy theorist by the U.S gov't, if you do I have a bridge to sell you ....don't bother answering , nobody cares ..... you don't have a clue 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: byhisgrace on January 08, 2016, 01:15:02 AM
if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Care to answer this question, Sedevacantist?:
How many do you think died and how did you arrive at your number?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 08, 2016, 01:20:25 AM
I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

You use the name of Christ when I can fairly assure you Christ doesn't know you (to use his phrase in his judgment parables). Christ does not think of innocent men, women, and children as any kind of killers, much less "Christ killers." He pours out his love for them. The same for those Judaeans and Romans who did in fact kill him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Your spirit in the post above is not of Christ, but of the Evil One.

As for your statement that newsmedia was prophesying the Holocaust before it began -- this doesn't need refuting. Your posts are showing yourself a crank that nobody here should be taking serious time to respond to.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 02:49:25 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research
Your hypocrisy is showing. You're now making your own claims that demand supporting evidence. What proof can you post that shows that the "6 million number" really "was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2"? If you care about the issue you should not make us research your claims for you.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 08, 2016, 09:45:54 AM
It typical crank fashion, I expect this is about the time when we will be expected to provide proof for why his theories are wrong instead of him actually provide the basis for his opinions.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 06:09:26 PM
if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Care to answer this question, Sedevacantist?:
How many do you think died and how did you arrive at your number?
here's a vid showing the newspapers, let me know what you think
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 06:10:43 PM
if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Care to answer this question, Sedevacantist?:
How many do you think died and how did you arrive at your number?
here's a vid showing the newspapers, let me know what you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEJ_7vJIuUc

Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 06:11:18 PM
if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Care to answer this question, Sedevacantist?:
How many do you think died and how did you arrive at your number?
here's a vid showing the newspapers, let me know what you think
Where's the vid? NVM
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 06:17:11 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research
Your hypocrisy is showing. You're now making your own claims that demand supporting evidence. What proof can you post that shows that the "6 million number" really "was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2"? If you care about the issue you should not make us research your claims for you.
what hypocrisy are you talking about?
here's another vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinItLYg7qQ
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 06:27:04 PM
I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

You use the name of Christ when I can fairly assure you Christ doesn't know you (to use his phrase in his judgment parables). Christ does not think of innocent men, women, and children as any kind of killers, much less "Christ killers." He pours out his love for them. The same for those Judaeans and Romans who did in fact kill him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Your spirit in the post above is not of Christ, but of the Evil One.

As for your statement that newsmedia was prophesying the Holocaust before it began -- this doesn't need refuting. Your posts are showing yourself a crank that nobody here should be taking serious time to respond to.
I am certain Christ knows you for the heretic you are,it's a fact jews killed Christ. calling me a crank because I oppose your brain washed views won't change reality  you sheep

Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews.  No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”--Pope Saint Sylvester I at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea

“We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […]  They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses."--Pope Eugene IV
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 08, 2016, 06:32:41 PM
They would have said the same about Mormons if they had been a problem for the faithful. None of this is an excuse for you hating and libeling innocent men, women, and children.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 06:32:55 PM
It typical crank fashion, I expect this is about the time when we will be expected to provide proof for why his theories are wrong instead of him actually provide the basis for his opinions.
judging me a crank is un Christian of you and your buddies especially when you don't know what you are talking about, I guess I'm also a  crank for not believing the official 9/11 story also? I don't believe Oswald killed Kennedy, and I don't have time to teach you on these matters as it doesn't matter that much at the end of the day,salvation is what matters most. It just points to how little some of you care bout the truth
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Theophania on January 08, 2016, 06:33:45 PM
Are you from the Fisheaters forum?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 08, 2016, 06:34:05 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 06:55:10 PM
They would have said the same about Mormons if they had been a problem for the faithful. None of this is an excuse for you hating and libeling innocent men, women, and children.
I'm not hating anyone, I'm calling them Christ killers because that's what they are,they don't deserve anymore sympathy than the Armenians, Russians  etc who have been murdered, have you ever read the Talmud?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 07:07:15 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Theophania on January 08, 2016, 07:09:05 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

And here you insult an entire Church.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 08, 2016, 07:18:21 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 07:25:30 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 08, 2016, 07:34:58 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 07:56:00 PM
I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

You use the name of Christ when I can fairly assure you Christ doesn't know you (to use his phrase in his judgment parables). Christ does not think of innocent men, women, and children as any kind of killers, much less "Christ killers." He pours out his love for them. The same for those Judaeans and Romans who did in fact kill him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Your spirit in the post above is not of Christ, but of the Evil One.

As for your statement that newsmedia was prophesying the Holocaust before it began -- this doesn't need refuting. Your posts are showing yourself a crank that nobody here should be taking serious time to respond to.
I am certain Christ knows you for the heretic you are,it's a fact jews killed Christ. calling me a crank because I oppose your brain washed views won't change reality  you sheep

Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews.  No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”--Pope Saint Sylvester I at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea

“We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […]  They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses."--Pope Eugene IV
You are permitted to call our Church heretical if you wish on the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion board, but you are not permitted to call individual posters heretics here (or anywhere on the Public Forum). Don't do this again.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 07:59:47 PM
To everyone else: I notice that label 'crank' being tossed around here. Do note that this is an ad hominem and will be treated as such moving forward. Whoever calls sedevacantist or anyone else a crank on this thread will be penalized accordingly. Consider this your final warning.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 08:01:49 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 09, 2016, 08:23:25 AM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
Can you prove it either way?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 09, 2016, 08:40:41 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a victim.

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
I think the "axe to grind" comes from both sides of this issue. Regardless of your source of information, the only thing that matters at the end of the day, is if it is true or coheres with reality in some way. It doesn't matter where truth comes.

I could care less if a true statement comes from the Bible, Quran or Mein Kempf. It still doesn't detract from it's truthfullness.

The problem these days, is, in some places it is illegal to even question any aspects of the official version of the holacaust.

That sounds like some kind of state-sponsored heresy law or something like that.

Now regardless of all this "six million" nonsense, the reality is, is that the Catholic  Church in it's essence is diametrically opposed to Judaism or "jews" wherein as they reject Christ, the logos, the Son of the living God.

None of this is ever going to change unless they convert or their Messiah returns.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 09, 2016, 08:52:27 AM
Your buddy Hitler also rejected Christ. So wy are you idolising him?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 09, 2016, 09:01:44 AM
Your buddy Hitler also rejected Christ. So wy are you idolising him?
But you're my buddy too mike. Do you reject Christ as well?

Having said that, I never read where AH himself came out and offically rejected Christ in any legtimate sources.

And I know us Latins are a bit of idolators to you Easterners, but there aren't no statues of the Fuhrer in my church buddy.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CJZFCNTx3dA/TwIDqRwfRoI/AAAAAAAAF84/9IFX9IBHGeg/s1600/hitler+wax.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 09, 2016, 06:06:18 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 09, 2016, 06:13:50 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on January 09, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 09, 2016, 06:19:20 PM
A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.

Oh boy...
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on January 09, 2016, 06:28:10 PM
A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.

Oh boy...
What did the Church Fathers have to say on the matter, specifically St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 09, 2016, 06:29:04 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

Very true.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 09, 2016, 06:29:38 PM
A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.

Oh boy...
What did the Church Fathers have to say on the matter, specifically St. Ignatius of Antioch.

They weren't talking about Roman Catholicism, unlike the participants in this thread.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on January 09, 2016, 06:30:48 PM
A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.

Oh boy...
What did the Church Fathers have to say on the matter, specifically St. Ignatius of Antioch.

They weren't talking about Roman Catholicism, unlike the participants in this thread.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is honored as a Catholic Saint. He is pre-schism. He was the saint who sat on Christ's lap and who was mentored by St. John the Theologian (St. John the Evangelist).

It was he who mentioned that where the bishops are, there is the church.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 09, 2016, 06:32:49 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

Very true.

And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 09, 2016, 06:33:27 PM
A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.

Oh boy...
What did the Church Fathers have to say on the matter, specifically St. Ignatius of Antioch.

They weren't talking about Roman Catholicism, unlike the participants in this thread.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is honored as a Catholic Saint. He is pre-schism. He was the saint who sat on Christ's lap and who was mentored by St. John the Theologian (St. John the Evangelist).

It was he who mentioned that where the bishops are, there is the church.

But have you heard about St Evodios? 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on January 09, 2016, 06:41:15 PM
A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

As long as there are true Orthodox bishops, there is the Church.

Oh boy...
What did the Church Fathers have to say on the matter, specifically St. Ignatius of Antioch.

They weren't talking about Roman Catholicism, unlike the participants in this thread.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is honored as a Catholic Saint. He is pre-schism. He was the saint who sat on Christ's lap and who was mentored by St. John the Theologian (St. John the Evangelist).

It was he who mentioned that where the bishops are, there is the church.

But have you heard about St Evodios?

No, so please do share.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on January 09, 2016, 06:42:48 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

Very true.

And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist somewhere in the world, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   

FIFY
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 09, 2016, 06:50:04 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

Very true.

And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   

I understand. My response had a lot of holes.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 09, 2016, 06:53:18 PM
And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist somewhere in the world, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   

FIFY

No, I said what I meant and it was just fine.  You inserted your own off-topic idea in order to derail the conversation. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Maria on January 09, 2016, 07:17:09 PM
And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist somewhere in the world, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   

FIFY

No, I said what I meant and it was just fine.  You inserted your own off-topic idea in order to derail the conversation.

No, I "fixed it for you" because most sedes whom I know believe that even though the See of Peter is vacant, there are other bishops out there to confirm their children as they often use the SSPX or other "noncanonical groups of bishops" when they want their children confirmed. This is interesting because while they do not agree with the SSPX, they use their bishops.

Bishop Williamson has confirmed countless children here in the USA. He came to Los Angeles several times to perform confirmation ceremonies for sedes who were not even members of the local SSPX parish.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 10, 2016, 02:44:13 AM
And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist somewhere in the world, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   

FIFY

No, I said what I meant and it was just fine.  You inserted your own off-topic idea in order to derail the conversation.

No, I "fixed it for you" because most sedes whom I know believe that even though the See of Peter is vacant, there are other bishops out there to confirm their children as they often use the SSPX or other "noncanonical groups of bishops" when they want their children confirmed. This is interesting because while they do not agree with the SSPX, they use their bishops.
But your insertion of "somewhere in the world" adds nothing to Mor's words that he didn't already say. Your insertion was therefore superfluous, saying nothing.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 10, 2016, 03:40:21 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.

Come, Mor, don't leave your gloves on for my sake. I want to know how you would have answered.

A church with a vacant see =/= a church without a see

Very true.

And so, were I sedevacantist, I would argue that the see exists but is merely unoccupied at present.  The Church continues to exist, however uneasily, in such circumstances.  But sedevacantist's argument was something rather different, as if nineteen centuries of tradition makes not having a Pope not a big deal.  LOL.   
as a sedevacantist I do believe the see is vacant, there are other catholics who refer to themselves as  sedeplentists which I do not disregard, not sure where you got the idea that it's no big deal we don't have a pope.. It's just a fact that the Church has gone through certain periods in  history without a pope, this doesn't mean the Catholic Church ceases to exist.

The Church has existed for years without a pope, and does so every time a pope dies.  The Church has experienced a papal interregnum (i.e. period without a pope) over 200 different times in Church history.  The longest papal interregnum (before the Vatican II apostasy) was between Pope St. Marcellinus (296-304) and Pope St. Marcellus (308-309).  It lasted for more than three and a half years.36  Further, theologians teach that the Church can exist for even decades without a pope.   
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES THE NON-SEDEVACANTISTS’ MAIN ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM (PERIOD WITHOUT A POPE) BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST FOR DECADES WITHOUT A POPE 
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I.  Writing after Vatican I and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that God could leave the Church without a pope for over 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417).  Here is a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great Western Schism: 
“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy.  In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created.  There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 10, 2016, 03:43:30 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 10, 2016, 03:45:39 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 10, 2016, 03:52:50 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

Please tell me that you're a troll account. I knew sedevacantism was a fringe thing, but I never thought it was this fringe...



I honestly don't know what else to say. I'm kind of depressed now to be honest...
first off I don't represent all sedevacantists, if you think Francis is actually Catholic, by praying with jews in synagogues, muslims in mosques etc  then I don't know what else to say, I used to be in the novus order because I didn't look into the issues in depth, what's your excuse?
 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 11, 2016, 11:04:44 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?

I am Orthodox. 

I do not consider you a proto-Protestant because you quoted St Athanasius.  I consider you a proto-Protestant because you cavalierly dismiss what you would impose on us and appeal to "over 1900 years of magisterium to follow" to justify yourself.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 11, 2016, 11:07:31 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?

I am Orthodox. 

I do not consider you a proto-Protestant because you quoted St Athanasius.  I consider you a proto-Protestant because you cavalierly dismiss what you would impose on us and appeal to "over 1900 years of magisterium to follow" to justify yourself.

LOL:

I am Catholic..today the Vatican is not catholic..
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on January 11, 2016, 11:47:09 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 12, 2016, 09:43:29 AM
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/20/202f90acd67d3b50ad6e793713d4bb46bcb55354eaa1ea575f06aaeb26a5eb7c.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 12, 2016, 10:19:40 AM
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/20/202f90acd67d3b50ad6e793713d4bb46bcb55354eaa1ea575f06aaeb26a5eb7c.jpg)

Cue the same old tired joke about that one Romanian bishop...
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 12, 2016, 01:08:39 PM
We have to wait for Isa to show up for that one.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Rohzek on January 12, 2016, 02:37:08 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 12, 2016, 02:45:20 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.

John 11 and 18 would seem to indicate that the leaders were well aware of His innocence. I agree that the rabble they stirred up was likely not.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 12, 2016, 06:47:02 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?

I am Orthodox. 

I do not consider you a proto-Protestant because you quoted St Athanasius.  I consider you a proto-Protestant because you cavalierly dismiss what you would impose on us and appeal to "over 1900 years of magisterium to follow" to justify yourself.
I'll repeat myself, the orthodox are not wrong simply for rejecting Rome, they are wrong because they had no justification to do so, Rome was not in heresy....the fact the Church has no true pope is a sad reality, what do you want me to do about it, cry like a baby and say we have no leader how will we live?..and your loll's are meaningless, I have no idea what there is to lol about
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 12, 2016, 06:47:42 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on January 12, 2016, 06:55:47 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 12, 2016, 07:06:28 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on January 12, 2016, 07:11:25 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 12, 2016, 07:12:44 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
you believe Francis is Catholic? really? he's protecting the true faith? tell me why I should be ok with him praying with jews in synagogues for starters, why I should be ok with him esteeming muslims, he can't judge gays etc...I was like you when I didn't take a real interest in the issue but if you're on this site I can assume you actually looked into these subjects?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on January 12, 2016, 07:16:13 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
you believe Francis is Catholic? really? he's protecting the true faith? tell me why I should be ok with him praying with jews in synagogues for starters, why I should be ok with him esteeming muslims, he can't judge gays etc...I was like you when I didn't take a real interest in the issue but if you're on this site I can assume you actually looked into these subjects?

Yes, I think he is a Catholic, and I believe he is the Pope. But what does my opinion on this topic matter, since I am don't have the authority to judge the status of the Pope? I will agree, however, that Pope Francis is often imprudent in his words and deeds and I look forward to a Pope more inline with traditional Catholicism.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 12, 2016, 07:31:37 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
you believe Francis is Catholic? really? he's protecting the true faith? tell me why I should be ok with him praying with jews in synagogues for starters, why I should be ok with him esteeming muslims, he can't judge gays etc...I was like you when I didn't take a real interest in the issue but if you're on this site I can assume you actually looked into these subjects?

Yes, I think he is a Catholic, and I believe he is the Pope. But what does my opinion on this topic matter, since I am don't have the authority to judge the status of the Pope? I will agree, however, that Pope Francis is often imprudent in his words and deeds and I look forward to a Pope more inline with traditional Catholicism.
I'm not saying you will lose your salvation for being wrong on this issue so I won't spend too much time with this , but I hope as a catholic you are warning the orthodox they risk losing salvation for being outside the Catholic Church...do you believe in no salvation outside the Church?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Rohzek on January 12, 2016, 10:10:48 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

So because St. John of Chrysostom was an anti-Semite that makes being one okay? What about the part of Christ forgiving all of his killers? And what about the part of the Romans killing him?

I expect that next you will be trying to re-explain World War II as something like this:

(https://i.imgflip.com/p8hv8.jpg)

(http://i65.tinypic.com/9a0nk9.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 12, 2016, 11:56:51 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Hopefully this won't change the topic (we can never get enough Papcy-related talk around here), but I want to note that everything St. John is saying is both quoted from and in the tenor of the Scriptures. He's giving a synopsis of the biblical position on the subject, so to speak; certainly of the official Christian position. St. John is saying nothing original, and I hope this quote of yours isn't what's given you the impression he was a special anti-Semite and friend to your cause.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2016, 12:57:48 AM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2016, 01:03:13 AM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?

I am Orthodox. 

I do not consider you a proto-Protestant because you quoted St Athanasius.  I consider you a proto-Protestant because you cavalierly dismiss what you would impose on us and appeal to "over 1900 years of magisterium to follow" to justify yourself.
I'll repeat myself, the orthodox are not wrong simply for rejecting Rome, they are wrong because they had no justification to do so, Rome was not in heresy....the fact the Church has no true pope is a sad reality, what do you want me to do about it

How about... recognize that sedevacantism is a mockery of Catholic theology and make a different life choice?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 13, 2016, 03:51:23 AM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
you believe Francis is Catholic? really? he's protecting the true faith? tell me why I should be ok with him praying with jews in synagogues for starters, why I should be ok with him esteeming muslims, he can't judge gays etc...I was like you when I didn't take a real interest in the issue but if you're on this site I can assume you actually looked into these subjects?

Yes, I think he is a Catholic, and I believe he is the Pope. But what does my opinion on this topic matter, since I am don't have the authority to judge the status of the Pope? I will agree, however, that Pope Francis is often imprudent in his words and deeds and I look forward to a Pope more inline with traditional Catholicism.
I'm not saying you will lose your salvation for being wrong on this issue so I won't spend too much time with this , but I hope as a catholic you are warning the orthodox they risk losing salvation for being outside the Catholic Church...do you believe in no salvation outside the Church?
What makes you think you can convince us by citing persons only you claim as authorities?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 13, 2016, 09:59:41 AM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
you believe Francis is Catholic? really? he's protecting the true faith? tell me why I should be ok with him praying with jews in synagogues for starters, why I should be ok with him esteeming muslims, he can't judge gays etc...I was like you when I didn't take a real interest in the issue but if you're on this site I can assume you actually looked into these subjects?
I'm curious, was there a pope when Alexander VI sat in the chair? What about Steven VI, John XII, Urban VI, Benedict IX, Leo X or Boniface VIII? I could name a score more, but you get the idea...
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 13, 2016, 09:09:40 PM
18. Gregory VI, 1012  19. Sylvester III, 1045  20. John Mincius (Benedict X), 1058–1059  21. Pietro Cadalus (Honorius II), 1061–1064  22. Guibert of Ravenna (Clement III), 1080 & 1084–1100  23. Theodoric, 1100–1101  24. Adalbert, 1101  25. Maginulf (Sylvester IV), 1105–1111  26. Maurice Burdanus (Gregory VIII), 1118–1121  27. Thebaldus Buccapecuc (Celestine II) (legitimate but submitted to opposing pope, Honorius II, and afterwards considered an antipope), 1124  28. Pietro Pierleoni (Anacletus II), 1130–1138  29. Gregorio Conti (Victor IV), 1138  30. Ottavio di Montecelio (Victor IV), 1159–1164  31. Guido di Crema (Paschal III), 1164–1168  32. Giovanni of Struma (Callixtus III), 1168–1178  33. Lanzo of Sezza (Innocent III), 1179–1180  34. Pietro Rainalducci (Nicholas V), antipope in Rome, 1328–1330  35. Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), antipope of the Avignon line, 20 September 1378 – 16 September 1394  36. Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1394–1423  37. Pietro Philarghi Alexander V, antipope of the Pisan line, 1409–1410  38. Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII), antipope of the Pisan line, 1410–1415  39. Gil Sánchez Muñoz (Clement VIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1423–1429  40. Bernard Garnier (the first Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1425–c. 1429  41. Jean Carrier (the second Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1430–1437 42.  Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy (Felix V), 5 November 1439 – 7 April 1449  (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)   
One of the most notorious cases in Church history was that of the Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130 to 1138.  Anacletus had been implanted in an uncanonical election after Innocent II, the true pope, had already been chosen.  Despite his invalid and uncanonical election, Antipope Anacletus II gained control of Rome and the support of the majority of the College of Cardinals.  Anacletus held the support of almost the entire populace of Rome, until the true pope regained control of the city in 1138. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Anacletus,” Vol. 1, 1907, p. 447.) 


Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 13, 2016, 09:13:25 PM
18. Gregory VI, 1012  19. Sylvester III, 1045  20. John Mincius (Benedict X), 1058–1059  21. Pietro Cadalus (Honorius II), 1061–1064  22. Guibert of Ravenna (Clement III), 1080 & 1084–1100  23. Theodoric, 1100–1101  24. Adalbert, 1101  25. Maginulf (Sylvester IV), 1105–1111  26. Maurice Burdanus (Gregory VIII), 1118–1121  27. Thebaldus Buccapecuc (Celestine II) (legitimate but submitted to opposing pope, Honorius II, and afterwards considered an antipope), 1124  28. Pietro Pierleoni (Anacletus II), 1130–1138  29. Gregorio Conti (Victor IV), 1138  30. Ottavio di Montecelio (Victor IV), 1159–1164  31. Guido di Crema (Paschal III), 1164–1168  32. Giovanni of Struma (Callixtus III), 1168–1178  33. Lanzo of Sezza (Innocent III), 1179–1180  34. Pietro Rainalducci (Nicholas V), antipope in Rome, 1328–1330  35. Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), antipope of the Avignon line, 20 September 1378 – 16 September 1394  36. Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1394–1423  37. Pietro Philarghi Alexander V, antipope of the Pisan line, 1409–1410  38. Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII), antipope of the Pisan line, 1410–1415  39. Gil Sánchez Muñoz (Clement VIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1423–1429  40. Bernard Garnier (the first Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1425–c. 1429  41. Jean Carrier (the second Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1430–1437 42.  Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy (Felix V), 5 November 1439 – 7 April 1449  (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)   
One of the most notorious cases in Church history was that of the Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130 to 1138.  Anacletus had been implanted in an uncanonical election after Innocent II, the true pope, had already been chosen.  Despite his invalid and uncanonical election, Antipope Anacletus II gained control of Rome and the support of the majority of the College of Cardinals.  Anacletus held the support of almost the entire populace of Rome, until the true pope regained control of the city in 1138. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Anacletus,” Vol. 1, 1907, p. 447.) 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 13, 2016, 09:17:55 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?

I am Orthodox. 

I do not consider you a proto-Protestant because you quoted St Athanasius.  I consider you a proto-Protestant because you cavalierly dismiss what you would impose on us and appeal to "over 1900 years of magisterium to follow" to justify yourself.
I'll repeat myself, the orthodox are not wrong simply for rejecting Rome, they are wrong because they had no justification to do so, Rome was not in heresy....the fact the Church has no true pope is a sad reality, what do you want me to do about it

How about... recognize that sedevacantism is a mockery of Catholic theology and make a different life choice?
no,it's time you wake up and  do more research into what I'm writing you
In the Gospel, Jesus Christ not only informs us that in the last days the true faith would hardly be found on the Earth, but that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24).  St. Paul says that the man of sin will sit “in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4).  The Apocalypse describes in detail the Whore of Babylon, a false bride (i.e. a Counter Church) which arises in the last days in the city of seven hills (Rome) and which spreads spiritual fornication all over the Earth.  The fact that the last days are characterized by a spiritual deception intending to ensnare Catholics proves, rather than disproves, the authenticity of the Catholic Church



In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will fully come to pass in the last days. 
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “… there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3).”1 
The New Testament tells us that this deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures, in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4) and “in the holy place” (Mt. 24:15).  It will arise because people receive not the love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). 
In 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul speaks of the last days being characterized by a great apostasy that will be the worst ever – even worse than was experienced in the Arian crisis in the 4th century, in which an authentically Catholic priest was hardly to be found. 
Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total.  Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”2   
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”3   
St. Gregory Nazianz (+380), Against the Arians: “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches?  They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?”4 
If the Arian crisis – just a prelude to the Great Apostasy – was this extensive, how extensive will the Great Apostasy foretold by Our Lord and Saint Paul be?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 13, 2016, 09:22:40 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
But what if the term 'Catholic' doesn't apply to your sect?
what sect are you referring to? I'm a Roman Catholic..I just hold the sedevacantist position and reject the Vatican 2 sect.

Dude!!! I didn't know that had a sedevacantist!  What's it like, bro?
I don't understand you bro, write in English please
DUDE!!!!!!!! What's it like being a sedevacantist? I've never met one before.
you believe Francis is Catholic? really? he's protecting the true faith? tell me why I should be ok with him praying with jews in synagogues for starters, why I should be ok with him esteeming muslims, he can't judge gays etc...I was like you when I didn't take a real interest in the issue but if you're on this site I can assume you actually looked into these subjects?

Yes, I think he is a Catholic, and I believe he is the Pope. But what does my opinion on this topic matter, since I am don't have the authority to judge the status of the Pope? I will agree, however, that Pope Francis is often imprudent in his words and deeds and I look forward to a Pope more inline with traditional Catholicism.
I'm not saying you will lose your salvation for being wrong on this issue so I won't spend too much time with this , but I hope as a catholic you are warning the orthodox they risk losing salvation for being outside the Catholic Church...do you believe in no salvation outside the Church?
What makes you think you can convince us by citing persons only you claim as authorities?
It won't be by citing persons only I claim as authorities, I'm telling a catholic if he knows basic catholic teaching, it's a dogma that non catholics go to hell, should I pretend this dogma doesn't exist, just go along to get along, don't warn orthodox Christians only to see them in hellfire for eternity? or should I warn them because I do love my fellow humans and want them to have eternal salvation
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 13, 2016, 09:31:50 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?

so Saint John Chrysostom is an anti semite? what's it like to be a false catholic dude?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 13, 2016, 09:34:18 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Hopefully this won't change the topic (we can never get enough Papcy-related talk around here), but I want to note that everything St. John is saying is both quoted from and in the tenor of the Scriptures. He's giving a synopsis of the biblical position on the subject, so to speak; certainly of the official Christian position. St. John is saying nothing original, and I hope this quote of yours isn't what's given you the impression he was a special anti-Semite and friend to your cause.
he's not an anti-Semite, he was  anti-Judaism...what cause are you babbling about, the only cause I care for is the truth
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2016, 09:52:01 PM
Oh yes the Day of Judgment is a winnowing between those who did and did not concern themselves with the Grassy Knoll.
nope, but you folks are insulting me ,calling me a crank because I'm not a sheeple..you'll be judged for being outside the true church

A church without a see is not a church. So unless your claim is that you yourself are the Divine Judge, I'm not concerned.
we have over 1900 years of the magisterium to follow

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

You didn't really address Porter's point the way I would have if I were you, instead preferring to liken yourself to some sort of proto-Protestant.
I'm a proto-protestant because I quoted St Athanasius? what do you consider yourself?

I am Orthodox. 

I do not consider you a proto-Protestant because you quoted St Athanasius.  I consider you a proto-Protestant because you cavalierly dismiss what you would impose on us and appeal to "over 1900 years of magisterium to follow" to justify yourself.
I'll repeat myself, the orthodox are not wrong simply for rejecting Rome, they are wrong because they had no justification to do so, Rome was not in heresy....the fact the Church has no true pope is a sad reality, what do you want me to do about it

How about... recognize that sedevacantism is a mockery of Catholic theology and make a different life choice?
no,it's time you wake up and  do more research into what I'm writing you
In the Gospel, Jesus Christ not only informs us that in the last days the true faith would hardly be found on the Earth, but that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24).  St. Paul says that the man of sin will sit “in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4).  The Apocalypse describes in detail the Whore of Babylon, a false bride (i.e. a Counter Church) which arises in the last days in the city of seven hills (Rome) and which spreads spiritual fornication all over the Earth.  The fact that the last days are characterized by a spiritual deception intending to ensnare Catholics proves, rather than disproves, the authenticity of the Catholic Church



In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will fully come to pass in the last days. 
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “… there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3).”1 
The New Testament tells us that this deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures, in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4) and “in the holy place” (Mt. 24:15).  It will arise because people receive not the love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). 
In 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul speaks of the last days being characterized by a great apostasy that will be the worst ever – even worse than was experienced in the Arian crisis in the 4th century, in which an authentically Catholic priest was hardly to be found. 
Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total.  Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”2   
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”3   
St. Gregory Nazianz (+380), Against the Arians: “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches?  They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?”4 
If the Arian crisis – just a prelude to the Great Apostasy – was this extensive, how extensive will the Great Apostasy foretold by Our Lord and Saint Paul be?

Valens reigned for 28 years. It's been 58 years since the election of Pope John XXIII. I know that sedevacantists like to play the Left Behind card (well, there's been no Pope for so long because it's almost Armageddon!), but you can't expect to be taken very seriously by outsiders if you do since just about every extremist sect tries to excuse their worldview with that.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 13, 2016, 10:56:04 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Hopefully this won't change the topic (we can never get enough Papcy-related talk around here), but I want to note that everything St. John is saying is both quoted from and in the tenor of the Scriptures. He's giving a synopsis of the biblical position on the subject, so to speak; certainly of the official Christian position. St. John is saying nothing original, and I hope this quote of yours isn't what's given you the impression he was a special anti-Semite and friend to your cause.
he's not an anti-Semite, he was  anti-Judaism...what cause are you babbling about, the only cause I care for is the truth

No, he was antisemitic. Anti-Judaism is saying that the Jews are wrong to say that Christ is not the Messiah. Calling them dogs and swine who are fit to be killed and saying that those from 300 years later are guilty of deicide is antisemitic.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Rohzek on January 14, 2016, 01:09:02 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?

so Saint John Chrysostom is an anti semite? what's it like to be a false catholic dude?

What's it like to pretend like you know anything because you can cite the century old Catholic Encyclopedia continuously? When I TA'd for undergrad history courses, we automatically failed any student who cited from it because it is notoriously bad and out of date. Your arguments are terrible and your sources are terrible.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 14, 2016, 01:31:07 AM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.

You're not seeing the exact quote of St. Paul in St. John's homily? "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision" is Philippians 3:2.

Jews "of St. John's day" is a reading-in of your own.

You don't know what you're talking about, yet not only do you decide summarily to dismiss my explanation, but you make this topic a pet of yours around here, attacking St. John Chrysostom, and by extension his Church, on a regular basis throughout your time here.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 14, 2016, 01:49:51 AM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
News flash: they are.

Cf. the New Testament

Salvation is only through the Jews. See: all that God has wrought.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 14, 2016, 01:51:48 AM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." -1 John 2:22

That's true of everyone who doesn't believe. Singling out the Jews as though the intervening 2000 years never happened and they're nowadays not more often the persecuted rather than the persecutors is at best pointless and at worse signals certain, shall we say, ulterior motives.

There's a difference between denial and lack of belief.

And if any believe it's only because a Jew did so before they did and more perfectly so.

Christ is a Jew as are the pillars among the saint.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 14, 2016, 01:54:33 AM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.

You're not seeing the exact quote of St. Paul in St. John's homily? "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision" is Philippians 3:2.

Who is that talking about specifically, though? In context, I'd say that St. Paul is talking about the Judaizers. Not all Jews as it seems St. John is doing.
Jews "of St. John's day" is a reading-in of your own.

Then which Jews are he addressing?

Quote
Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master?

Emphasis mine.

You don't know what you're talking about, yet not only do you decide summarily to dismiss my explanation, but you make this topic a pet of yours around here, attacking St. John Chrysostom, and by extension his Church, on a regular basis throughout your time here.

I dismiss your explanation because I think it's crap, though I don't recall attacking Adversus Iudaeos in at least several months. I don't see how attacking one part of the work of a Saint who I otherwise greatly admire translates to attacking the Orthodox Church as a whole. I'm sorry for not realizing that the inerrancy of St. John Chrysostom was an Orthodox dogma.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 14, 2016, 01:56:24 AM
Is anti-Semitism a cool thing on this board now?
Even you know that quoting Scripture is, for even you do it.

I asked about anti-Semitism. Don't be cutesy.
Don't tell me not to be cutesy. FWIW, I said what I said because Severian did not express anti-Semitism in any form. What he did in citing Scripture was prove a valid point that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

You are not cute. Severian exists in context, of which Biro knows. Not everyone has your ability Peter to live as though everything they see has no connection to the past. Severian's comments here are clearly in poor taste at a minimum, and if you know what else he has to say, well Biro isn't so far off.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 14, 2016, 01:57:24 AM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

God bless you!
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 14, 2016, 02:12:06 AM
God have mercy on those who turn against his chosen people. That branch which is grafted cannot thrive if it strangles the trunk upon which it depends.

The so called Orientals here might be able to split the hairs they do, but those who are of European descent must practice more sense. Look at how terribly God's chosen suffered under your Churches in the last century.

If you can't repent, at least practice a bit of humility and not boast of your worst in public.

I'll pray for you.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: byhisgrace on January 14, 2016, 02:33:10 AM
To those who believe that St. John Chrysostom was an anti-semite, what are your thoughts on this quote?:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Homilies_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians
According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record. This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 14, 2016, 02:55:12 AM
To those who believe that St. John Chrysostom was an anti-semite, what are your thoughts on this quote?:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Homilies_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians
According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record. This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.

Sounds like hateful garbage and that he would get moded here.

You are late to class this with old and argued news.

Talking about the past is always anachronistic and yet we do it nevertheless.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 14, 2016, 03:50:46 AM
To those who believe that St. John Chrysostom was an anti-semite, what are your thoughts on this quote?:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Homilies_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians
According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record. This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.

I've heard the argument but I'm not sure what it proves, honestly. Perhaps it excuses the "pigs and dogs" comments, but I really don't see how it can excuse the deicide charge. That isn't just boasting against the trunk, it's taking a wiz on it.

St. John is writing in a context in which there was quite a lot of Christian animus towards the Jews (yes and vice versa, but I thought that Christians, let alone Saints, were supposed to be better than that). A generation prior, the bishop of Callinicum led a mob that burnt down a synagogue and St. Ambrose persuaded the Emperor not to have it rebuilt. St. John had to have known that his invective would be used to justify violence but for whatever reason he didn't seem to care.

As for supersessionism, I think it's junk theology but by itself I don't think it automatically has to be hateful. Supersessionism is not the deicide libel and need not lead to it, though.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 14, 2016, 06:43:26 AM
You don't know what you're talking about, yet not only do you decide summarily to dismiss my explanation, but you make this topic a pet of yours around here, attacking St. John Chrysostom, and by extension his Church, on a regular basis throughout your time here.

You tend to draw conclusions that are not really conclusions. Do you imagine what other people write and reply to posts of your imagination?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 14, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
To those who believe that St. John Chrysostom was an anti-semite, what are your thoughts on this quote?:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom#Homilies_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians
According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late 4th century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record. This does not preclude assertions that Chrysostom's theology was a form of Anti-Jewish supersessionism.

Sounds like hateful garbage and that he would get moded here.
Are you trying to insinuate about the moderation of this forum something you know is not true? (That's a rhetorical question, so don't answer it here.) I promise you that you don't want to go there.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 14, 2016, 08:24:25 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Hopefully this won't change the topic (we can never get enough Papcy-related talk around here), but I want to note that everything St. John is saying is both quoted from and in the tenor of the Scriptures. He's giving a synopsis of the biblical position on the subject, so to speak; certainly of the official Christian position. St. John is saying nothing original, and I hope this quote of yours isn't what's given you the impression he was a special anti-Semite and friend to your cause.
he's not an anti-Semite, he was  anti-Judaism...what cause are you babbling about, the only cause I care for is the truth

No, he was antisemitic. Anti-Judaism is saying that the Jews are wrong to say that Christ is not the Messiah. Calling them dogs and swine who are fit to be killed and saying that those from 300 years later are guilty of deicide is antisemitic.
sorry, I assumed people posting here considered themselves Christian, I didn't know pagans posted here
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 14, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?

so Saint John Chrysostom is an anti semite? what's it like to be a false catholic dude?

What's it like to pretend like you know anything because you can cite the century old Catholic Encyclopedia continuously? When I TA'd for undergrad history courses, we automatically failed any student who cited from it because it is notoriously bad and out of date. Your arguments are terrible and your sources are terrible.
so the Catholic encyclopedia shouldn't be cited because it's a century old, are you saying what I cited about Chrysostom is false?  if so that's a pretty big claim..I can assure you I can get other sources if need be....are you implying he didn't say these things concerning the jews?     someone posted that I spoke out of term talking about the jews so I quoted Chrysostom...how is my argument terrible? you are clueless



"you are clueless"... That's an ad hominem the likes of which we don't permit on this forum. If you disagree with another person's point of view, feel free to disagree, but never insult the person voicing the point of view. Seeing how your general tone on this forum has been consistently hostile, I think it necessary to increase your warning 20 points to let you know that such contempt for our posters is not tolerated on this forum. If you wish to appeal this warning, please PM me.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 14, 2016, 08:46:36 PM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.

There can come a point in a discussion where both sides just look ridiculous. In regard to discussing the Holocaust with anti-semite posters on this thread, I think that point has been reached. (I won't attempt to say when exactly it was reached, but I think it was several dozens of posts ago.)

Just saying!  8)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 14, 2016, 08:52:15 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Hopefully this won't change the topic (we can never get enough Papcy-related talk around here), but I want to note that everything St. John is saying is both quoted from and in the tenor of the Scriptures. He's giving a synopsis of the biblical position on the subject, so to speak; certainly of the official Christian position. St. John is saying nothing original, and I hope this quote of yours isn't what's given you the impression he was a special anti-Semite and friend to your cause.
he's not an anti-Semite, he was  anti-Judaism...what cause are you babbling about, the only cause I care for is the truth

No, he was antisemitic. Anti-Judaism is saying that the Jews are wrong to say that Christ is not the Messiah. Calling them dogs and swine who are fit to be killed and saying that those from 300 years later are guilty of deicide is antisemitic.
sorry, I assumed people posting here considered themselves Christian, I didn't know pagans posted here

I do consider myself a Christian. I just don't idolize St. John Chrysostom, a Saint yes but also a fallible moral man like any other, to the point that I refuse to criticize him when he says something blatantly wrong.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 14, 2016, 08:54:20 PM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.

There can come a point in a discussion where both sides just look ridiculous. In regard to discussing the Holocaust with anti-semite posters on this thread, I think that point has been reached. (I won't attempt to say when exactly it was reached, but I think it was several dozens of posts ago.)

Just saying!  8)

Yeah, you're probably right...
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 14, 2016, 10:03:35 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

Hopefully this won't change the topic (we can never get enough Papcy-related talk around here), but I want to note that everything St. John is saying is both quoted from and in the tenor of the Scriptures. He's giving a synopsis of the biblical position on the subject, so to speak; certainly of the official Christian position. St. John is saying nothing original, and I hope this quote of yours isn't what's given you the impression he was a special anti-Semite and friend to your cause.
he's not an anti-Semite, he was  anti-Judaism...what cause are you babbling about, the only cause I care for is the truth

No, he was antisemitic. Anti-Judaism is saying that the Jews are wrong to say that Christ is not the Messiah. Calling them dogs and swine who are fit to be killed and saying that those from 300 years later are guilty of deicide is antisemitic.
sorry, I assumed people posting here considered themselves Christian, I didn't know pagans posted here

I do consider myself a Christian. I just don't idolize St. John Chrysostom, a Saint yes but also a fallible moral man like any other, to the point that I refuse to criticize him when he says something blatantly wrong.
so St. John Chrysostom is wrong, you'reright, I get it.
how about this now orthodox , ex jew and his views on the jews ?
http://realjewnews.com/
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Rohzek on January 14, 2016, 10:20:13 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?

so Saint John Chrysostom is an anti semite? what's it like to be a false catholic dude?

What's it like to pretend like you know anything because you can cite the century old Catholic Encyclopedia continuously? When I TA'd for undergrad history courses, we automatically failed any student who cited from it because it is notoriously bad and out of date. Your arguments are terrible and your sources are terrible.
so the Catholic encyclopedia shouldn't be cited because it's a century old, are you saying what I cited about Chrysostom is false?  if so that's a pretty big claim..I can assure you I can get other sources if need be....are you implying he didn't say these things concerning the jews?     someone posted that I spoke out of term talking about the jews so I quoted Chrysostom...how is my argument terrible? you are clueless



"you are clueless"... That's an ad hominem the likes of which we don't permit on this forum. If you disagree with another person's point of view, feel free to disagree, but never insult the person voicing the point of view. Seeing how your general tone on this forum has been consistently hostile, I think it necessary to increase your warning 20 points to let you know that such contempt for our posters is not tolerated on this forum. If you wish to appeal this warning, please PM me.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


No, the Catholic Encyclopedia should be avoided because it is BOTH out-dated and notoriously BAD. And no, I think he did say those things about the Jews. All I am saying is that continuously throughout this thread and others you go off and say, "Well Catholic Encyclopedia says..." and pretend that it is somehow worthy of respect or substantial to your cause. CE should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to cite a work about papal supremacy, then get with the times and much better scholarship and at least begin with Walter Ullmann's The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. There are others just as good in French or German, but I doubt we could hold a discussion of them.

And your argument about Jews is terrible. Just because a saint does something doesn't make it okay. Augustine solicited prostitutes. Do you go around strip clubs and brothels then? Thomas Aquinas advocated burning heretics. Do you want to burn Protestants, etc.? Get real.

And mod, if it means anything, I don't mind sed saying that I am clueless, so I ask that he not be penalized for it.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 15, 2016, 12:15:22 AM
you wrote "And your argument about Jews is terrible. Just because a saint does something doesn't make it okay. Augustine solicited prostitutes. Do you go around strip clubs and brothels then? Thomas Aquinas advocated burning heretics. Do you want to burn Protestants, etc.? Get real."

I disagree, my argument about the jews makes sense, I am giving you saints and their teachings on the jews, you want to disagree with St John Chrysostom that is your prerogative but I don't believe you have the whole orthodox community backing you on this, Augustine did sin before his conversion, your argument doesn't make sense, burning of heretics I am not against, that's another topic

back to the jews, I have shown that my point of view is more in line with Christianity, the church fathers , and lets add the bible...you on the other hand follow the world and it's politically correct views


and when I post something that comes from the Cath encycl if it's false simply tell me it's false and prove it, what I posted on St John Chrysotom is not false but you rant anyway
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2016, 12:03:42 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?

so Saint John Chrysostom is an anti semite? what's it like to be a false catholic dude?

Dude! I dunno. Tell me what it's like.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 15, 2016, 03:02:53 PM

back to the jews, I have shown that my point of view is more in line with Christianity, the church fathers , and lets add the bible...you on the other hand follow the world and it's politically correct views

No, you haven't. At most you've assumed St. John Chrysostom's faulty views back on to the NT.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 15, 2016, 06:20:57 PM
I certainly don't apply revisionism to other things. Don't call me a hypocrite.

I do think Holocaust revisionism is as bad as denial. They aren't different.

If this kind of thing is now normal on the forum or in the church, I have no business being here.
do you believe 6 million jews died during the holocaust?
Yes. Do you?

Do we really need to know an answer?

We do know the answer and the answer is yes. The only people saying otherwise on the professional level are Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers.
please tell me you're joking..this is a joke right, you people seem to   love being conned but at the end of the day being wrong on this issue doesn't mean the loss of your soul, rejecting the Church of Christ is another matter, but it puzzles me with all the info available to us in this day and age people still believe 6 million jews were murdered, maybe Oswald killed Kennedy alone or next you will tell me Bin Laden was responsible for 911...please say it isn't so

I think in "all the info available today" you must be including anything anybody posts online or in pamphlets. There are uncountable sources of false information and confusing conspiracies. Please don't be a

[Edited to add:] Any information that comes with an axe to grind or a hateful attitude attached to it should be suspect. If some source is "proving" that the Jewish people do not deserve our sympathy, then they are automatically on the side of untruth, numbers aside.
you believe the jews need our sympathy? really? the Christ killers? if you fell for the 6 million number you are a victim, for starters the 6 million number was circulating in newspapers long before world war 2, if you care about the issue you should do more research

Technically, the Romans killed Jesus. Tell me what is worse, those who plead for Jesus' death honestly believing him to be a devilish heretic, or the Roman prefect who believed a man to be innocent but murdered him because of political expediency? I would most certainly say the latter, but I don't go around holding Italians or Frenchmen responsible for Christ's death. Furthermore, did not Christ himself forgive his executors and those who wished it upon him before he gave his last breath?

Tell me, what will you cite next? The Protocols of Zion? Your ideas are ridiculous and foolish.
no you are foolish , you don't know what u r babbling about, I guess you would censure John Chrysostom for not being politically correct?

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews.  Homily 1

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?
Dude!!! What's it like being an anti-semite?

so Saint John Chrysostom is an anti semite? what's it like to be a false catholic dude?

Dude! I dunno. Tell me what it's like.
so you don't know if Saint Chrysostom is an anti semite but you are sure I'm one?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Rohzek on January 16, 2016, 12:27:03 AM
you wrote "And your argument about Jews is terrible. Just because a saint does something doesn't make it okay. Augustine solicited prostitutes. Do you go around strip clubs and brothels then? Thomas Aquinas advocated burning heretics. Do you want to burn Protestants, etc.? Get real."

I disagree, my argument about the jews makes sense, I am giving you saints and their teachings on the jews, you want to disagree with St John Chrysostom that is your prerogative but I don't believe you have the whole orthodox community backing you on this, Augustine did sin before his conversion, your argument doesn't make sense, burning of heretics I am not against, that's another topic

back to the jews, I have shown that my point of view is more in line with Christianity, the church fathers , and lets add the bible...you on the other hand follow the world and it's politically correct views


and when I post something that comes from the Cath encycl if it's false simply tell me it's false and prove it, what I posted on St John Chrysotom is not false but you rant anyway

Well, I never mentioned anything about your Chrysostom quote being inaccurate so...yeah.

And why should I care whether I have backers on my position. What is this? A popularity contest?

And as for the burning of heretics, I guess if you have your way then a lot more Joan of Arcs will be dying in this world. Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixgc_FGam3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
Quote
No, he was antisemitic. Anti-Judaism is saying that the Jews are wrong to say that Christ is not the Messiah. Calling them dogs and swine who are fit to be killed and saying that those from 300 years later are guilty of deicide is antisemitic
I don't believe St. John Chrysostom knew anything about the modern,  now highly politicized term "antisemitism" in his day.

But even if your going there, he was not referring to the Jews in that context  particulary  as an ethnicity or a race.

As for calling them names, nothing new here, Christ called the Pharisees snakes and vipers in his condemnation of them as well.



You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? -Matthew 23:33
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2016, 07:54:52 AM
Quote
The Society of St Pius X has confirmed (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/) that it has expelled the English Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson, 72, one of four men illicitly ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Écône, Switzerland, has been a controversial figure, particularly for his views on Jews, who he has called the “enemies of Christ”.
News flash: they are.

Cf. the New Testament

Salvation is only through the Jews. See: all that God has wrought.
Christ also stated this;

9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, [/b]and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.-Revelation 3:9

So which "jews" is salvation through?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2016, 08:03:47 AM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.

There can come a point in a discussion where both sides just look ridiculous. In regard to discussing the Holocaust with anti-semite posters on this thread, I think that point has been reached. (I won't attempt to say when exactly it was reached, but I think it was several dozens of posts ago.)

Just saying!  8)
What I don't get is people throwing around this "antisemite" accusation for even merely questioning anything about the Holocaust like it's some kind of religion of heresy or something. Which is exactly why Bp Williamson got into hot water to begin with. I mean they actually wanted to prosecute the man for hate speech over this nonsense.

And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

This is ridiculous.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 16, 2016, 09:22:38 AM
you wrote "And your argument about Jews is terrible. Just because a saint does something doesn't make it okay. Augustine solicited prostitutes. Do you go around strip clubs and brothels then? Thomas Aquinas advocated burning heretics. Do you want to burn Protestants, etc.? Get real."

I disagree, my argument about the jews makes sense, I am giving you saints and their teachings on the jews, you want to disagree with St John Chrysostom that is your prerogative but I don't believe you have the whole orthodox community backing you on this, Augustine did sin before his conversion, your argument doesn't make sense, burning of heretics I am not against, that's another topic

back to the jews, I have shown that my point of view is more in line with Christianity, the church fathers , and lets add the bible...you on the other hand follow the world and it's politically correct views


and when I post something that comes from the Cath encycl if it's false simply tell me it's false and prove it, what I posted on St John Chrysotom is not false but you rant anyway

Well, I never mentioned anything about your Chrysostom quote being inaccurate so...yeah.

And why should I care whether I have backers on my position. What is this? A popularity contest?

And as for the burning of heretics, I guess if you have your way then a lot more Joan of Arcs will be dying in this world. Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixgc_FGam3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
no popularity contest, I'm not orthodox, you are, if your fellow orthodox are telling you something about a saint you should pay attention, you can't say my argument concerning the jews is anti semetic when I'm following the teachings of a saint, either me and the saint are anti semetic or we're not..as for the burning of heretics I believe at the time the Church was justified in doing so, for what is worse than teaching souls counter to the faith and leading them to hell? anyways this is not the time or place for that issue....I would simply like to know am I anti semetic from my posts, if yes is Saint Chrysostom anti semetic?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 16, 2016, 09:24:43 AM
Calling the Jews dogs is original. St. Paul certainly doesn't say that.

Assuming that the Jews of St. John's own day were Christ-killers is original. Even assuming that Paul thought that every Jew of His day was specially responsible for deicide, that doesn't translate to the Jews of St. John's day.

There can come a point in a discussion where both sides just look ridiculous. In regard to discussing the Holocaust with anti-semite posters on this thread, I think that point has been reached. (I won't attempt to say when exactly it was reached, but I think it was several dozens of posts ago.)

Just saying!  8)
What I don't get is people throwing around this "antisemite" accusation for even merely questioning anything about the Holocaust like it's some kind of religion of heresy or something. Which is exactly why Bp Williamson got into hot water to begin with. I mean they actually wanted to prosecute the man for hate speech over this nonsense.

And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

This is ridiculous.

how dare you speak the truth
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 16, 2016, 12:26:50 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2016, 12:42:59 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 16, 2016, 12:56:13 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way.

But their ability to make your ecclesiastical authorities jump has more to do with their weakness than Jewish lobbying. 

Quote
As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)

Are they in schism?  Even authorities "in full communion with Rome" disagree on that point.  I think you're right that they should be able to work with Rome without external interference.  That said, they are not a group that shies away from aiming guns at their feet.   
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2016, 01:07:21 PM
Quote
But their ability to make your ecclesiastical authorities jump has more to do with their weakness than Jewish lobbying. 
This is true. I guess they're more concerned with keeping a "dialogue" with the Synagogue more than Truth itself.

Nostra aetate anyone?

Quote
Are they in schism?  Even authorities "in full communion with Rome" disagree on that point.
apparently, they're working on it.

Pope Benedict XVI declared that for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society has no canonical status in the Catholic Church and because its lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church.[1] However, the Society maintains that the Holy See gives some recognition to the canonical existence and ecclesial ministry of the Society's priests.[2] Tensions between the society and the Holy See reached their height in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II, resulting in a declaration of excommunication against the bishops who consecrated or were consecrated. However, the excommunication was removed in January 2009[3] with a hope expressed that all members of the society would quickly return to full communion.[4][5]-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

Eh, it's a wiki source, so who knows. I'm too lazy to do the research to find out for sure. I'm not SSPX. It's not my problem.

Quote
That said, they are not a group that shies away from aiming guns at their feet.
But they've been hitting nerves now for a long time. Their aim is better than you think.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 16, 2016, 04:35:50 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 16, 2016, 05:43:22 PM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 16, 2016, 05:49:50 PM
I may or may not be particularly interested in mike's piety.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 16, 2016, 05:56:59 PM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.

^POM
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 16, 2016, 06:04:45 PM
I may or may not be particularly interested in mike's piety.

I know about Free India Legion. Maybe that is the reason you do not venerate them.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 16, 2016, 06:10:07 PM
I may or may not be particularly interested in mike's piety.

You question his piety for talking about Saints who have been martyred in the Holocaust?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 16, 2016, 08:40:50 PM
I may or may not be particularly interested in mike's piety.

I know about Free India Legion. Maybe that is the reason you do not venerate them.

Flatter not thyself.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 16, 2016, 08:42:11 PM
I may or may not be particularly interested in mike's piety.

You question his piety for talking about Saints who have been martyred in the Holocaust?

Where was the question? 

Anyway, even if I was, "talking about Saints who have been martyred in the Holocaust" wouldn't be the reason. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2016, 10:59:49 PM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 16, 2016, 11:44:01 PM
CM, to answer your question.

Don't decide which. From the Fathers till today, when it comes to the the Jews, good or otherwise, Christians for the most part can't read scripture better than I could at age eight.

Read scripture in its entirety, it's not hard. Then you'll be able to properly understand how to determine that radical antisemitism among your fellow Christians when it rears its head.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 16, 2016, 11:46:19 PM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

Do you having anything to point us toward other than a photo?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Cavaradossi on January 17, 2016, 01:56:58 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

Do you having anything to point us toward other than a photo?

It's a picture of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, who offered to be starved in place of another prisoner. He was notable for his belief that the Virgin Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: orthonorm on January 17, 2016, 02:09:46 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

Do you having anything to point us toward other than a photo?

It's a picture of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, who offered to be starved in place of another prisoner. He was notable for his belief that the Virgin Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

Wow. This postage stamp doesn't belong in the garbage icon section:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/DBP_1973_771_Maximilian_Kolbe.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 17, 2016, 08:28:38 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

Do you having anything to point us toward other than a photo?
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=370
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 17, 2016, 10:17:45 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

If Kolbe was a martyr in Auschwitz how could that happen? Hitler accordingly to you was suh a great buddy for Christians and Holocaust never happened. I am confused.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 17, 2016, 11:32:20 AM
Quote
Don't decide which. From the Fathers till today, when it comes to the the Jews, good or otherwise, Christians for the most part can't read scripture better than I could at age eight.
You just lost all credibility with that statement. Oh btw, does this include Jewish Christians? Ockham's razor in effect.

Quote
Read scripture in its entirety, it's not hard.
I have, read the bible front to back multiple times. No big deal.

And FWIW, I don't "worship" sacred scripture like the Protestants or Evangelicals. The Bible is not to me what the Quran is to Moslems.

Quote
Then you'll be able to properly understand how to determine that radical antisemitism among your fellow Christians when it rears its head.
Or possibly the  radical "anti-goyism" coming from the Talmud or the rabbi's in Judaism.

BTW, "antisemitism" in theory and context the way you and some others present it, basically the hatred of the Jewish people specifically because of their race or DNA is NOT compatible anywhere in Christianity. I see nowhere where that is presnted here or anywhere else, where "christians" rear their ugly "antisemitic" head.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: seekeroftruth777 on January 17, 2016, 11:32:51 AM
I don't think it's wise to doubt that Hitler was not a friend of Christians, least we forget the Hitler Catholic Fransician pupets in Croatia genocde against our Serbian Orthodox brothers, and sisters.  At the same token while Hitler was evil, no doubt about that, one must remember he was a bulwark against the Joseph Stalin who crimes in body count  terms was worse than Hitler. The worst mistake we made was allowing the Soviet Union to get as far they did in Eastern, and Central Europe, and giving lend ease aid to the Russians, for the sake of the people in Orthodox, and Catholic Eastern/Central Europe it was proabably best if the USSR and Nazi Germany have taken each other out, destablizing both sides, thus preventing Atheist Communism spreading around the globe.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 17, 2016, 11:33:10 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

Do you having anything to point us toward other than a photo?

It's a picture of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, who offered to be starved in place of another prisoner. He was notable for his belief that the Virgin Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

Wow. This postage stamp doesn't belong in the garbage icon section:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/DBP_1973_771_Maximilian_Kolbe.jpg)
Because it's not an icon. It's a stamp.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 17, 2016, 11:35:58 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

If Kolbe was a martyr in Auschwitz how could that happen? Hitler accordingly to you was suh a great buddy for Christians and Holocaust never happened. I am confused.
It's called reading comprehension there mikey.

Go back and reread my posts.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Rohzek on January 17, 2016, 09:37:40 PM
I don't think it's wise to doubt that Hitler was not a friend of Christians, least we forget the Hitler Catholic Fransician pupets in Croatia genocde against our Serbian Orthodox brothers, and sisters.  At the same token while Hitler was evil, no doubt about that, one must remember he was a bulwark against the Joseph Stalin who crimes in body count  terms was worse than Hitler. The worst mistake we made was allowing the Soviet Union to get as far they did in Eastern, and Central Europe, and giving lend ease aid to the Russians, for the sake of the people in Orthodox, and Catholic Eastern/Central Europe it was proabably best if the USSR and Nazi Germany have taken each other out, destablizing both sides, thus preventing Atheist Communism spreading around the globe.

Due to the limited amount of nukes we had, I'm pretty sure that if we took Patton's advice, the Soviets would have driven the Brits and the Americans into the Atlantic, and all of Europe would have then been commie. And if it wasn't for Lend Lease, then there would have been no formidable Eastern Front, and D-Day most certainly would have failed just like Operation Market Garden. In short, the Russians would have lost WW2 just like they did WW1 to the Germans.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on January 20, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

That's true, M. Kolbe was labeled a vicious polish antisemite in 1930's and also an anti masonic conspiracy theorist, by his enemies.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 20, 2016, 09:15:51 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

That's true, M. Kolbe was labeled a vicious polish antisemite in 1930's and also an anti masonic conspiracy theorist, by his enemies.

It's enough to read his writings. There is a chance he had a change of heart after being arrested by the Germans but he hadn't be a nice guy prior to thatt.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on January 20, 2016, 09:21:34 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

If Kolbe was a martyr in Auschwitz how could that happen? Hitler accordingly to you was suh a great buddy for Christians and Holocaust never happened. I am confused.

One thing doesn't means the other.

M. Kolbe was very critical of jews as a lot of polish people pre and post Vatican the II. He NEVER said that jews were to be murdered!!!!!!!!...but he was critical towards sionism, jewish financial power and jews salvation, he said that jews needed to convert to save their souls... I dont know if he talked about connection between some jews and bolschevism but that was a common theory at that time not only for catholics also for eastern orthodox.

He was not a nazi. He viewed nazism as a pagan ideology , very anti christian and very damaging to humanity. So he was imprisoned for his anti nazi views.

In 1930's Europe you could be a christian, anti nazi and critical of jewish power and involvement in politics (by today standards...) and wasn't a confusing thing.

"Jewish-bolschevist-freemanson complot" theory was a common conspiracy theory among christians and non christians, catholics, protestant and orthodox at that time.

I'm not justifying Shoah's or jewish persecution, I'm only trying to talk about the historial facts of that time.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on January 20, 2016, 09:24:28 AM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

That's true, M. Kolbe was labeled a vicious polish antisemite in 1930's and also an anti masonic conspiracy theorist, by his enemies.

It's enough to read his writings. There is a chance he had a change of heart after being arrested by the Germans but he hadn't be a nice guy prior to thatt.

Im no expert on his writings.
Im not qualified to say anything about his sainthood ...
I can only express historical facts... If you study 1930s Europe you will see that a lot of people had the same views of MK and not only the pagan and luciferian nazis ... and not only the catholics as you want to hear...

Im very critical of Ustase for example...but Im no blind person and I know that also protestans and orthodox had very disturbing views about jewry...
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on January 20, 2016, 09:40:17 AM
One thing that is very difficult (maybe impossible) is trying to establish historical facts wothout all people saying a lot of bad things and throwing stones.

Im sick to death of Bishop Williamson, I dont believe all jews are cursed, I believe there were big murders in WWII in both sides and I recognize there was a jewish Holocaust. But Im sure I will be labeled as a nazi , as an holocaust denialist .... or as judaizer, political correctness agent, History Channel viewer, and a lot of horrible things just because I didnt ally with any side of this discussion (basically Charles Martel and Mike's views).

I dont see all things as black and white...And Im not justifying murder , Im a christian and I cannot suport ANY murder... Im talking about other things...

Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 20, 2016, 10:05:14 AM
One thing doesn't means the other.

M. Kolbe was very critical of jews as a lot of polish people pre and post Vatican the II. He NEVER said that jews were to be murdered!!!!!!!!...but he was critical towards sionism, jewish financial power and jews salvation, he said that jews needed to convert to save their souls... I dont know if he talked about connection between some jews and bolschevism but that was a common theory at that time not only for catholics also for eastern orthodox.

He was not a nazi. He viewed nazism as a pagan ideology , very anti christian and very damaging to humanity. So he was imprisoned for his anti nazi views.

In 1930's Europe you could be a christian, anti nazi and critical of jewish power and involvement in politics (by today standards...) and wasn't a confusing thing.

"Jewish-bolschevist-freemanson complot" theory was a common conspiracy theory among christians and non christians, catholics, protestant and orthodox at that time.

I'm not justifying Shoah's or jewish persecution, I'm only trying to talk about the historial facts of that time.

I am aware of that. Yet his antisemitic beliefs do not really make me feel sympathetic to him. The fact, in one of his articles he called the Orthodoxy as a "religion of Satan" IIRC does not ern my sympathy either.

I didnt ally with any side of this discussion (basically Charles Martel and Mike's views).


So what is the my view you do not agree with?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: stella1990 on January 20, 2016, 10:29:31 AM
One thing doesn't means the other.

M. Kolbe was very critical of jews as a lot of polish people pre and post Vatican the II. He NEVER said that jews were to be murdered!!!!!!!!...but he was critical towards sionism, jewish financial power and jews salvation, he said that jews needed to convert to save their souls... I dont know if he talked about connection between some jews and bolschevism but that was a common theory at that time not only for catholics also for eastern orthodox.

He was not a nazi. He viewed nazism as a pagan ideology , very anti christian and very damaging to humanity. So he was imprisoned for his anti nazi views.

In 1930's Europe you could be a christian, anti nazi and critical of jewish power and involvement in politics (by today standards...) and wasn't a confusing thing.

"Jewish-bolschevist-freemanson complot" theory was a common conspiracy theory among christians and non christians, catholics, protestant and orthodox at that time.

I'm not justifying Shoah's or jewish persecution, I'm only trying to talk about the historial facts of that time.

I am aware of that. Yet his antisemitic beliefs do not really make me feel sympathetic to him. The fact, in one of his articles he called the Orthodoxy as a "religion of Satan" IIRC does not ern my sympathy either.

I didnt ally with any side of this discussion (basically Charles Martel and Mike's views).


So what is the my view you do not agree with?

Hi


Well ... It's difficult for me to feel simpathy for him if he said that " Orthodoxy is a religion of Satan" because I love Orthodoxy even as I have not apostatized from Roman Catholicism yet...so I really agree with you relating to this...

As I previously said Im no expert on MK writings... I cannot speak properly about him regarding his antisemitic views ...I just can say what I stated previously: his views towards jews were common among christians in his time. And I have never read that he supported murder. Anyways: I differ from him because I dont have the pre vatican II views towards jews. I don't believe they are all cursed, guilty or responsible for Christ's murder...

Regarding to your views: if Charles Martel is so soft in his views towards Hitler, saying that he never apostatized (so he was a Catholic all time), sustaining a real Holocaust denialist view (Holocaust didn't happen, that's all jew's lies...), very pre Vatican the II view of jews (Jews as Synagogue of Satan, etc)... I guess you represent the opposite views...

And that's not bad: you have your right to say whatever you believe as does Charles Martel or myself.

The thing that I really don't like is being labeled an antisemite just because I feel free to analize the Holocaust regarding numbers and methods and I dont have to agree with Abe Foxman in all the  things he says or supports... I don't like "political correctness" if this means that I will not be able to question or think by myself.

I really believe there was an Holocaust but as in Armenian or Ukrainian genocides I feel free to examine and debate with other people regarding numbers and methods... really free. I would never deny jewish, armenian or ukrainian genocides but regarding to jewish one I feel pressured to think just as "ADL says ....if not you are a sick nazi bastard".

That's are the two sides of the spectrum regarding to jews that I see at this discussion... Maybe I'm wrong and you can say  that to me, of course.

(I feel trapped in the middle of the spectrum...)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 21, 2016, 10:41:23 PM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

That's true, M. Kolbe was labeled a vicious polish antisemite in 1930's and also an anti masonic conspiracy theorist, by his enemies.

It's enough to read his writings. There is a chance he had a change of heart after being arrested by the Germans but he hadn't be a nice guy prior to thatt.
I highly doubt it, SAINT Maximilian Kolbe never backed off from telling the Truth until the day he died.

And he died the death of a true martry, gave his life so another man may live. If that isn't the ultimate example of Christ, I don;t know what is.

And your attempt to slander this saintly man because of him being critical of Zionists and Freemasonry is downright despicable.

Talk about not being a nice guy.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 21, 2016, 10:45:36 PM
Quote
He was not a nazi. He viewed nazism as a pagan ideology , very anti christian and very damaging to humanity. So he was imprisoned for his anti nazi views.
I think you're wasting your breath stella.

mike knows this for a fact yet his blind  hatred of Catholicism skews his capability of rational thought.

I've never seen such seething hatred for such a man like St. MK.

totally irrational.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 21, 2016, 11:11:25 PM
Quote
Yet his antisemitic beliefs do not really make me feel sympathetic to him.
Prove he had "antisemitic" or knock it off.

Antisemitism is defined of hostility to Jews for the mere fact that they are of the Jewish race. I challenge you to prove one iota of this philosophy regarding St. MK. If not, stop your calumny. >:(

Quote
The fact, in one of his articles he called the Orthodoxy as a "religion of Satan" IIRC does not ern my sympathy either.
Produce this article and in what context. Or, you have no credibility with this statement.

I am not going  sit here anymore and let you soil the memory of this greeat Catholic saint and martyr.

Start backing up your  bogus accusations.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 21, 2016, 11:25:29 PM
To deny the Holocaust is equally to deny of martyrdom of:

- Gregory (Peradze) of Warsaw
- Gorazd (Pavlik) of Prague
- Mary (Skobtsova) of Paris and her companions Demetrius (Klepinin), George (Skobtsov) and Elijah (Fondaminsky)
- Alexander (Schmorell) of Munich
- George (Bogić) of Našice
- Ignatius (Bazyluk) of Jabłeczna
- Savva (Triajić) of Karlovac
- Raphael (Momcilović) of Šišatovac
- Peter (Zimonjić) of Dabar
- Vukašin (Mandrapa) of Klepci
- Plato (Jovanović) of Banja Luka
- Joannicius (Lipovac) of Montenegro
- Branko (Dobrosavljević) of Vejlun

and many other saints that died from the hand of Germans and their allies.
We can honor the martydom of those "saints" as well as all those who died for the Faith on both sides of that war without accepting the politically charged accusation of "denying" the offical line of the Holocaust.

Ironically, one of the greatest 20th century RC saints, who voluntarily gave his life for another man at Auschwitz was once accused of "antisemitism" for his work in some newspapers in which some of the content that was  anti-Zionist and anti-Masonic , does not tarnish his martydom in the least. Truly a great man indeed;

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg/185px-Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg)

That's true, M. Kolbe was labeled a vicious polish antisemite in 1930's and also an anti masonic conspiracy theorist, by his enemies.

It's enough to read his writings. There is a chance he had a change of heart after being arrested by the Germans but he hadn't be a nice guy prior to thatt.
I highly doubt it, SAINT Maximilian Kolbe never backed off from telling the Truth until the day he died.

And he died the death of a true martry, gave his life so another man may live. If that isn't the ultimate example of Christ, I don;t know what is.

And your attempt to slander this saintly man because of him being critical of Zionists and Freemasonry is downright despicable.

Talk about not being a nice guy.
edit.

I meant martyr.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 22, 2016, 05:36:09 PM
Prove he had "antisemitic" or knock it off.

Quote from: http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma,tom-6,911-z-naszej-korespondencji,1033
[...]We will dejudaize Poland if with the help of Jezus and Mary we will protect ourselves and our environment from judo-masonic-neopaganic influence [...]

Quote from: http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma,tom-1,45-do-klerykow-franciszkanskich-w-krakowie,61
[...]I found myself in a carriage in the company of, among others, a Jew (a civilized one, without payots) [...]

Quote from: http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma,tom-6,1027-biedni,1144
[...] Rabbis [...] teach that Jews can steal or deceive Christians [...]

Quote
The fact, in one of his articles he called the Orthodoxy as a "religion of Satan" IIRC does not ern my sympathy either.

 Produce this article and in what context. Or, you have no credibility with this statement.

I made a mistake with this one (as I wrote I had not been sure), his words were "religion not started by Christ". I found where I used it in a discussion but I cannot find the original source. I remember having read it then.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 22, 2016, 10:32:05 PM
Prove he had "antisemitic" or knock it off.

Quote from: http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma,tom-6,911-z-naszej-korespondencji,1033
[...]We will dejudaize Poland if with the help of Jezus and Mary we will protect ourselves and our environment from judo-masonic-neopaganic influence [...]

Quote from: http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma,tom-1,45-do-klerykow-franciszkanskich-w-krakowie,61
[...]I found myself in a carriage in the company of, among others, a Jew (a civilized one, without payots) [...]

Quote from: http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma,tom-6,1027-biedni,1144
[...] Rabbis [...] teach that Jews can steal or deceive Christians [...]

Quote
The fact, in one of his articles he called the Orthodoxy as a "religion of Satan" IIRC does not ern my sympathy either.

 Produce this article and in what context. Or, you have no credibility with this statement.

I made a mistake with this one (as I wrote I had not been sure), his words were "religion not started by Christ". I found where I used it in a discussion but I cannot find the original source. I remember having read it then.
I see nothing "antisemitic" (hostility to the Jewish race) in any of those links, only Kolbe speaking the reality of the Jewish-Masonic influence , the attempted coversions and the realities of the distorted teaching of the rabbis.

I don't know what your problem is with this greatly admired Catholic saint who was arrested for trying to harbor Jews and save their lives during the war and willingly gave his life for another man and died a horrible death in the process, but your attempts to paint him as some kind of "bigot" and "antisemite" is unwarranted and groundless, you need to stop with this insanity.

As I said before, your harboring of all this hatred for Catholicsim has clouded your capability for any kind of sound reasoning.

You can hate me all you want, I am nothing to a great man like St. M. Kolbe, and any other Catholic saint but you should never lump them in with any of the actions of some so-called "catholics" through the pages of history.

Another thing, I don't know if your Jewish, but you seem to be obsessed with "antisemitism" within the ranks of the Church and yet never question the integrity of the rabbis or any other of those who reject Christ. Are you really an Orthodox Christian? Do you really believe Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God?

I'm being totally honest here. I want to hear it from you personally or your suspect in my opnion.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 22, 2016, 10:37:08 PM
Quote
I see nothing "antisemitic" (hostility to the Jewish race) in any of those links, only Kolbe speaking the reality of the Jewish-Masonic influence

Charles 500 years ago: "I'm not "antisemitic" (hostile to the Jewish race), I just believe in speaking the reality of the Jewish kidnapping and cannibalism of Christian children."
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 22, 2016, 10:50:40 PM
Quote
I see nothing "antisemitic" (hostility to the Jewish race) in any of those links, only Kolbe speaking the reality of the Jewish-Masonic influence

Charles 500 years ago: "I'm not "antisemitic" (hostile to the Jewish race), I just believe in speaking the reality of the Jewish kidnapping and cannibalism of Christian children."
Out of your mouth, not mine.

BTW, you aren't a Christian neither are you? What are you, are you a Jew too? What's with all this fantasy about Jewish  cannibalism and kidnapping? Are you saying this used to happen 500yrs ago? Is it still happening? what are you even talking about?

Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God? Time for you to come clean too.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 22, 2016, 10:58:20 PM
Quote
I see nothing "antisemitic" (hostility to the Jewish race) in any of those links, only Kolbe speaking the reality of the Jewish-Masonic influence

Charles 500 years ago: "I'm not "antisemitic" (hostile to the Jewish race), I just believe in speaking the reality of the Jewish kidnapping and cannibalism of Christian children."
Out of your mouth, not mine.

BTW, you aren't a Christian neither are you? What are you, are you a Jew too? What's with all this fantasy about Jewish  cannibalism and kidnapping? Are you saying this used to happen 500yrs ago? Is it still happening? what are you even talking about?

Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God? Time for you to come clean too.

:laugh: Wow! A little paranoid, are we? The Mossad-Masons going through your garbage at night? I was comparing one hateful conspiracy theory with an even older one to point out silly and reductive your definition of antisemitism is.

And yes, I very much believe that Jesus is (not was. Are you a Resurrection denying Jew? ;)) the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 22, 2016, 11:13:43 PM
Quote
Wow! A little paranoid, are we?
No, just seeing where you stand actually.

Quote
The Mossad-Masons going through your garbage at night?
They'll be dissappointed. but have at it.

Quote
I was comparing one hateful conspiracy theory with an even older one to point out silly and reductive your definition of antisemitism is.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, things either happened or they didn't. and my defintion of antisemitism is spot on. It means one thing and one thing only, that you despise Jews because of their race, that's it.

But Jews are not above being questioned or beyond reproach. Only in their delusional Talmudic, anti-Christ teachings.

Quote
And yes, I very much believe that Jesus is (not was. Are you a Resurrection denying Jew? ;)) the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Good point. ;) And no, I'm not a Jew or reject Christ or his Ressurection.

OK, now  we have that cleared up.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 22, 2016, 11:45:45 PM
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, things either happened or they didn't.

And yet you believe in the "Jewish-Masonic influence" ::)

Let me guess, you aren't a racist you just think blacks are lazy criminals, right?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: byhisgrace on January 23, 2016, 01:47:59 AM
...and my defintion of antisemitism is spot on. It means one thing and one thing only, that you despise Jews because of their race, that's it.
"One thing only?" One can hate a group because of their religion, as well. Just saying. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: mike on January 23, 2016, 03:24:25 AM
Another thing, I don't know if your Jewish, but you seem to be obsessed with "antisemitism" within the ranks of the Church and yet never question the integrity of the rabbis or any other of those who reject Christ. Are you really an Orthodox Christian? Do you really believe Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God?

I'm not a member of the same religion as you, Charlie. I would be ashamed to be. That's what I can tell.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 23, 2016, 10:48:16 AM
Quote
And yet you believe in the "Jewish-Masonic influence" ::)
Like Jews and Freemasons never influenced anybody. ::)

Quote
Let me guess, you aren't a racist you just think blacks are lazy criminals, right?
What's "racism" have to do with sloth and criminality?

Quote
"One thing only?" One can hate a group because of their religion, as well. Just saying.
Semitism( as in Semites) is a RACE not a "religion". just saying.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 23, 2016, 10:51:21 AM
Another thing, I don't know if your Jewish, but you seem to be obsessed with "antisemitism" within the ranks of the Church and yet never question the integrity of the rabbis or any other of those who reject Christ. Are you really an Orthodox Christian? Do you really believe Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God?

I'm not a member of the same religion as you, Charlie. I would be ashamed to be. That's what I can tell.
So you're not a Christian. I get it.

And you don't believe that Jesus IS (thanks volnutt) the Christ, Son of the living God.

No problem, it's your choice mikey.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 24, 2016, 11:23:12 PM
schism if the Vatican was catholic, since it's not there's no schism

Isa?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 24, 2016, 11:41:57 PM
Quote
And yet you believe in the "Jewish-Masonic influence" ::)
Like Jews and Freemasons never influenced anybody. ::)

Not in the ways you mean- unless you also believe in chemtrails and that Ban Ki-Moon is a shapeshifting lizardman from Zeta Reticuli.

Quote
Let me guess, you aren't a racist you just think blacks are lazy criminals, right?
What's "racism" have to do with sloth and criminality?

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who believes that someone is in the Antichrist's mafia just because they have Jewish ancestry.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 25, 2016, 12:13:05 AM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications?

They don't.

You know who we really answer to.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 25, 2016, 12:13:44 AM
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/520/hailants.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 25, 2016, 10:01:53 AM
Quote
Not in the ways you mean- unless you also believe in chemtrails and that Ban Ki-Moon is a shapeshifting lizardman from Zeta Reticuli.
Misdirection., nice try.But  the synagogue has been actively invovlved in it's influence on leaders and govt's for the last two millenium, this is no secret. For example, why in God's name does every leader of the "free" world or presidential candidate have to don a beanie and grovel before the pagan wailing wall in Palestine in ordert to win the influence of the Jews?

Popes and patriarchs included;

(http://www.asianews.it/files/img/VATICANO_TERRA_SANTA_-_Francesco_e_bartolomeo_shaking_hands.jpg)

(http://www.samliquidation.com/images/pope-and-rabbi_3.JPG)

(http://thedailybanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/bush_wall.jpg)

(https://cotocrew.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama_yarmulke.jpg?w=500)

(https://bibletrutheducation.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/male-cover-4.jpg)

Quote
I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who believes that someone is in the Antichrist's mafia just because they have Jewish ancestry.
Yea, where did I say that? Show me.

Btw, Judaism and the Talmud are biological-based concepts, not Christianity and the Church.

But they love to play the victim of everyone else's supposed "racism".

Chutzpah anyone?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 25, 2016, 10:11:11 AM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications?

They don't.

You know who we really answer to.
Just when the pope was ready to lift the SSPX excommunications, including Willaimson, the wailing began.

Then the sacandal broke of this so-called "holacaust-denier" and he was effectively barred from being brought back into the fold in Rome and eventually osatracized by his own order as to avoid any suspicion of "anti-semitism" and their getting back into the good graces of the Vatican and the synagogue.

These guys call themselves men? It's pathetic really; ::)

Pope outrages Jews over Holocaust denier

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Jewish officials in Israel and abroad are outraged that Pope Benedict XVI has decided to lift the excommunication of a British bishop who denies that Jews were killed in Nazi gas chambers.

The decision by Pope Benedict XVI to welcome back the bishop has infuriated Jewish officials.
The decision by Pope Benedict XVI to welcome back the bishop has infuriated Jewish officials.

The pope's decree, issued Saturday, brings back into the Catholic Church's fold Bishop Richard Williamson and three other bishops who belong to the Society of Saint Pius X.

The liaison for Vatican-Jewish relations -- Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity -- said he was not consulted.

"It was a pope decision" he told CNN in a phone interview. "I have my opinions about it, but I do not wish to comment on a decision made by the pope."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/26/pope.holocaust.denial/index.html?iref=24hours
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 25, 2016, 06:59:01 PM
Quote
Not in the ways you mean- unless you also believe in chemtrails and that Ban Ki-Moon is a shapeshifting lizardman from Zeta Reticuli.
Misdirection., nice try.But  the synagogue has been actively invovlved in it's influence on leaders and govt's for the last two millenium, this is no secret. For example, why in God's name does every leader of the "free" world or presidential candidate have to don a beanie and grovel before the pagan wailing wall in Palestine in ordert to win the influence of the Jews?

Popes and patriarchs included;

Because we as Christians and Europeans have persecuted them for centuries (thousands of years if you count pre-Christian pagan antisemitism) culminating in one of the bloodiest mass slaughters in history and world leaders have decided that being nice to them for a change is the kind thing to do?

You're exhibiting one of the classic fallacies of the conspiracy theorist. If everyone in the word treated the Jews like crap you'd be saying "See? The Jews must deserve it!" Either way, you're able to weave the facts into your chosen narrative.

Quote
I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who believes that someone is in the Antichrist's mafia just because they have Jewish ancestry.
Yea, where did I say that? Show me.

Btw, Judaism and the Talmud are biological-based concepts, not Christianity and the Church.

But they love to play the victim of everyone else's supposed "racism".

Chutzpah anyone?

You're not making any sense. Do you think that refutes the statement you quoted? If anything you're confirming it.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 25, 2016, 07:15:20 PM
Quote
Because we as Christians and Europeans have persecuted them for centuries (thousands of years if you count pre-Christian pagan antisemitism) culminating in one of the bloodiest mass slaughters in history and world leaders have decided that being nice to them for a change is the kind thing to do?
Ah, the endlessguilt trip and eternal victimhood argument.

Save it volnutt, I'm not buying it. Those dignitaries go to the pagan wall and grovel for one reason and one reason only: money.

Not because it's the "kind" thing to do.

Well, maybe not the pope and the patriarch, that's all about some kind of delusional "ecumenism" and a whole lot of wasted time on "dialogue".

Quote
You're exhibiting one of the classic fallacies of the conspiracy theorist. If everyone in the word treated the Jews like crap you'd be saying "See? The Jews must deserve it!" Either way, you're able to weave the facts into your chosen narrative.
Yea, that's just what I would be saying. ::)

How bout taking responsibility for your actions? How bout reaping what you sowed? You know, like all the Germans and Russians that were killed for embracing atheist Communism and pagan Nazism? Sorry volnutt, I don't exclude Jews when they're on the wrong side of something, i know that's heresy to people like you, but I belong to the Faith that worships the Truth, not popular opinion.

Quote
You're not making any sense. Do you think that refutes the statement you quoted? If anything you're confirming it.
Sigh.....I'm not refuting anything. You can go play semantics all you want.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 25, 2016, 08:17:26 PM
Quote
Because we as Christians and Europeans have persecuted them for centuries (thousands of years if you count pre-Christian pagan antisemitism) culminating in one of the bloodiest mass slaughters in history and world leaders have decided that being nice to them for a change is the kind thing to do?
Ah, the endlessguilt trip and eternal victimhood argument.

Ah the endless victim blaming. "Of course she got gassed at Auschwitz. Look at what she was wearing!" right?

Save it volnutt, I'm not buying it. Those dignitaries go to the pagan wall and grovel for one reason and one reason only: money.

Not because it's the "kind" thing to do.

Well, maybe not the pope and the patriarch, that's all about some kind of delusional "ecumenism" and a whole lot of wasted time on "dialogue".

I don't deny that those motives also come into it.

But we do have a certain culpability that it's only right we acknowledge it- just like we do with black history in the US. If we can't do so out of love, we at least do so out of propriety.

Quote
You're exhibiting one of the classic fallacies of the conspiracy theorist. If everyone in the word treated the Jews like crap you'd be saying "See? The Jews must deserve it!" Either way, you're able to weave the facts into your chosen narrative.
Yea, that's just what I would be saying. ::)

How bout taking responsibility for your actions? How bout reaping what you sowed? You know, like all the Germans and Russians that were killed for embracing atheist Communism and pagan Nazism? Sorry volnutt, I don't exclude Jews when they're on the wrong side of something, i know that's heresy to people like you, but I belong to the Faith that worships the Truth, not popular opinion.

Ever heard of "own goaling?"
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 25, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
Quote
Ah the endless victim blaming. "Of course she got gassed at Auschwitz. Look at what she was wearing!" right?
Well, you believe whatever you want. I don't justify the actions of any war criminals killing innocent civilians at Aushwitz any more than I do of war criminals  vaporizing Japanese civilians at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But, we don't go on endlessly pepetuating the vicitimization of Japanese women being selected for extinction for what they were wearing at the time. And I don't see anyone praying at the remains at them sites come election time neither. But hey, they were just pagan japs and not the special chosen of God.

Quote
But we do have a certain culpability that it's only right we acknowledge it
Acknowledge what? We're not cupable of nothing. I'm sick of all this moaning and groaning and whining and "mea culpas" about something we as Americans and Catholics had any to do with. Like I said, enough with the guilt trip, I'm not playing that game.

Quote
just like we do with black history in the US.
::)

Quote
If we can't do so out of love, we at least do so out of propriety.
Our actions speak enough for what we've done. We don't need a big constant show. Or be constantly reminded we didn't do enough.

Quote
Ever heard of "own goaling?"
Ever heard of Non sequitur?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 26, 2016, 05:12:36 AM
Quote
Ah the endless victim blaming. "Of course she got gassed at Auschwitz. Look at what she was wearing!" right?
Well, you believe whatever you want. I don't justify the actions of any war criminals killing innocent civilians at Aushwitz any more than I do of war criminals  vaporizing Japanese civilians at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But, we don't go on endlessly pepetuating the vicitimization of Japanese women being selected for extinction for what they were wearing at the time. And I don't see anyone praying at the remains at them sites come election time neither. But hey, they were just pagan japs and not the special chosen of God.

Quote
But we do have a certain culpability that it's only right we acknowledge it
Acknowledge what? We're not cupable of nothing. I'm sick of all this moaning and groaning and whining and "mea culpas" about something we as Americans and Catholics had any to do with. Like I said, enough with the guilt trip, I'm not playing that game.

Quote
just like we do with black history in the US.
::)

Quote
If we can't do so out of love, we at least do so out of propriety.
Our actions speak enough for what we've done. We don't need a big constant show. Or be constantly reminded we didn't do enough.

We are always guilty because we are always our brother's keeper and because we are all participants in the evil of the current world system. Justifying oneself is the road to death. We should be like Daniel, reproaching ourselves for the sins of all our brethren.

Quote
Ever heard of "own goaling?"
Ever heard of Non sequitur?

You said it yourself in your previous post that the Jews "reaped what they sowed." Thus you victim blame even as you seek to defend yourself.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 26, 2016, 10:22:40 AM
Quote
We are always guilty because we are always our brother's keeper and because we are all participants in the evil of the current world system
Not me, I don't believe in that colllective guilt nonsense. Funny how you (and many others) love to direct that kind of thinking at me and everyone else, but when the Synagogue is participating in evil all the rules change and it's simply not *all* the jews fault but an inherent, insane "antisemitic" reaction by the victims of said evil. I see where you're coming from, rules for the Talmudic jews and rules for the rest of us. Nothing new here.

Quote
Justifying oneself is the road to death.
So is forever accepting blame and a gult-complex.

Quote
. We should be like Daniel, reproaching ourselves for the sins of all our brethren.
And get tossed to the lions as well.

Quote
You said it yourself in your previous post that the Jews "reaped what they sowed."
When their wrong yes, just like the state of Israel or racists Zionism or Talmudic Judaism. We all, and when I say we, i'm including people, nations and cultures as well, reap what we sow. The U.S. is a perfect example of this now, the more we turn away from God , engage in the mass murder of other people (including our own) and slide down the ladder of immorality, we will one day "reap what we sow" one day as well, if we aren't already. The Church is reaping what some of it's sowed in the hierarchy, that's why  people are leaving in mass numbers and all the divisions within it we have today.

Be not decieved, God is not mocked.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 26, 2016, 10:25:55 AM
Quote
" Thus you victim blame even as you seek to defend yourself.
There's only one victim here pal; the Truth.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 26, 2016, 06:33:36 PM
One thing doesn't means the other.

M. Kolbe was very critical of jews as a lot of polish people pre and post Vatican the II. He NEVER said that jews were to be murdered!!!!!!!!...but he was critical towards sionism, jewish financial power and jews salvation, he said that jews needed to convert to save their souls... I dont know if he talked about connection between some jews and bolschevism but that was a common theory at that time not only for catholics also for eastern orthodox.

He was not a nazi. He viewed nazism as a pagan ideology , very anti christian and very damaging to humanity. So he was imprisoned for his anti nazi views.

In 1930's Europe you could be a christian, anti nazi and critical of jewish power and involvement in politics (by today standards...) and wasn't a confusing thing.

"Jewish-bolschevist-freemanson complot" theory was a common conspiracy theory among christians and non christians, catholics, protestant and orthodox at that time.

I'm not justifying Shoah's or jewish persecution, I'm only trying to talk about the historial facts of that time.

I am aware of that. Yet his antisemitic beliefs do not really make me feel sympathetic to him. The fact, in one of his articles he called the Orthodoxy as a "religion of Satan" IIRC does not ern my sympathy either.

I'm just glad I live after Vatican II.  :)
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 26, 2016, 06:52:59 PM
Quote
We are always guilty because we are always our brother's keeper and because we are all participants in the evil of the current world system
Not me, I don't believe in that colllective guilt nonsense. Funny how you (and many others) love to direct that kind of thinking at me and everyone else, but when the Synagogue is participating in evil all the rules change and it's simply not *all* the jews fault but an inherent, insane "antisemitic" reaction by the victims of said evil. I see where you're coming from, rules for the Talmudic jews and rules for the rest of us. Nothing new here.

I didn't say that. Suffering is the consequence of sin that we all have to live with and that we all contribute to. Your schadenfreude-ish singling out of the Jews as being somehow uniquely responsible for their own sufferings at the hands of European Christians (cultural and otherwise) is a distortion of that truth (and of the Truth), though.


I'm tired of this. Have the last word if you want.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2016, 11:45:46 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
no, heretics can have schisms too. The Vatican and the SSPX show that, as well as the other Ultramontanist groups you said you had "problems with."
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on January 27, 2016, 10:26:48 PM
So noted. But most of it, "... if the Vatican was catholic, since it's not ..." sounds quite like something you'd say.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 28, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
Quote
no, heretics can have schisms too.
Of course, why else do you have over 30,000 other Protestant "churches" out there these days? This is where error leads you. Into oblivion.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on January 28, 2016, 08:59:07 AM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
Says the  guy with the  pope-less faith.

I guess the gates of hell finally prevailed eh?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 28, 2016, 10:20:17 AM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
Says the  guy with the  pope-less faith.

I guess the gates of hell finally prevailed eh?
Not as long as sedevacantist is with us. Church of one.  ;D
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Papist on January 28, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Charles Martel vs. Sedevacantist - This will be EPIC!!!!!!!

This is what I have been waiting for.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: biro on January 28, 2016, 02:15:08 PM
I'll get popcorn.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on January 28, 2016, 10:49:24 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
Says the  guy with the  pope-less faith.

I guess the gates of hell finally prevailed eh?



No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."  

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church. 

question for you, do you agree with Francis that we shouldn't convert the orthodox to the Catholic faith? yes or no?  do you agree that the Church has taught when a pope is a heretic he is outside the church? yes or no?

ok, guy
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Volnutt on January 29, 2016, 07:28:44 PM
If the Church can go without a Pope for almost 60 years and counting, then obviously a Pope was never needed in the first place.

So your claim that Papal Supremacy and Infallibility are required to ensure the true Church is also false.

Therefore, on what basis do you claim to be part of the true Church? Why not become a Conclavist (or even, dare I say, Orthodox) and at least be a little more consistent?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Peter J on February 05, 2016, 12:45:22 PM
Charles Martel vs. Sedevacantist - This will be EPIC!!!!!!!

This is what I have been waiting for.

I'm out of it for a little while and every Catholic poster starts getting delusions of sedevacantism.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 05, 2016, 10:51:57 PM
Charles Martel vs. Sedevacantist - This will be EPIC!!!!!!!

This is what I have been waiting for.

I'm out of it for a little while and every Catholic poster starts getting delusions of sedevacantism.
you are ignorant if you think Francis is a catholic

Francis, Conversations With Jorge Bergoglio, p. 208: “Not long ago I was in a synagogue taking part in a ceremony.  I prayed a lot and, while praying, I heard a phrase from one of the books of wisdom that had slipped my mind: ‘Lord, may I bear mockery in silence.’  It gave me much peace and joy.”

Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 188: “The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People.  Nowhere does it say: ‘You lost the game, now it is our turn.’  It is a recognition of the People of Israel.”

This clearly means that Francis holds that people who reject Jesus Christ are the chosen people in God’s sight.  This is a blasphemy against God.


Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 37: “There also exists the ministerial intercession of a rabbi or a priest who prays or asks for the health of another and it is granted.  What gives credibility to a person who is healing according to the law of God is simplicity, humility and the absence of a spectacle.”

So Francis believes that Jewish rabbis have a true spiritual ministry of intercession “according to the law of God”.


Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 220:  Francis speaks to Jewish Rabbi Skorka: “I did not forget how you invited me twice to pray and to speak in the synagogue, and I invited you to speak to my seminarians about values.”

In the cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina on April 15, 1998 Francis held an interreligious service to honor deceased Jews.  During this meeting, Francis said to the Jews:


“… we are all brothers, because we have the seal of God in our hearts.”[1]

The seal of God is baptism – which Jews reject.

In September 2004, Francis participated in a Jewish service inside a synagogue[2].  And on Nov. 9, 2005 Francis had another service inside a Basilica commemorating deceased Jews[3].  This included Francis lighting a candle in honor of them.

In 2007, Francis attended Jewish Rosh Hashanah services at a synagogue in Argentina.  Francis told the Jewish congregation during his visit that he went to the synagogue to examine his heart, “like a pilgrim, together with you, my elder brothers”[4].

On July 7, 2008 Francis endorsed Rabbi Sergio Bergman’s books.  Francis called him a “believer” and said: “… his job is the one of a rabbi who as our master helps us…”[].

On June 7, 2010 Francis visited the Jewish Center in Argentina[6] and called Jews “our elder brothers” and “the chosen people of God”[7].  He also prayed in front of list of deceased Jews in order to honor them.


“That reminder… is another link of pain, persecution and blood that the chosen people of God have suffered in history.”

“I thank the Lord that on this day I am allowed to share part of the way with our elder brothers…”

On October 11, 2012 Francis gave Rabbi Abraham Skorka – who is a well-known supporter of homosexuality – an honorary degree at a “Catholic” university.  After the rabbi received the degree, he said: “We are waiting for the Messiah, but in order for him to come we have to prepare the land…”[8]  So the Rabbi explicitly rejected the Messiah Jesus Christ right in front of Francis.

On November 8, 2012 Francis was the keynote speaker and took active part in another Jewish religious ceremony in the cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina[9]. This Jewish religious ceremony was again dedicated to honor deceased Jews.  The final candle commemorating deceased Jews was jointly lit by a rabbi and Francis[10].  Under Francis’ direction, memorial services honoring deceased Jews have been celebrated in so-called Catholic churches in Argentina every year since 1998.

To take part in a Jewish religious ceremony for deceased Jews is complete apostasy from the Catholic faith.

On December 14, 2012, just a few months before his election as antipope – Francis celebrated Hanukkah with Jews in Argentina which included Francis lighting a menorah[11].

On March 13, 2013 just a few hours after Francis was elected antipope, he sent out a greeting letter to the Christ-rejecting chief rabbi of Rome[12].
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 05, 2016, 11:11:57 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 06, 2016, 08:51:41 AM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: PeterTheAleut on February 06, 2016, 03:42:11 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible
Why don't you start by giving us a Bible quote that supports your position?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 06, 2016, 05:24:48 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 06, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible
Why don't you start by giving us a Bible quote that supports your position?
John 21:15-17 “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 06, 2016, 11:24:55 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 06, 2016, 11:34:39 PM
If the Church can go without a Pope for almost 60 years and counting, then obviously a Pope was never needed in the first place.

So your claim that Papal Supremacy and Infallibility are required to ensure the true Church is also false.

Therefore, on what basis do you claim to be part of the true Church? Why not become a Conclavist (or even, dare I say, Orthodox) and at least be a little more consistent?
if you suggest a pope was never needed in the first place then you have a problem with Jesus, who chose St Peter as first leader(pope)
Please follow this logically.

John 1:42 “Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas (which, when translated, is Peter).” (New International Version)

In John 1:42, Peter’s new name is given in its Aramaic form: Cephas. Some may ask, “I thought Peter’s name was Kepha in Aramaic.” Yes, but in English versions of John 1:42, Cephas is simply the Anglicized version of the Aramaic Kepha. So John 1:42 says that Cephas is translated as Peter, the apostle’s name.

Cephas = Peter’s name (John 1:42).

We also know that Cephas would be translated as petra, the word for the rock (Mt. 16:18) upon which the Church is built.

Since Cephas = Peter’s new name (as John 1:42 says) and Cephas = petra, the word for rock, it is undeniable that Peter’s new name = petra, the rock.

Peter’s new name is equivalent to the rock. There’s no doubt about it.

The Primacy of Peter is a collection of essays by Eastern “Orthodox” scholars. The Eastern “Orthodox” are not Catholic and do not accept the Papacy. This work (The Primacy of Peter) was edited by the famous Eastern “Orthodox” scholar John Meyendorf. In this Eastern “Orthodox” work, it is repeatedly admitted that the Bible teaches that Peter is the rock:

“There is a formal and real identity between Peter and rock. Jesus will build the church upon Cephas.” (The Primacy of Peter, edited by John Meyendorf, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, p. 48.)

“By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church.” (The Primacy of Peter, p. 72.)

“The Apostle Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, and will remain the rock until the coming of the Lord.” (The Primacy of Peter, p. 122; also pp. 63-65; etc.)

CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT, IT WOULD BE ABSURD IF JESUS WERE NOT SAYING THAT PETER IS THE ROCK

Think for a moment how absurd it would be if Jesus were not saying that Peter is the rock. As we’ve just shown, Jesus pronounces Peter alone blessed.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona…” (Matthew 16:17)

Jesus changes only Peter’s name.

“And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…” (Matthew 16:18)

Jesus gathers His disciples and gives the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone. He then gives to Peter alone the power to bind and loose.

“And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” (Matthew 16:19)

But when he’s talking about the rock, even though the statement is in the midst of all of these others to Peter alone, Protestants would have us believe that Jesus is not talking about Peter but about Himself or something else. It’s ridiculous. It’s obviously false that argumentation really shouldn’t be necessary.

Further, it should be pointed out that the reason that Jesus, while referring to Peter, says “upon this rock I will build my Church,” rather than upon you, is because while Peter is definitely the rock, the office He is establishing in Peter (the Papacy) will endure through the ages well after Peter is gone. It’s founded upon Peter, but will continue to exist after Peter is gone. It’s an institution in Peter, but will not be limited to Peter. He will have successors.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 07, 2016, 02:05:59 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that? 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 07, 2016, 03:21:22 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 08, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: TheTrisagion on February 08, 2016, 02:23:50 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers
Sometimes, prooftexting verses is not the best way to go about building a theological construct.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 08, 2016, 06:59:55 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
what teaching of the Catholic Church you think contradicts Romans 9
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 09, 2016, 01:38:12 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
what teaching of the Catholic Church you think contradicts Romans 9

Not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but a teaching of sedevacantist.

Read Romans and then read reply no. 376.  Some of your criticisms are not easy to make, but they are easy to sputter while foaming at the mouth. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 09, 2016, 06:35:54 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
what teaching of the Catholic Church you think contradicts Romans 9

Not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but a teaching of sedevacantist.

Read Romans and then read reply no. 376.  Some of your criticisms are not easy to make, but they are easy to sputter while foaming at the mouth.
there's nothing in Romans that contradicts sedevacantism
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 09, 2016, 10:36:39 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
what teaching of the Catholic Church you think contradicts Romans 9

Not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but a teaching of sedevacantist.

Read Romans and then read reply no. 376.  Some of your criticisms are not easy to make, but they are easy to sputter while foaming at the mouth.
there's nothing in Romans that contradicts sedevacantism

Oh!  Now that you've explained it, it makes total sense.  Where can I find a genuine and true Roman Catholic church in New York so I may repent of my past errors and convert to the true faith?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 09, 2016, 11:06:00 PM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
what teaching of the Catholic Church you think contradicts Romans 9

Not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but a teaching of sedevacantist.

Read Romans and then read reply no. 376.  Some of your criticisms are not easy to make, but they are easy to sputter while foaming at the mouth.
there's nothing in Romans that contradicts sedevacantism

Oh!  Now that you've explained it, it makes total sense.  Where can I find a genuine and true Roman Catholic church in New York so I may repent of my past errors and convert to the true faith?
the burden is on you to explain it, if there is something in Romans that you believe contradicts sedvacantism then post it, you sound ridiculous
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 10, 2016, 11:45:57 AM
Catholics really don't read the Bible, do they?
depends who you call a catholic, if you are referring to me why not give me a bible quote that you think contradicts my position, then we'll see who reads the bible

Romans.
typical

What do you mean by that?
I ask for a passage from the bible that specifically refutes anything I have posted and you respond by "Romans", typical as in like others here you can't give specifics, instead you give evasive answers

Not evasive at all, just an acknowledgement that, among the Scriptures, Romans really needs to be taken as a whole.  Anyway, start with Romans 9 and keep reading.
what teaching of the Catholic Church you think contradicts Romans 9

Not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but a teaching of sedevacantist.

Read Romans and then read reply no. 376.  Some of your criticisms are not easy to make, but they are easy to sputter while foaming at the mouth.
there's nothing in Romans that contradicts sedevacantism

Oh!  Now that you've explained it, it makes total sense.  Where can I find a genuine and true Roman Catholic church in New York so I may repent of my past errors and convert to the true faith?
the burden is on you to explain it, if there is something in Romans that you believe contradicts sedvacantism then post it, you sound ridiculous

Is that how you treat all converts?  I want to become a true Roman Catholic and learn the hidden mysteries.  Where can I find a genuine church?
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on February 10, 2016, 11:50:31 AM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
Says the  guy with the  pope-less faith.

I guess the gates of hell finally prevailed eh?



No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."   

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church. 

question for you, do you agree with Francis that we shouldn't convert the orthodox to the Catholic faith? yes or no?  do you agree that the Church has taught when a pope is a heretic he is outside the church? yes or no?

ok, guy
OK king of cut and paste, if the institutional  Church that is in union with the Pope no longer is in Rome, where is it?

If the Church still exist in it's four theological marks (One. Holy Catholic, Apostolic) and still contains the historical marks as well, you should be able to point out where it is today. Otherwise you preaching a Protestantized version of some unscriptural invisible church.

As for whenever Francis states his personal  liberal opinions, I take them for what they are. But if he ever speaks ex cathedra opposing Church doctrine or dogma, then we have a problem. But the problem needs to be dealt through ecclesiastical law not some group of sedevacantists intepretating doctrine and taking matter into their own hands.

As Salza correctly states on his The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law ;

Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled
before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a
private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both
valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law.[/b] By withdrawing submission from the Holy
Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence
automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon
1325, par. 2).

In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally
declares otherwise[/b]. These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity
and indefectibility
. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining
formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing
with a claimant to the papal throne. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously
deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith
. If St. Paul formally and publicly rebuked St. Peter for a
disciplinary matter (Gal 2:11-12), how much more formal and public would the investigation of a
Pope need to be for a doctrinal matter, and one whose outcome determines the validity of his
office! As with St. Peter, the reigning Pope must be formally confronted with his errors by
legitimate authority, and given time to respond before any offense can be asserted. As we have
seen, the Church’s ecclesiastical law mandates the requirements for this procedure.


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 10, 2016, 09:57:06 PM
you write
"Is that how you treat all converts?  I want to become a true Roman Catholic and learn the hidden mysteries.  Where can I find a genuine church?"

I don't believe you, just the post before you wrote that Romans teaches against the sedevacantist position, chapter and verse.




Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 10, 2016, 11:10:14 PM
you write
"Is that how you treat all converts?  I want to become a true Roman Catholic and learn the hidden mysteries.  Where can I find a genuine church?"

I don't believe you, just the post before you wrote that Romans teaches against the sedevacantist position, chapter and verse.

Why are you pushing me away from the true Church?  Is this like converting to Judaism where the rabbi discourages you so many times before accepting you? 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 11, 2016, 07:10:03 PM
you write
"Is that how you treat all converts?  I want to become a true Roman Catholic and learn the hidden mysteries.  Where can I find a genuine church?"

I don't believe you, just the post before you wrote that Romans teaches against the sedevacantist position, chapter and verse.

Why are you pushing me away from the true Church?  Is this like converting to Judaism where the rabbi discourages you so many times before accepting you?
I'm not pushing you away from anything, you said Romans disproves sedevacantism, chapter and verse
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Mor Ephrem on February 11, 2016, 08:48:21 PM
you write
"Is that how you treat all converts?  I want to become a true Roman Catholic and learn the hidden mysteries.  Where can I find a genuine church?"

I don't believe you, just the post before you wrote that Romans teaches against the sedevacantist position, chapter and verse.

Why are you pushing me away from the true Church?  Is this like converting to Judaism where the rabbi discourages you so many times before accepting you?
I'm not pushing you away from anything, you said Romans disproves sedevacantism, chapter and verse

I repent.  I even tried to find a church where I could receive true ashes yesterday, but without your help it was hard, so I just burned a Novus Ordo missalette and self-ashed. 
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 11, 2016, 09:43:02 PM
And not for nothing, but who are the Jews or anyone else to dictate to the Church who they can keep as Bishops or lift excommunications? These are the very same people that reject the divinity of Christ altogether.

Maybe they're just shrewd and taking advantage of the fact that Abp Lefebvre dictated to Rome who he was going to ordain as bishops, what excommunications were of no effect, when "ecclesia supplet" does and does not apply, etc.  If the "true" Catholics don't respect their Pope or their Church, why should the Jews?  That Bp Williamson is a rather strange fellow just makes it look less unreasonable.
Regardless how they or any other nonCatholics feel about what went down between SSPX and Rome, it's not their place to influence it either way. Like I said, we don't get involved in their Synagogues and Temples in the midst of their squabbles about what jew should be held in high standard or who the "real jews" are. that is none of our business.

As for SSPX , they're in schism and need to work out their own problems with the Vatican without no interference from anyone else to settle their differences.

I'm sure you can relate to this. ;)
schism if the Vatican was catholic,since it's not there's no schism
Says the  guy with the  pope-less faith.

I guess the gates of hell finally prevailed eh?



No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is.  The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church.  It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days.  This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.   
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16! 
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”3 
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4 
St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) 

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell.  Heretics are not members of the Church.  That’s why a heretic could never be a pope.  The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ.  It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics. 

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:  "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."   

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes.  Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines.  This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church. 

question for you, do you agree with Francis that we shouldn't convert the orthodox to the Catholic faith? yes or no?  do you agree that the Church has taught when a pope is a heretic he is outside the church? yes or no?

ok, guy
OK king of cut and paste, if the institutional  Church that is in union with the Pope no longer is in Rome, where is it?

If the Church still exist in it's four theological marks (One. Holy Catholic, Apostolic) and still contains the historical marks as well, you should be able to point out where it is today. Otherwise you preaching a Protestantized version of some unscriptural invisible church.

As for whenever Francis states his personal  liberal opinions, I take them for what they are. But if he ever speaks ex cathedra opposing Church doctrine or dogma, then we have a problem. But the problem needs to be dealt through ecclesiastical law not some group of sedevacantists intepretating doctrine and taking matter into their own hands.

As Salza correctly states on his The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law ;

Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled
before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a
private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both
valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law.[/b] By withdrawing submission from the Holy
Father and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence
automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon
1325, par. 2).

In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally
declares otherwise[/b]. These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity
and indefectibility
. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining
formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing
with a claimant to the papal throne. To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously
deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith
. If St. Paul formally and publicly rebuked St. Peter for a
disciplinary matter (Gal 2:11-12), how much more formal and public would the investigation of a
Pope ed to be for a doctrinal matter, and one whose outcome determines the validity of his
office! As with St. Peter, the reigning Pope must be formally confronted with his errors by
legitimate authority, and given time to respond before any offense can be asserted. As we have
seen, the Church’s ecclesiastical law mandates the requirements for this procedure.
c?


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf
you call me king of cut and paste only to cut and paste salza? lol
show me where in catholic teaching that we need an ex cathedra statement in order to figure out a pope is a heretic?
Salza contradicts himself

Salza, “The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law,” The Remnant: “Sedevacantists correctly maintain that Divine Law expels a formal heretic from the Church without further declaration. They point to canon 188, par. 4 of the 1917 Code which says that “all offices whatsoever fall vacant and without any declaration if the cleric…publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.”
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on February 13, 2016, 11:08:02 AM
I'll answer your questions sede when you answer mine first.

If the chair of Peter is empty, then where is this headless Church today?

A bunch  self-proclaimed "real" catholics on the internet and a few renegade priests?

Can you with confidence point me to where the Church is and say "there it is!".

Preciate it much. Thx pilgrim.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 13, 2016, 06:56:33 PM
I'll answer your questions sede when you answer mine first.

If the chair of Peter is empty, then where is this headless Church today?

A bunch  self-proclaimed "real" catholics on the internet and a few renegade priests?

Can you with confidence point me to where the Church is and say "there it is!".

Preciate it much. Thx pilgrim.
on the internet? what are you talking about?  The Sspx and Cmri for starters. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops out of necessity. Do you not know that the apostasy was predicted by past popes? I can tell you with full confidence where the Church isn't,that would be the Vatican.
do you agree with this  vatican 2 sect statement, I'll take a simple yes or no
Vatican II document,
Lumen Gentium
# 15:
“For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to
those who
, though baptized and so honoured with the
Christian name, do not profess the
faith in its entirety or do not
preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter
.”
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: Charles Martel on February 16, 2016, 06:31:02 PM
Quote
on the internet?
Is that an answer?

Quote
what are you talking about?

Quote
OK king of cut and paste, if the institutional  Church that is in union with the Pope no longer is in Rome, where is it?

If the Church still exist in it's four theological marks (One. Holy Catholic, Apostolic) and still contains the historical marks as well, you should be able to point out where it is today. Otherwise you preaching a Protestantized version of some unscriptural invisible church.

Quote
The Sspx and Cmri for starters
That's your opinion.

Quote
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops out of necessity.
That got him excommunicated.

Quote
Do you not know that the apostasy was predicted by past popes?
Which ones?

Quote
I can tell you with full confidence where the Church isn't,that would be the Vatican.
Again, your opinion. But a lot of people since Martin Luther would agree with you.

Quote
do you agree with this  vatican 2 sect statement, I'll take a simple yes or no
Vatican II document,
Lumen Gentium
# 15:
“For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to
those who
, though baptized and so honoured with the
Christian name, do not profess the
faith in its entirety or do not
preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter
It's not a simple yes and no question  the way it's contextualized. IMO.
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 17, 2016, 01:38:10 AM
Quote
on the internet?
Is that an answer?

Quote
"
no , just dumbfounded at your  claim "A bunch  self-proclaimed "real" catholics on the internet "
Title: Re: SSPX expels Bishop Williamson
Post by: sedevacantist on February 17, 2016, 01:41:44 AM
Quote
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops out of necessity.
That got him excommunicated.

Quote


yes I