SSPX Vehemently Protesting Canonization of St. Peter

April 23, 2014 by  
Filed under Libs & Trads

VATICAN––Members of the Society of St. Pius X have stormed the internet and radio waves in violent protest against the upcoming canonization of Pope Simon Peter I. The backlash was worse than expected by the Holy See, and the protesters have not pulled any punches. One commentator on a popular tridentine website morecatholicthanthepope.com wrote, “This is the guy who denied Christ three times in one night, and now they want to canonize him? This isn’t the way Christ instituted the Church. This man is not an example to me or my 14 children.”

An SSPX blogger accused the former Pope, who was martyred for his faith in the First Century, of liturgical abuses, saying, “Christ was crucified head-upward. That is the pattern He established. Then this Peter guy comes along and decides he wants to be crucified upside-down.”

Some have even accused Peter, born Simon, son of John, of heresy in his famous debate with Paul regarding circumcision, while others claim his attitude toward the “circumcision party” was not true heresy but an exaggerated ecumenism.

  • Timothy Adams

    HA HA HA HA HA HA

  • Louis Tofari

    It should be noted that such persons are not actually “members” of the SSPX as only clerics and religious can belong to the priestly society, thus their comments do not represent the Society.

  • Patricia Walsh

    Gotta be a joke…

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      It is. This site is a NeoCatholic outfit which tries to emulate the satirical The Onion. Unlike The Onion, however, the brain power at eyeofthetiber is of definite low wattage. This is a despicable attack on the SSPX, and the wit, as usual, is low grade.

      • AreAy

        Alphonsus,

        Shut up.

        • RealistFighter

          Best comment in this entire thread.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Are your standards really that low? It seems you really are conformed to the dumbing down. A shame.

          • RealistFighter

            No, the logic and reason in your arguments and the prideful condemnatory tone of your words are that low, such that AreAy’s comment is perfect.

  • BarefootCobbler

    Another fun and entirely accurate parody of the zany Pharisees and high church Protestants of the SSPX.

    • Bono95

      Amen!

  • Louis Tofari

    There are many Catholics who agree with the SSPX’s position on Vatican II, etc. Such as the eminent Vaticanist and author of “Vatican II: A Necessary Debate”, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini – would you call him a “zany Pharisee”?

    Even Pope Benedict have great sympathy for the Society of St. Pius X and referred to Archbishop Lefebvre “as a great man of the Church”. Perhaps he too is considered a “high church Protestant”?

    • Fr. Paul Nicholson

      Uhm, Louis, when and where exactly did Pope Benedict call +Marcel “a great man of the Church”? The only reference to that quote came from +Bernard Fellay … there is no official document to support your claim.

    • Lefebvre died an Excommunicated Traitor to the Church. St. John Paul the Great and Cardinal Ratzinger announced his ‘ipso facto’ excommunication and that was never been revoked. Please stop deodorizing Lefebvre.

      • Paul Schumann

        Whoa there… “traitor?” There’s probably more people in the church who would deserve that title, such as a Card. Mahoney or Weakland than him.
        That said, he didn’t exactly help the cause for upholding tradition by getting himself excommunicated.

        • ‘Upholding Tradition’? What tradition did he uphold? The tradition of rebellion which he got from Lucifer and Luther.

          • Paul Schumann

            Tradition of retaining the Latin mass of which I both serve and assist at regularly thanks to B16’s motu propio. I only attended my first Latin Mass while on vacation down near Christendom in VA about 6 years ago and was blown away by the young families and vibrant devotion of the parish there.
            I couldn’t believe how I was missing out on this liturgy after years of tepid sermons and horridly banal music at my N.O. parish. I think the SSPX’rs are making too much of a fuss about so-called “religious liberty” which is amusing since you were going on about how the Inquisition was so cool. You’d fit right in!
            Of course there is confusing stuff that’s resulted from V2 “ecumenism.” Too often “dialogue” just means we pat Muslims, Jews, & Protestants on the back for all believing in God the Father and don’t insist on them recognizing the errors of their respective faiths. That’s not V2’s fault, but the fault of the “Spirit of Vatican II” that caused Gregorian chant to be replaced with lame hippie guitar music. (something directly contrary to the documents of V2, I might add!)

          • RealistFighter

            “Tepid sermons” and “horridly banal music” are not inexorably linked to N.O. I sing in the choir at my parish in D.C., and we have never touched the happy-clappy, Jesuit campfire music in a Gather hymnal in all my years here. In fact, my parish likely does not have a copy of any choir book containing anything from the likes of Marty Haugen. Instead, we sing Gregorian Chant and classical works of Mozart, Hadyn, and Mendelssohn. We have an amazing pipe organ. We’re often accompanied by a small chamber orchestra. Our conductor is a PhD in Sacred Music and a professor at CUA. And … our Mass is in the N.O., and our pastor is the best homilist I’ve ever had the good fortune of hearing. In the midst of cultural attacks against the family, in a city where Catholic social teaching is anathema to the vast majority of residents, he has openly, passionately and eloquently defended the Faith from the pulpit. He has never and would never mince words.

            That said, I will readily admit the contemporary crisis in the Church of weakened liturgy, oftentimes completely nonexistent reverence, the laicization of seemingly every element of parish life, the rejection of the Church’s vibrant tradition of sacred music, art, and iconography, the rise of cafeteria Catholicism, and all of the other tears in the fabric of Catholic life within the Church. However, explaining away these problems as the direct result of the N.O. is both too convenient and ultimately incorrect.

            The post-conciliar Church, admittedly, has been a mess in many respects, Confusion, experimentation, and pushing the boundaries, or in many cases going well beyond them, is not peculiar to Vatican II. Throughout Church history, Councils have engendered similar upheaval in their wake. The dust is still settling, and recent years have convinced me that the reigns are finally being pulled in on the excesses and liberties taken with the actual substance of Vatican II.

            As a small anecdote, I’ll share an encounter I had a with a nun (and I use the term very loosely) several years ago. She was an ultra-liberal, habitless woman from a dying community of sisters. She entered a convent in the late 60s, convinced after VII that she’d die a priestess of the Catholic Church. Embittered and disenchanted with the theological winds blowing back in the opposite direction, she lamented that, if she had it to do all over again, she never would have entered the convent. Her experience is not uncommon among “sisters” of her generation.

            I don’t use this example to suggest that there still aren’t rampant problems within the Church. Make no mistake about it; there are. But I see the cultural tide shifting in the right direction, and properly understood, I don’t believe the promulgated changes of VII are the problem, but rather the confusion and lack of effective control exercised by the Church in the wake of the Council. The Novus Ordo can be reverent and resplendent with all of the Church’s beauty, and I say this as someone who actually appreciates and respects the Tridentine Mass. I believe fully that it is an indispensable component of the Church, and should be protected and revered. However, I do believe that every Mass one attends needs to be Tridentine, or in Latin.

          • Paul Schumann

            Sounds like I’d love to attend your Novus Ordo! That was my point at the end – the abuses are inexcusable when compared to the actual texts of the Vatican II documents!

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            The “abuses” flow directly from the documents of Vatican II, and reverence is impossible in a service that was fabricated in a spirit of conscious, revolutionary irreverence. At some point NeoCatholics might come to see this.

            The many resources I’ve posted throughout this page show these harsh realities, realities that Neos like Akin et. al. are desperately burying their heads in the sand to avoid.

            For example, see this on the desperate fantasy of a “hermeneutic of continuity”:

            http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page26/hermeneutic_of_continuity.html

            Or this on the catastrophe of John Paul II’s pontificate:

            http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/23c084e12ee20834e0af851323dfc055-220.html

            And definitely read:

            http://angeluspress.org/Catechism-of-the-Crisis

            &

            http://angeluspress.org/Iota-Unum

            &

            http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Vatican-Council-Unwritten/dp/1622920023

          • RealistFighter

            No, you’ve completely failed to demonstrate any harsh realities. Everyone is tuning you out because you’re a jerk.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Notice that, in accord with his muliebral sentimentalism, RealistFighter’s litmus test isn’t rooted in reason, but in emotion. He’s not at all concerned about whether what I’ve said is true. Rather, he’s (quite hypocritically) concerned that I haven’t said it nicely. This is, sadly, typical of those processed by the Judas Council Revolution.

          • RealistFighter

            Read The Art of Persuasion. It’ll change your life.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            You seem to be laboring under a delusion; namely, a delusion that I’ve been trying to persuade you. Yet as I intimated from the very beginning, I believe that the extent of your conciliar processing is such that you’re beyond the reach of merely human persuasion.

          • RealistFighter

            I didn’t limit my assessment of your failed persuasion to me. It extends to everyone who reads this. And, if you’re not trying to persuade anyone of anything here, then your comments are nothing more than a holier-than-thou temper tantrum. What value is there in that?

      • Bono95

        Yeah, the last three popes have been doing everything to try to win back the SSPX, but the society for the most part snaps at their every move.

  • newguy40

    Nice. Great lampooning! Thanks for the funny.

  • Louis Tofari

    Thanks for clarifying that.

  • MBinSTL

    Treating the SSPX as a “no holds barred” punching bag bothers me – it seems to be an acceptable practice these days among some Catholic bloggers. I say that as a Catholic traditionalist who believes the Novus Ordo has been an overall, unnecessary and tragic disaster in the life of the Church, and who sympathizes with many of the complaints as expressed on the Rorate Caeli blog, et al. On the other hand, the point about the Apostle St. Peter is a good one, and I do think that some traditionalists do harm to the cause of Catholic Tradition by the way they express their views. Blesseds John XXIII and John Paul II, soon to be named Saints of the universal Church, pray for us!

    • RealistFighter

      Tell that to all of the 300 million Africans that have come into the Church since the Mass allowed to be said in languages they actually understand. SSPX’s very raison d’être is to argue form over substance. I have no patience for them, and I am a doctrinally sound, Magisterium defending Catholic.

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        You’re diabolically disoriented. If you knew anything at all about the SSPX, you’d know that the opposite is the truth. Their arguments against the Novus Ordo service are rooted precisely in this service’s substantial changes, not in the change from Latin to the vernacular. Thus they say that the Novus Ordo service committed in Latin and entirely according to its rubrics is nevertheless a grave danger to the Faith.

        I won’t bother recommending the following to you, “RealistFighter,” as you’re clearly quite comfortable in your ignorance. To those who seek the truth of the matter, I suggest doing the following internet search:

        Theology and Spirituality of the Mass – District of the USA SSPX

        • RealistFighter

          I’ve read plenty about and from your ilk, and I’m familiar with the sophistry and misdirection you employ to sugarcoat your fishhooks. News flash – no one’s biting. Need I copy+paste quotes from your “priests” stating that Mass in anything but Latin is invalid? Meh, I won’t bother anyway. I’m sure you’re sufficiently learned and well-read to be sufficiently familiar with them.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Careful reading of that last post would have revealed to you that the suggested reading wasn’t for you, but for those who seek the truth of the matter.

          • RealistFighter

            Careful reading of the arrow and “RealistFighter” to the left of your username clearly indicate that the comment was functionally directed at me, irrespective of your intended target. Regardless, to call anyone “diabolically disoriented” is completely beyond the pale. There is not an OUNCE of charity in you. Even if you are correct about your underlying arguments, you’re woefully deficient in the Cardinal virtues.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Infinite blessings! Since you’ve appeared in my life, I now have a living fount of charity – and surely every other cardinal and subsidiary virtue! – to look to when the black beast of choler darkens my soul. Rest assured that henceforth I’ll be returning here and drinking deeply of your honeyed words of charity, moderation, and humility – to name but a few of your virtues – on this page as my sustenance. O happy strife!

          • RealistFighter

            Just keep pouring it on.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Ready to end the discussion? I want to go ahead and start the printing and binding.

          • RealistFighter

            Sure, go ahead; have the last word.

          • Spiff

            Disagree with Alphonsus_Jr.’s arguments, but have to admire the style of his snark. I chuckled long over this bit…. truly hilarious!! I suspect that if we got him and Realist Fighter together and force fed them a few beers, they’d be great chums.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Agreed!

        • Bono95

          If the Novus Ordo is a grave danger to the faith, why haven’t I left the Church yet?

      • Antiphon411

        Abp. Lefebvre himself spent thirty years in the mission-fields of Africa. He did much to build up the Catholic infrastructure in French-speaking Africa. He was Pope Pius XII’s principal adviser in the writing of his encyclical Fidei Donum on the missions.

        These hundreds of millions of African conversions were themselves facilitated by the Archbishop’s work.

        Now if only the vernacular Mass could stem the tide of those leaving the Church in Europe and USA.

        • RealistFighter

          Curious, why then are there so few members of SSPX throughout Subsaharan Africa? If he was responsible for these conversions, he clearly wasn’t very successful in persuading them of his theological arguments … or rather, liturgical arguments.

      • MBinSTL

        I actually don’t have a problem with Mass in the vernacular per se. There is great precedent from the first millenium for the Roman Rite to be translated and celebrated in local languages by way of the Glagolitic Missal.

      • Notions Romaines

        That is a badly constructed argument. Following your logic, it means Vatican II ”failed” in the West in terms of statistics (well actually it did fail; where is the New Pentecost or Springtime of the Church?).

    • SententiaeDeo

      At least it didn’t call the SSPX “Nazis”, as these ecumeniacs did in the Buenos Aires cathedral in November 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbfN8JQLzFk

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    NeoCatholic nonsense – and as usual, very thin on wit. Unlike The Onion, there aren’t a lot of brains in this eyeofthetiber outfit.

    • Paul Schumann

      oh right… “NeoCatholic” like those pesky “neocons.”
      We actually receive Vennari’s CFN in the mail, but it’s often just too bitter for my tastes.

      And yes, the satire here isn’t always as well written as some of the other satire sites out there, but that doesn’t mean the SSPX isn’t a valid target.

    • Paul Schumann

      “Despicable attack”
      sigh… I guess you’re one of the humorless folks who’d get annoyed at this also: http://www.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/the-illiberal-catholic-catechism-5896247437164544

    • You mean I’ve been duped all this time?!!!!!!!

    • RealistFighter

      You obviously think very highly of yourself.

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        Why do you insist on constantly displaying your inferiority complex?

        • RealistFighter

          Sorry, but I don’t follow. You’re shamelessly egotistical; I take note; and I suddenly have an inferiority complex? Your conclusion does not rationally flow from the premise.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            For those with eyes to see, it flows inexorably.

          • RealistFighter

            Right, but your arrogance and lack of charity don’t? You have serious, serious issues. See a psychologist. I think you may be clinically narcissistic.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            So predictable. Your range runs the gamut from A to B.

          • RealistFighter

            It’s probably predictable because so many others have accurately diagnosed it in the past. Maybe that should tell you something.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            You weren’t joking before, were you? You really do believe that you occupy the moral high ground. Incredible! This belief is, of course, part of your diabolical disorientation.

          • RealistFighter

            Again, you tell me that what you perceive to be my problems are the result of Satanic influence. You have all the delicacy and grace of Jack Chick.

    • Bono95

      Then why are you reading it, sir?

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    NeoCatholics,

    Search the net for these essays:

    Gnostic Twaddle, by Christopher Ferrara

    The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success, by John Vennari

    The Oath Against Modernism vs. the ‘Hermenutic of Continuity,’ by John Vennari

    Actions Speak Louder than Words, by Brian McCall

    Bellarmine and Suarez on the Question of a Heretical Pope, by Robert J. Siscoe

    Catholic Family News Interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei: On the proposed April 27 Canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II

    “We vigorously protest these canonizations” Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82

    Much more could be provided. Let me know and I’ll provide it.

    • John Barnes

      Thanks for the offer but I’ll pass, as will most everyone, I suspect.

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        That’s my suspicion as well. The post was directed at the relatively minimally processed, and therefore the few.

        • Antiphon411

          Thank you for the reading suggestions–some I have read, but I hadn’t caught the Mattei interview. CFN is a great paper. Readers should also be aware of the Remnant website.

          As I’m sure you know, one’s comments reach many amenable readers even when the only responses are hostile. You are scattering seeds. Keep up the good work!

    • Erika Allen

      Yes, I second Antiphon411.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    As the rancid putrefaction in the human element of the Church from the top of the hierarchy on down continues, one of three things will happen within the next several years to NeoCatholics (that is, those of you mistakenly seen as “conservatives”). Mark my words.

    -Your processing will continue to the extent that, capitalizing on your receptivity (in the name of “obedience” – which is actually a false obedience) to every brand of novelty, you become indistinguishable from those outright heretics commonly known as “liberals.”

    -You’ll apostasize and will embrace either today’s fashionable atheism, “spiritual but not religious” nonsense, or Buddhism. Most likely, following the Judas Council’s ecumaniacal syncretism, you’ll embrace all these and more.

    Or:

    -You’ll be scandalized to the point where you can no longer – in spite of (or because of) the tortured mental gymnastics of NeoCaths like Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea – deny reality. You’ll then see that the SSPX was right all along.

    Those presently on that last trajectory would do well to search Youtube for this:

    Bp. Bernard Fellay: On the Crisis in the Church, playlist

    • newguy40

      My brother, you are presenting an unfortunately grim and dour representative of the SSPX faithful.

      I would respectfully suggest that your Bp Fellay might have found this (dare I ??) amusing. But, I fear, you would call down holy fire upon my head, eh?

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        You’re right, friend. This grim and dour reality is indeed unfortunate. Here are some more assessments of it:

        “I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past.”

        – Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, future Pope Pius XII, in 1933

        “Through some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

        -Pope Paul VI, Solennità dei Santi Apostoli Pietro e Paolo Giovedì, June 29, 1972

        “They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

        -St. Athanasius

        “When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is, of dogma or morals. Treachery such as that of Nestorius is rare in the Church; but it can happen that, for one reason or another, pastors remain silent on essential matters of faith. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.”

        – Dom Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV; see the entryfor the Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9th

        “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”

        -Matthew 7:15-30

        “Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”

        -Fr. Faber

        “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”

        -St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376

        “At the close of a long life (for I was born in 1905 and I now see the year 1990), I can say that it has been marked by exceptional world events: three world wars, that which took place from 1914 to 1918, that which took place from 1939 to 1945, and that of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. The disasters caused by these three wars, and especially by the last of them, are incalculable in the domain of material ruins, but even more so in the spiritual realm.”

        -Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Prologue to his Spiritual Journey

        • newguy40

          Ah… instead of hoiy fire being unleased upon my head, I have a plethora of quotations.

          I would respectfully suggest that you use your own words and thoughts to persuade. Don’t you recall that Christ used both scripture AND parables to teach?

          I respect your piety but it is unattractive in the extreme.

          I’ll leaveyou with this one as you appear to relate to quote.

          Finally,brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever
          is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

          ~Philippians 4:7-8

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Thanks for reminding me of that passage. It’s definitely one of my favorite passages in Holy Scripture, in part because it’s anything but a prescription for burying our heads in the sand and refusing to resist the wolves in the fold. Quite the opposite, as the warding off of wolves and heresy (Modernism, for instance, which the truly great Pope St. Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies”) is necessary for the preservation and propagation of the Holy Faith, which can’t be surpassed in honor, justice, purity, loveliness, grace, excellence, and praiseworthiness.

          • newguy40

            Much better and easier to understand. thanks.

            “It is customary to blame secular science and
            anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined
            not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline,
            love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when
            religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion–its message becomes meaningless.”

            ― Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of
            Man: A Philosophy of Judaism

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            How interesting that you’d quote an enemy of the Faith. This is most revealing, and all too typical of those processed by Judas Council ecumania.

          • newguy40

            Well, I tried.

            I wonder what you would have said if I had attributed this quote to some obscure 7th century saint rather than a learned jewish writer.

            How interesting that a SSPX member expresses anti semitism, eh?

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Don’t get me wrong. I’m delighted that you chose that very quote. It’s a most revealing choice, along with your requisite charge of “anti-semitism.”

          • RealistFighter

            Right, I suppose he’s an “enemy of the Faith” simply because he’s Jewish? If anything, sedevacantists ARE predictable. Keep on goose stepping. At least that way we’ll see you coming and know not to bother engaging with you.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Your muliebral hysteria is becoming tiresome. Kindly take a breather – not for my sake, but for yours.

          • RealistFighter

            Muliebral? Ah, you’re a misogynist too. Makes sense.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Interesting. Your picture seems to indicate that you’re a male, but as misogyny can’t be committed against a male, and you’ve just accused me of misogyny against you, you’ve revealed that you’re actually a female. This is helpful information, as it goes far in explaining your emotionalism. Many thanks for the clarification.

          • RealistFighter

            Are you dense? Do I need to define the word “muliebral” before you can understand why it’s misogynistic to affix the label to a man in a critical fashion? You’re ridiculous. You really, really are. All you do is insult and condemn. In fact, I’ll go ahead and be blunt – you’re a jerk. Congratulations. Be correct all you’d like, but at the end of the day, when you’re rude and insulting to others, no one will care and you’ll still be lonely.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Can we accept this shamelessly sanctimonious drivel as your final, valiant attempt to display your presumed occupation of the moral high ground – such display of course being your goal from the very beginning?

          • RealistFighter

            Ignore the substance and attack the messenger. You’ve maintained that goal from the beginning. Need I highlight in your very first response to my initial and innocuous post that I’m under the influence of Satan? Whatever. You’re incorrigible. You’ll never admit even the slightest bit of error on your part. Again, I repeat everything from my prior comment.

          • Antiphon411

            “…sedevacantists ARE predictable…”

            But neo-Catholics aren’t, right? Well, their liturgies certainly aren’t!

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            I wouldn’t be surprised if you participated in a seder meal during Lent and were completely oblivious to the horror of doing so.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwjAAm8TVAU

          • RealistFighter
          • Iltud

            A religion without a creed, discipline or habit is no religion.

            Authority – recognition of the author – is the only thing able to have meaning. The “voice of compassion” is, contrarily, so much vague, emotive blather.

            Worshiping at the “living fountain” of “today” = Americanism = the extinction of European peoples and cultures.

          • Antiphon411

            I get so tired of the notion that before V2 all religious piety was empty and by rote. Have you ever been to a Novus Ordo Mass?! The leaden, dead responses of the faithful are what? Full of fervor?

            How is it that the hollow and overly legalistic faith of the centuries before V2 produced so many saints? Because this Black Legend, like others, is false.

          • newguy40

            I had promised myself not to respond to these but I appear to be a glutton for punishment.

            Yes. I have attend NO masses that were completed in a reverent, “o”rthodox manner that fully followed the rubrics. With that said, I have found that the personal piety of the priests celebrating the NO Mass to be the reason for said “o’rthodoxy. It is not impossible to attend a pious NO Mass. it’s just rare.

            I am equally tired of the notion that you employ that there are no or few devoted Catholics at the NO. I also attend the EF. Unlike you, I am unable to judge the other faithful by their, as you say, leaden and dead responses ie outward appearance. At the NO, I am trying very hard to unite myself to the sacrifice. Just as I am at the EF and rarely if ever take the time to observe their outward appearances, expressions or how (or if) they say the pater noster.

            I don’t even know what a Black Legend is and don’t want to know, for goodness sake.

            I merely attempted to tell the person I originally responded to to lighten up and not be so dour. I am equally weary of the blue on blue friendly fire coming from other Catholics. I have no intention to offend anyone. OTH, I am tired of having my faith called in to question by my so called brothers and sisters in the Church Militant.

            So. don’t go away mad. just go away.

          • RealistFighter

            Piety? He’s been nothing but condescending, rude, and condemnatory. Hardly pious. Every single one of his posts is dripping with sanctimony.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Yet wasn’t it you who rained fire on my head earlier via numerous judgments? For instance, “you’re a prideful, sycophantic, intellectual rectum.” Strange.

          • RealistFighter

            That was after you called me “diabolically disoriented.” You started firing immediately, from the outset. Everyone of your posts here has been laden with fire and brimstone condemnation of actual Catholics. Forgive me if it provokes my use of harsh, yet accurate labels.

    • AJ

      One does not have to be a sedevacantist to not be a “liberal Catholic.” Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea are courageously defending marriage in the face of liberal opposition, as well as the all-male priesthood, evils of abortion, etc… They don’t reject any Church doctrine (the gates of Hell will never prevail against Peter and his successors). It is amazingly bizarre for you to say that they are even comparable to “liberal Catholics.”

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        I don’t recall advocating sedevacantism, which I reject. Nor would I have referred you to Bp. Fellay if I were a sedevacantist, as the SSPX rejects sedevacantism. Those who actually understand the SSPX know this.

        Judas popes are still popes, just as Judas was an apostle. Do you think selling Jesus out was Judas’s first act of betrayal? Certainly not! It was the culminating act of betrayal in a life of betrayal. No, it’s no accident that we were given the example of Judas. Judas popes, Judas bishops, and Judas priests are everywhere today. What do they embrace? The Judas Council.

        What I say isn’t at all bizarre to those who have actually done their homework. The likes of Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea are fully conformed with the Judas Council, which put itself in conscious conformity with the liberal world (e.g., the French Revolution’s “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” translated into the religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality of Vatican II). Read the list of recommended resources in the “About” box under the first video in the recommended Bp. Fellay video series above. You’ll learn much.

        Much of what appears to be conservative today is actually liberal. For example, the “hermeneutic of continuity” of Pope Benedict XVI. See:

        The Oath Against Modernism vs. the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity,’ by John Vennari

        Without exception, NeoCatholics like Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea embrace all of the errors, novelties, and ambiguities of Vatican II – all of them rooted in Modernism and thus liberalism. On these, see:

        Liberalism is a Sin, by Fr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany

        The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Matthais Gaudron

        Also see:

        The Errors of Vatican II – Si Si No No – Catholic Family News

        It’s no accident that Cardinal Suenens joyously referred to Vatican II as “1789 in the Church.”

        Do I believe that these NeoCatholic luminaries (Akin, Shea, George Weigel, Michael Novak, Scott Hahn…) and their disciples are conscious liberals? Not most of them. I believe they’re so immersed in their medium (liberalism) that they’re unable to recognize that very medium. Like the fish, they can only say, “Water? WHAT water???” And so it is with most today. The processing has been spectacularly successful.

        On the nature of NeoCatholicsm, see:

        The Justice of the Term “neo-Catholic,” by Christopher Ferrara

        Also search using these terms:

        Neo-Catholic Neo-Catholicism The Remnant Newspaper

        As for courage, this is a virtue exercised on the battlefield. Those truly on the battlefield against today’s hellish rot are none other than that tiny remnant now known as traditional Catholics, waging war against the wolves both without and within the Church. Once the wolves within proclaim (non-infallibly, of course, as these things can never be proclaimed infallibly) their blessing of sodomite “marriage,” priestettes, and legalized surgical/pharmaceutical infanticide etc., the NeoCatholics will fall in line as usual, using every means of tortured mental gymnastics to justify it all.

        • RealistFighter

          You argue that we have “Judas Popes” who supposedly promulgated extraordinary Magisterial teaching at Vatican II in error AND you’re claiming that you’re not a sedevacantist? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

          • AJ

            He’s freaking insane if you ask me

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Whatever it takes to relieve you of the burden of hard thought, eh? All too typical.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            It would be better for you not to blame me for your ignorance concerning the nature of sedevacantism, especially not in such a triumphalist fashion. It only magnifies the advertisement of your conformity to the rot.

            Sedevacantists claim that the papal chair has been empty since the Judas Council Revolution. I reject this claim. If anything, I’m what might be called a duosedist or a sededuist, as I maintain that the post-conciliar popes have occupied not zero, not one, but two chairs simultaneously. Approximately 90-95% of their rumps have been and are seated upon the chair of the Conciliar Community, while the other 5-10% have been and are seated upon the chair of the actual Catholic Church. Note that this means that the chair of the actual Catholic Church has never been unoccupied since the Judas Council Revolution.

          • RealistFighter

            You can attempt to redefine sedevacantism if it helps you rest more easily at night. In any event, the conventionally understood shoe fits.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            That really wasn’t a very good answer. Surely you know this?

          • RealistFighter

            Actually it was spot on. Simplistic and irrational arguments generally require only minimally sophisticated retorts, irrespective of however well cloaked the silly arguments are with flowery and verbose language.

          • Antiphon411

            “…extraordinary Magisterial teaching at Vatican II…”

            Which teachings were those and where were they promulgated?

          • RealistFighter

            I won’t bother transcribing the entirety of Sacrosanctum Concilium, but I will provide the following statement from Lumen Gentium:

            “Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”

            I’d also point you to the 1966 Moto Proprio that implemented four of the decrees, including Sacrosanctum Concilium:

            “The governing of holy Church, following the conclusion of the Second ECUMENICAL Vatican Council, demands indeed that new norms be established …” (emphasis added).

            Are MPs infallible? Rather than specifically address that question, I’ll simply refer to the fact that SSPXers never fail to cite Benedict XVI’s MP as infallibly protecting the Tridentine Mass. I suppose, then, that we’re free to cherry pick only the MPs we like?

          • Antiphon411

            But what precisely then is magisterially taught? Every word of the documents of V2?

            For example, if I wanted to know what Trent taught, I would look to the canons: If someone believes X, let him be anathema. One can look them up in Denzinger.

            What precisely did V2 teach regarding the Faith? What do you make of statements made by Council Fathers that it was not a doctrinal council?

            As for the MP, I don’t know exactly how SSPX understands the MP, but I would not consider it infallible. Rather it merely pointed out that there had been no abrogation of the Missal of 1962. This was not a definition of dogma, but a recognition of fact–at most an interpretation of law (but I don’t think it was this).

    • RealistFighter

      The gaudy utilization of your bloated lexicon renders even more minimal the odds that individuals equally erudite and intellectually capable will take your post at all seriously.

      • Alphonsus_Jr

        You’ve made it clear – to the point that I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve suffered some sort of deep and prolonged trauma at the bloody pen of a stern grammarian – that my style of writing offends you. Nevertheless, be assured that I won’t change a thing about my style; most likely, in fact, I’ll only amplify it. Only in this way might I help you conquer your trauma once and for all by forcing you to actually face it at last.

        An alternative for you might be to, when you see my name henceforth, skip the post. This, while not being nearly as beneficial for you, will certainly be easier. And isn’t that really what those of you conformed to the Judas Council Revolution really want, to just make things easier?

        • RealistFighter

          No, I’d rather continue to call attention to the fact that you’re a prideful, sycophantic, intellectual rectum. It serves as an effective warning that you’re not to be taken seriously.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            How judgmental! Strange. And it also seems that you’re taking me quite seriously. You can hardly resist responding to every one of my posts. Odd!

          • RealistFighter

            Primarily, it’s to continue vexing you. Your responses remind me of Napoleon Bonaparte’s reaction to rolling a gutter ball in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. I find all of this endlessly entertaining.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            As you like.

          • AreAy

            I thought I told you to shut up.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            You did. And?

          • Guest

            That interesting employment of school-yard politics doesn’t get far once you leave the 8th grade.

          • AreAy

            It was worth a shot.

  • Aidan Keller

    This is funny, as is the idea of canonizing John Paul II.

  • Guest

    Satire is always intelligent when you agree with it in idiotic when you don’t, it seems.

  • Darren Anderton

    Satire is always intelligent when you agree with it and idiotic when you don’t, it seems.

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      Not at all. The Onion, for instance, produces much satire with which I disagree. Yet the intelligence of it is undeniable.

      Those with eyes to see see this particular post, however, as decidedly low wattage stuff.

      By the way, as a friend just now pointed out to me, their mockery here of a large family is rather revealing of their conformity to the rot. I suppose the caricatured man isn’t properly practicing contracep…… errrrr…. NFP.

      • RealistFighter

        I think, actually, you dislike this satire because it’s directed at you. Yeah, there is a lot of satire I disagree with as well, but the true mark of a good sense of humor is being able to laugh at yourself. In this respect, you fail miserably.

        • Alphonsus_Jr

          But I laugh at myself all the time! Right now, for example, I’m laughing at myself for engaging in this ridiculous and futile battle with you. Next I’ll go to the mirror and begin laughing again, as I’m pretty funny looking. Cheers!

          • RealistFighter

            Not an ounce of self-awareness in this one.

      • RealistFighter

        Also, given your inane equating of NFP with contraception, I suppose you embrace the inescapable corollary that Catholics are obligated to abstain during those periods of a woman’s cycle when she CAN’T get pregnant?

        Do you not realize that you sound like nothing more than a mouthpiece for SSPX, a broken record regurgitating the same tired and bitter rhetoric that has maintained your alienation and heretical schism for decades? Just get a megaphone to play a recorded summary of SSPX’s heresy on repeat. It would have the exact same effect (i.e. none).

        • Alphonsus_Jr

          Your charges of heresy and schism against the SSPX reveal a level of ignorance (or malice, but for the sake of charity I’ll assume ignorance) so profound that, unfortunately, any attempts to correct you would be futile. I’ve encountered such triumphalist ignorance many times before. Indeed such ignorance is one of the chief characteristics of today’s putrefaction.

          You’re drowning in the shallows. The saddest part is that you don’t even know it, and thus fail to see the need to arise.

          • RealistFighter

            In response, I repeat in its entirety my comment directly preceding yours.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Apparently you’re under the impression that that comment is a devastating rebuke. Hold on to this delusion if you must. Others know that NFP has become a de facto form of contraception for those processed by the revolution. As for your comments regarding the SSPX, once again they’re not worthy of rebuttal.

            Your fight for realism seems to be only about hysterically revealing the real extent of your vacuity. For your benefit, not mine, I suggest that you take a breather from your muliebral outbursts. You’ll feel much better!

          • RealistFighter

            Muliebral? Clearly you have issues with women. Color me unsurprised.

            As for NFP, the Church has been quite vocal in expressing that NFP can be used sinfully. But I guess you don’t want to be bothered with messy things like intention, will, or circumstances in determining whether a particular object is sinful. Knee jerk is much easier.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Funny! This whole page reveals YOU as the supreme master of muliebral knee jerkery! Whew! Talk about a paucity of self-awareness.

          • RealistFighter

            That’s a nice way of escaping my response. You don’t even deign to address whether NFP may be undertaken without sinning. Instead, you go back on the attack. At least I inject my quips with the substance of my argument. Try again.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            I fear that your wild coprophilia will distract you from paying any attention to what I might directly suggest to you. Nevertheless I point you to this, for example:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHuRUv9SIu0

            Much more could be provided.

          • JoFlemings

            Hey RF, when and where has the Church been vocal in expressing that NFP can be used sinfully? I have never ever seen anything official about this and I am very interested if its out there. Last I heard, NFP was a method for employing a moral option and regarding intentions and circumstances, it’s all so subjective that almost anything goes.

          • Erika Allen

            Malice is the word! What hateful words he hurls at his fellow Catholics. The charge of schism also reveals that intent.

        • Paul Schumann

          Now that I’ve seen what he thinks of NFP, it’s clear to me that he’s just a Jansenist. No new heresies under the sun…

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Ridiculous. But keep that head buried in the sand if you must.

        • Catholic_Dad_of_4

          Oh this is easy:
          1. The arguments for NFP OVER contraception are it is more effective than any other form of contraceptive.
          2. Therefore those who embrace it for this reason are engaging in a contraceptive mentality which-
          3. Equates NFP with contraception.
          NFP is supposed to be used for grave reasons alone. Not just because it is convenient. To engage in NFP simply out of Lust and convenience to embrace a contraceptive mentality and objectively sinful.

          • Bono95

            How does one engage in NFP out of lust? Lustful people have trouble with abstinence.

  • Strife

    This is equivalent to a rhetorical pyromaniac setting flames to his own field of hapless strawmen in a firestorm of hyperbole.

    When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts going for you, pound the table.

    If you can’t convince them, confuse them.

  • Strife

    In a controversial bold move, still living Pope Francis canonizes himself.

    http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-hits-just-keep-coming.html

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      That’s the next move, Strife. Novelty, novelty, novelty, novelty, evolve, evolve, evolve, evolve, the canonization of the Judas Council via the canonization of its supreme representatives – and now even while they’re living. Yay! Yay!! YAY!!!

      • Strife

        We should both be laughing right now Alphonsus – but we both know it’s all too possible. Even probable.

        *sigh*

  • Incredibly stupid. Satire only works when it makes sense.

  • I am not a member of the SSPX but find this insulting anyhow. I too am dismayed by the hasty, highly political, unprecedented & super hyped up canonization of the two Popes. I think it smacks of a real desperate attempt by the post Vat 2 church to legitimize themselves and the wreckovation of the Church for the past 40-50 years. This has nothing to do with whether they are actually Saints or not as far as I’m concerned and more to do with the lack of credibility of the Bishops of the modern Church & the confusion they have created among all Faithful, not just those who turn to the SSPX.

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      Well said. You’ll want to read these, all available via an internet search:

      The “Canonizations”: CFN interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei

      &

      Doubt and Confusion: The New “Canonizations” by John Vennari

      Along with:

      SSPX Bishop Fellay: “We vigorously protest these canonizations”

  • Elizabeth Schaper Bergman

    “To whom should we go Lord for you have the words of eternal life (John 6:68). Catholicism, true Catholicism, pope and all, is still the best option. What is bound on earth with be bound in heaven (Matthew 18:18), even these canonizations. It is really not our place to criticize.

    Btw I was raised very traditionally in the SSPX. I was blessed to have the grace to return to the Church. I had to come to grips with Vatican II and did. I was blessed to see JP II in person twice and then travel to Rome where coincidentally they had just exhumed the incorruptible body of Blessed John the XXIII (did you know that?).

    Conspiracy theory radiate from groups like SSPX although this may or may not be their official response. Without a true connection to the Church and her authority an attitude of disrespect and schism is rampant. There are Protestant groups that can claim apostolic succession. The SSPX is one of them. This is not enough to make one Catholic. The hierarchy is essential. It is beyond me that although the SSPX recognize the need and the validity of the papacy they criticize and tantrum over the pope’s decisions and actions. Do they not trust the Holy Spirit?

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      The diabolical disorientation engendered by your having given yourself up to Vatican II is evident throughout your post. At any rate, search for these:

      The “Canonizations”: CFN interviews Professor Roberto de Mattei

      &

      Doubt and Confusion:
      The New “Canonizations”
      by John Vennari

      Along with:

      SSPX Bishop Fellay: “We vigorously protest these canonizations”

      • RealistFighter

        Purple prose, again. Don’t you realize how much you sound like a jackass just on account of your word choice? I can write like that too, but it’s not effective communication. It’s being verbose for its own sake. You sound like a pompous fool.

        • Alphonsus_Jr

          I understand that today’s dumbing down makes such language quite offensive to those conformed to the putrefaction. At any rate, the informed will recognize “diabolical disorientation,” for example, as a term used by none other than Sr. Lucia of Fatima. It perfectly describes the rot of the Judas Council Revolution, its promoters, and those processed by it.

          Again, if you have any substance to offer besides ad hominem attacks, I invite you to comment on my other posts here. I know, you see yourself as just “keepin’ it real.” In fact you’re only revealing your conformity.

          • RealistFighter

            If brevity is soul of wit, why say “manure” when you can say “shit”?

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Cute! On the other hand you’ve provided further evidence that out of the mouth comes the heart.

          • RealistFighter

            Well, apparently in your case, out of the mouth comes the contents of the rectum.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Is it really possible that you believe that was a witty response?

          • RealistFighter

            You’ve already brought us down to the lowest common denominator with your bitterness and lack of charity. I was merely referencing your familiar companions in the gutter.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Nonsense. Your many coprophagous comments here have established a pattern, a definite pattern pointing to rabid coprophilia. Get real at last!

          • RealistFighter

            Uh huh, sure.

          • Allie Toner

            Your’e a poet and you don’t know it!

          • Christine Chase Sacchi

            “It perfectly describes the rot of the Judas Council Revolution, its promoters, and those processed by it”

            What’s the process? Is it like making cheese food?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_cheese

          • Bono95

            Sr. Lucia also said the St. John Paul II’s consecration of the world satisfied Our Lady of Fatima’s wish for the consecration of Russia, and yet the SSPX and other dissenters claim that it doesn’t.

        • NewbieJames

          The Angry NeoCatholic on display.

          • RealistFighter

            I’m not angry; I’m disgusted.

          • JoFlemings

            I distinguished myself along similar lines on another blog about my pet rock last week, although I am angry AND disgusted, but I’m not sure it is at all helpful.
            Satire or not, we have to stop our infighting somehow, it is our Achilles heel.

    • Tom Grassia

      to Rome where coincidentally they had just exhumed the incorrupt body of Blessed John the XXIII (did you know that?).

      He is not incorrupt, did you know that?

      http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-pope-john-xxiii-incorrupt.html

    • Notions Romaines

      No Protestant group can claim apostolic succession. NONE. Even Leo XIII settled the matter for Anglicans (it was a no by the way).

    • Catholic_Dad_of_4

      You can’t return to the church because the SSPX is IN the Church. They have never been in schism.

    • Bono95

      Sadly, it seems that they don’t. But I bet St. Pius X is praying mightily for their return to the flock.

  • Noss
    • Alphonsus_Jr

      And so much more….

      Age, thou art shamed.*
      O shame, where is thy blush?**

      -Shakespeare, Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**

      • RealistFighter

        Quoting Shakespeare doesn’t make you seem wise or even marginally more correct on any of the issues you’ve raised. Here, listen; I can do it too:

        “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
        – William Shakespeare, As You Like It

        Ruminate on those words for a while.

        • Alphonsus_Jr

          Do you have any substantive arguments to offer? If so, see my other comments below and kindly consider weighing in.

          • RealistFighter

            You deny the extraordinary Magisterial teaching of an ecumenical council. Nothing more substantive needs to be said. I suppose you could offer some degree of weight to your arguments by conclusively demonstrating that Mass in the early Church was always in Latin. Good luck with that.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Your errors are so basic and evident of conciliar processing that I’m afraid that you might be disabused of your ignorance only through a program of deep and extended study. Yet your ignorance is so triumphalist that I also fear you’ll refuse to launch such a program. Nevertheless I direct you to the many resources I’ve cited elsewhere on this page.

            I know, instead of offering thanks you’ll only continue to heap scorn upon me. Such are those conformed to the world.

          • RealistFighter

            You are truly, truly hilarious. Do you not care that you’ve reduced yourself to a caricature? Your posts are nothing but navel gazing. Do you afford absolutely NO weight to the fact that the Church considers you a heretic? The CHURCH. You know, the one Christ established at Caesarea Philippi?

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Fascinating.

  • Brace yourself, people that thinks the SSPX is the Pope and his college of Bishops whom have the authority to interprete the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition are coming!

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    In spite of what I’ve said elsewhere here, I do salute the operators of this site for letting this free discussion continue.

  • Lee Bacchi

    Terrific! Love this!

  • Josh Boudreaux

    Haha, nice.
    ok while I’ve never really heard of SSPX before, this still was funny. now I never know when I was scrolling through the comments I’d find such a verbal… joke/fight? Just saying, RealistFighter, I found your verbal acrobatics hilarious and your retorts something that would insult even the most “humble” person :). I can’t say I’ve seen such pride in quite a while, even very few Protestants I know and preachers I’ve listened to can compare. I guess when you add in the fact of Authority of a man, to the degree that Catholics hold the pope, you can get sucked in. Alphonsus my friend, you’ve spent many hours studying, and I’m glad you’re searching for truth, I admire your persistence and determination. it really is funny to sit back and watch the fireworks, though I don’t know why such fruitless arguments are needed, Titus 3:9 is a beautiful passage that speaks about useless disputes, why bother? an hour praying for wisdom, or just spending time with the timeless God would be well worth the time spent as I’m sure you’re aware of. I don’t have twenty dollar words, I’m a simple man, though still young.

    I’ve come to understand what the Mass is about while in the vernacular, don’t know if I would’ve come to the say in another way, frankly it doesn’t bother me. but seeing as I’ve never once been to a fully Latin Mass before, I see it as a gift. it’d be like going to another country, like say Australia in the summer.. it might be a once in a lifetime, so I’ll enjoy it’s nuances to the best of my ability and see for myself. as far as labeling Jimmy Akin a whatever you actually called him, that’s uncalled for and is rather insulting. I’ve never heard in my lifetime of a Judas council so to try and link everything to it seems to me… maybe it’s just me.. it seems in my limited vocabulary, STUPID. maybe I’ll enjoy searching through it’s contents one day if I find the time. I would hope you wouldn’t insult me by calling me ignorant or any of the other names you called people with different opinions. I’m only replying because I enjoyed all of your and everybody else’s comments and bantering back and forth. this was the most enjoyable discussion group I’ve seen this week for sure. I’ve had more contact with Pentecostals and charismatic Catholics than with traditionlists and whatever else can be kinda thrown in with their group. it’s pretty fun, apologetics are fun and I’ve just barely scratched the surface, but this is a whole ‘nother can of worms, this is where intellect must be over my level to grasp it. my life is interesting and I’ve been enjoying it greatly here in America, finally grasped some theological things on a depth that I never thought possible last year, seeing as it also just so happened to be my confirmation. yes I’m young, but I’ll let you know something, looking at my fellow friends and family, other families as well, their faith is a struggle, whether they’re Charimatic, Traditionalist, Pentecostal, Protestant or anywhere in between and to say in universal terms of “the Church this”, the “Church That”… it is the height of stupidity to think that a group, a person, or a small collection of people can understand what the faith of the entire CATHOLIC CHURCH is unless they are God, so this should end. to me it looks like an excuse to lose focus on what’s going on locally and try to get a sense how things are and where they need to be… well let God be God and man be man. God will direct his church as he sees fit, live the Gospel and deal with the situations in the church as God intends, never in a rush or impatience but in a sacred calm. don’t know how this comment will read to other people but it looked descent, just try to read it with a southern, farmers boy good humor and down to earth kinda fellow and it’ll be perfect 🙂 . Hope Y’all enjoy it, and God bless. have a wonderful weekend 😀

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      Greetings Josh, and thanks for weighing in. Your post displays a refreshing air of sincerity and simplicity. While it also contains a variety of grave errors, I’m confident that serious study of the golden resources I’ve provided throughout these comments will lead you far in jettisoning them. Blessings to you and yours!

      • RealistFighter

        You can’t even compliment someone without also criticizing him.

        • Alphonsus_Jr

          Get over it. Really, hasn’t the time finally come to jettison your muliebral sentimentalism?

          • RealistFighter

            Identifying a FACT (e.g. that you criticized Josh immediately after your compliment of him) is not sentimentality, and it’s certainly not rightly understood as feminine (or “muliebral”, if we’re recycling the same SAT words repeatedly for lack of creativity).

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            The muliebral (or hysterical, if you wish) sentimentalism was in the very fact that you chose to identify this alleged fact.

          • RealistFighter

            “[Y]our post also contains a variety of grave errors […]” I’m sorry, but in what universe is this statement not criticism?

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            It might help to keep in mind that the alleged fact at issue concerns your response to my response to Josh; to wit: “You can’t even compliment someone without also criticizing him.” Next, in relation to this statement, note your distortion of it in the first parenthetical of your next post. In other words, originally you didn’t simply identify the fact that I criticized Josh immediately after complimenting him. Rather, you stated that I was incapable of complimenting someone without also criticizing. You shifted, either with calculation or sloppily; most likely the latter. Once you recognize this, it won’t surprise me if you decide to edit out this embarrassing reality. Thus for posterity I’ll go ahead and preserve it.

            RealistFighter’s original response: “You can’t even compliment someone without also criticizing him.”

            His shift: “Identifying a FACT (e.g. that you criticized Josh immediately after your compliment of him)….”

            Those who have established the rule of nous in their souls instantly recognized all this without my having to break it down.

            Finally, all this is irrelevant, as your muliebral sentimentality rests in the fact that you failed to restrain yourself from making that first silly response. In other words, your muliebral (or hysterical, if you wish) sentimentalism was in the very fact that you chose to identify this (“You can’t even compliment someone without also criticizing him”) alleged fact. It was a schoolgirl move.

            Again, those few readers who have established the rule of nous in their souls instantly recognized this.

          • RealistFighter

            All of your posts here have been uncharitably and unjustifiably critical of others, except those directed to your schismatic brethren. I’m sorry, but you’ve provided ample evidence that you’re either incapable or unwilling to engage with those you disagree without rudely criticizing them, even when you make a ham-handed attempt to compliment them. Yes, you criticized Josh; and yes, this was after damning him with faint praise; and yes, this is completely consistent with your invective-laden comments to everyone here with whom you disagree. There is absolutely nothing sloppy or calculatedly distortive about my saying any of this. Again, you are abrasive, rude, uncharitable, and an embarrassment to any SSPXer who is actually a good and decent person. Your words here are completely devoid of virtue.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            This new act of yours really is amusing, and so I thank you for it! Your costume seems incomplete, though. Where can I send the cape?

          • RealistFighter

            Your incessant, sanctimonious insults and complete failure to either appreciate, or have the humility to admit, your wildly inappropriate treatment of others is so inescapably apparent to me and everyone else who might be reading this that there really is no point in continuing. Have the last word. I’m not wasting anymore time with your intransigence.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Might I suggest that you change your name to FantasyFomenter? Not only does it have the advantage of alliteration, but it also conveys the truth that you’re a nonsense peddler. Or, given your coprophagic fixations, you might also consider PoopPeddler!

            By the way, notice throughout the discussion that you’re the one who’s shown no sense of humor whatsoever, thus refuting yet another one of your charges. Lighten up, PoopPeddler! Yes, I like that one. Choose it!

  • Shawn McElhinney

    Well done! lol

  • NewbieJames

    Last I checked St. Peter repented. Did JPII repent of shielding Marcel? Moving Bishop Anthony O’Connell around? Did he repent of kissing the Koran? Assisi? His scandalous, nay heretical writings: Jesus didn’t descend into hell, women and men should mutually submit, and that each person is predestined to union with the Father, among others. So did JPII repent as St. Peter did?

  • NewbieJames

    It will be fun to come back and find out what excuses the angry neo Catholics come up with when the Vatican officially promotes sacrilege. “Those evil SSPX’ers actually have the nerve to criticize the Pope! It is the new springtime so adultery and sacrilege no longer exist. Saint Martin Luther, pray for us.”

    • Alphonsus_Jr

      It’ll be especially wild to see the NeoCatholics’ desperate mental gymnastics in 2017 when those of the Judas Council Revolution, from the top of the hierarchy on down, actually CELEBRATE – as they’ve said they’re going to – the catastrophe of the Protestant Revolt. (Whew! Talk about diabolical disorientation!) I won’t be surprised if the Neos have to invent some new moves to justify this supreme debacle.

      • THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

        Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

        To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

        I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church

        ++++++++ end quote ++++++++++

        Not one, not a single one, of the suspended a divinis clerics of the sspx schism could take the oath because they teach the Church teaches error.

        The truth of the ancient axiom – Schism is proximate to heresy -is proven by the sspx schism’s heresies as regards the infallible teaching of Vatican I.

        O, and then there is the schismatic praxis of the Lefebvre Cult with their Vagus Bishops and Priests – contrary to The Council of Trent – even though during the Council Mons Lefebvre argued in favor of No Jurisdiction, No Ministry.

        O, and the sspx teaches an Ecumenical Council teaches error

        O, and the sspx teaches the Mass is evil

        O, and the sspx teaches Pope Francis is a heretic “modernist.”

        The SSPX clerics are Protestants in Fiddelbacks and those who succor it say Fiddlesticks to Infallible Doctrine.

        Maybe some day the Schism will get around to explaining how a man with no Episcopal power or Episcopal Jurisdiction could “ordain” Priests in the Jurisdiction of a Bishop in a foreign country (econe).

        Any maybe they could explain why an African Archbishop, Lefebvre, (he was called the uncrowned king of the African Bush) was punished with a demotion back to the Bishopric of Tulle, France in 1962 (Now THAT”S a powerhouse diocese) and his subsequent resignation less than a year later.

        O, and Mons Lefebvre was part of the Commission chosen to draft the Schemas for Vatican Two and he signed them ALL, so, can the sspx schism tell us when he ceased being a heretic for embracing ALL of Vatican Two and, literally, putting his name to the entirety of it?

        The SSPX Scishm, with its demented “doctrine” teaches Vatican Two taught error but is founder accepted all of it which means that the sspx founder was a heretic.

        • Alphonsus_Jr

          My goodness. Diabolical disorientation is always fascinating to behold.

          • Deflecting slogan slinging really is the best you can do, isn’t it?

            I’ll give you one more chance to make a direct and rational response to what I wrote.

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            Only fools attempt to operate on the level of reason with buffoons.

            Feel free to consider this yet another mere deflection. Enjoy that NeoCath Kool-Aid.

          • Excellent. Remain in your cave of personal insult and invective because it is quite clear you do not know even the fundamentals of Catholic Tradition, even though you presume to Judge Pope, Council, Mass

          • Alphonsus_Jr

            As you like.

          • Titus
            3:10 Give a heretic one warning, then a second, and after avoid his company; his is a perverse nature, thou mayest be sure, and his fault has been admitted on his own confession

            St
            John Chrysostom’s exegesis:

            “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself”? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made
            opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why do you contend in vain? Why do you beat the
            air? What means, “being condemned of himself”? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned.”

            Good bye, Sir. You are better off continuing to post your nasty invective on “Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican Two” where your ignorant hatred is allowed to go unchallenged.

        • AD
          APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS

          ENCYCLICAL
          OF POPE PIUS XII

          Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy
          no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: “. .
          . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name ofChrist. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they
          receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”[13]

          40.
          And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the
          Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the
          reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”[14]

          41.
          Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.

  • NewbieJames

    But then again, this article does show some progress amongst the angry neo Catholics. He is comparing the scandalous actions of JPII to denying Christ. Kind of a slip up. Once he realizes that St. Peter repented, but JPII never publicly repented for public scandals the author equates to denying Christ, well, maybe then we’ll get break through.

  • SententiaeDeo

    JPII never excommunicated anyone involved in covering up sexual abuse, yet he approved of the latæ sententiæ “excommunication” of the SSPX’s founder, Abp. Lefebvre, which Benedict XVI revoked in 2009! Honestly, how is this a sign that JPII is a saint?

    • Jesus didn’t excommunicate Judas; He even gave him Communion, so according to your, um, thinking…

      • SententiaeDeo

        St. Paul wrote in his First Letter to the Corinthians (11:27) that: “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord
        unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” This sounds even worse than excommunication.

  • SententiaeDeo

    St. Peter did not reverence heretical books like the Koran:http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/055_popekissesKoran.jpg

    St. Peter did not hold idolatrous “interfaith” “peace” services with false religions, as JPII did twice in Assisi, where crucifixes were covered up and churches were desecrated by idolatrous worship:
    http://christorchaos.com/images/assisi_oneb_000.jpg

    St. Peter didn’t lack the faith; he lacked courage. JPII lacked both.

    • “It’s what? It doesn’t look like an inside-out Junior Mint…lemme give it a sniff.”

  • Juju Buttons

    Well this really escalated….

  • The first 49 Popes were canonised despite there being no Devil’s advocate or a requirement of two proven miracles.

    I am sure the SSPX will be denouncing that just as soon as they figure out how to reconcile their blanket rejection of Vatican Two with the fact that the founder of their schism signed all of the documents of Vatican Two.

  • All of the Sacraments – including Holy Mass – celebrated by the Protestants in Fiddlebacks, the SSPX Schism, are sacrilegious according to Catholic Tradition.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    So, it looks like we really are done here at last. I can now safely print out and bind this most illuminating of discussions?

  • brendankiwi

    all saints have been sinners except our Lady and St John Baptist, and many have had their theological errors but this never stopped them from joining their will to the Father. The SSPX taught me this when i flirted with them.

  • bob

    He was MARRIED. No wonder they’re upset

  • JR

    Ok folks you do know this is a parody site. Its The Onion for Catholics

  • HappyCatholic

    *snort* LOL.

  • SnowCherryBlossoms

    The Title made me giggle for 10 minutes..so silly. Then I come in here hoping for some levity and see these comment..good grief!

  • Kurt Ziehlke

    SSPX is opposed because he only spoke Aramaic and thus never celebrated a Mass in Latin

  • Flavia Schott

    but he´s a saint already! what´s the fuzz?