Amazing.With fellow Catholics like these, why would we need other enemies?

There comes a point where the mere repetition of prayers becomes blasphemous—yes, it CAN become “vain repetition”; see Psalm 66:18.  It does NO GOOD to know what is the right thing to do, refuse to do it, and pray the rosary for the success of your wrongdoing.  Has Fellay reached this point?  It is impossible to be sure he has; it is also impossible to be sure he has not.  Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the Prophet Samuel was onto something when he said, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.”

At this point the non-reconciliation of SSPX is no more newsworthy than the fact that Menachem Mendel Schneerson has not risen from the dead.  If there is a change in either status, please report on it, but until then, these stories really accomplish nothing good.

Jan. 7th< Since Bishop Fellay sets himself up against the authority of the Pope, it is reasonable that he and his break away group are not yet apt for reconciliation. Both Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI have tried to extend the hand of welcome but Bishop Fellay, like Cardinal Lefebvre reject the authority of the Pope unless they agree.  In other words, they want the Pope to submit to their interpretations rather than the other way around.  We need to keep praying for this situation.

  Oddly, schisms from the right stem from seeing very old e.g. encyclicals as always perfect….a sort of pan infallibility of the old.  Rome enables such tendencies in the right by not constructively criticizing the documents in question.  “Pascendi” for example is broad generalizations of a denunciatory nature against modernism but it lacks specific titles of books and authors as culprits.  Human nature then supplies its own books and authors after reading it.  It warns of modernists amongst the clergy and laity but again does not promise to bring anyone specific before an ecclesiastical court.  Again human nature fills in the blanks.  It declaims against those who infer that certain books of the Bible were not written by their stated author.  Now the whole biblical scholarship world sees that warning as weird since Isaiah did not write all of Isaiah and if you think John wrote all of John, then you have to explain why the bragging about John is only in John’s gospel and nowhere else.  Good luck.  The Vatican needs to be way more honest about documents from Popes that should be criticized….rather than saying that everything in its context was just peachy and in continuity with everything else old and new.  Exsurge Domine, 1520 AD, excommunicated anyone latae sententiae who said burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit.  Now the entire Church through Vatican II is against burning heretics….heck….now we’re against executing mass murderers if we can find them a secure life sentence.  Oy.

  Sounds like Bishop Fellay is more anxious for a reconciliation - with Bishop Williamson.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything, Vatican II has been a disaster and has resulted in chaos. Bishop Fellay is not afraid to stand up and speak directly. The Jews Freemasons always rejected Christ so what is so shocking with a roman catholic Bishop acknowledging it.It is time the happy clappy Catholics recognized the wolf in lambs clothing.
If the SSPX is wrong then the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years. If the catholic Church was right before Vatican II then the SSPX is right now.

Ironically this is another example that points to the trouble with Vatican II.  The Doctrine, not the mass, not the pope, the doctrine.  The SSPX fully accepts the authority of the pope.  They don’t accept the doctrinal changes of the Second Vatican Council.  A council that was clearly stated at being pastoral in nature and not binding on Catholics. 

The church teaches that there is one church and one path to salvation.  The church teaches that the Jews, Muslims, Freemasons, Protestants, etc.. must convert to be saved.  For years the the Jews, Muslims, and Freemasons as have actively tried to destroy the church.  That would make them our enemies.

Is this Luther all over again??  The dissidents can always find someone to “back” them, as Luther did. I knew some of the people who swayed that direction and felt all who took communion in the hand were going to hell! This is a scupulous attitude. If you look at history -Christ himself passed around a loaf of bread. He did not-as far as we know -scrape up the crumbs or tell them to take the bread only from his hand.
Communion in the hand was done first, even as a rounded host. But it was found, some did not put the host in their mouth for various reasons. I believe the most felt embarrassed not to go to communion because others would know they sinned. 
So the problem is to teach that the host is more important than personal appearance and feelings.  I have seen some take a child out of church, turning their back on an elevated host at consecration. Has the clergy not taught their parishoners enough reverance for what is happening at the altar - apparently not!! And have some gone “overboard” in their scrupulocity???
PLEASE GOD ENLIGHTEN YOUR “SHEEP”!!

The SSPX Website places the bishop’s comments in the proper context. “The word “enemies” used here by Bishop Fellay is of course a religious concept and refers to any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls.”

Does anyone remember what Jesus said to do about your enemies?  Certainly the Society has forgotten.  Does anyone who has read and lives by the Beatitudes really want the Society to become a part of Church?  Sounds like the good old days of the Inquisition.

Only when belief in the True Presence again reaches the almost perfect level that preceded VCII can I believe that all the problems caused by the council have been solved, but fighting the Magisterium is pointless. As a 1949 convert, having to sometimes receive Communion on the tongue from non-consecrated hands always grieves me greatly.  Familiarity has bred indifference.

Fellay contradicts the pope by saying that some of Vatican II’s documents are not valid, that the council contradicts Church teaching somehow. I don’t know about others, but I am tired of listening to this Protestant nonsense from these blundering reactionaries, at least as tired as I am of seeing their deep-seated antisemitism surface again and again. If it’s not Williamson running around in an SS outfit like a guest straying from a Halloween party, it’s Fellay railing against the Jews like some actor practicing for the role of Pierre Laval or Marshall Pétain in a movie. The Church has enough problems without burdening herself further with these latter day National Socialists.

Gee, didn’t expect the comparisons to Bishop Williamson…  But, I digress.  The simple truth is, Bishop Fellay said nothing incorrect in accordance with Tradition, and more writings of Saints, Popes, and even the Church Fathers than can be named in the space provided.  People parrot garbage about the Society with no first hand experience at all based on points that don’t offer offense to anything other than the protetantized, painfully heretical nonsense that has cropped up in Holy Mother Church in the wake of Vatican II.  I mean, really; which is worse?  The huge number of liturgically abusive “masses”, the number of vocations, or better, the utter lack of vocations, the billions in hush money to protect queer priests whose tendencies are ignored; or, a comment taken to be somehow the main point of his speech???  The Society puts on beautiful, deeply spiritual Masses in line with those going back centuries in form and intent.  Given the choice, I’d drive 500 miles for one of these than go half a block to hear Father hippy sing koom-ba-yah any day.  Is the average Jew plotting against Holy Mother Church?  I doubt it seriously, but in the past have Jews, modernists, and masons gone way out of their way to try and subvert Her?  Absolutely.  Don’t like the truth?  There’s a Protestant pretend Church with your name on it. 

To be Catholic is to adhere to the truth regardless of how many others desert Her or attack you.  There is never change based on current politically correct (or incorrect) thought or pressure.  Imagine if the martyred Saints from the first centuries changed either Dogma, Doctrine, or the current favorite thing to attempt to change, interpretation?  Being Catholic is hard, and thank Almighty God for the opportunity to be in the struggle.

Several questions come to mind: Why whenever the SSPX is in question is there a strong stench of antisemitism in the air? Why do so many conservative Catholics shy away from even mentioning this obnoxious aspect of SSPX? Why should Catholics be eager to have schismatics who continue to reject the validity of a Church council back in their midst?

Seems to be a lot of hostility to the SSPX in the comments here. I wonder how the commenters feel about those groups on the left which promote views against Church teachings yet are still considered in full communion - the Jesuit schools that invite pro-abortion speakers, the religious orders that have come out in favor of women’s ordination. It is clear there is a double standard here.

Folks,
  What are sins of the flesh?  Sex right?  Wrong….they are in there but so is “factions” according to the Holy Spirit below in Galatians.  You can be perfectly chaste and end up in hell through “faction” making or “dissensions.”  SSPX people can be perfect in chastity and perish if they get this “factions” thing wrong….only God knows whether this SSPX person is guilty of factions or whether he has a sincere erroneous conscience in the area of constructive criticism as Paul used against Peter in Galatians also.  But faction forming and dissensions is a potential problem as to being excluded from heaven even if you are chaste and prayerful and never steal…scripture by “flesh” means “earthly” in the fallen sense:
    Galatians 5:
      “19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions,
21 occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Jan. 9, You are right Jon Patrick…there are those who promote things contrary to Church teaching but they don’t break away from the Church founded by Jesus Himself who said we would always have sinners among us. I personally would like the Church to take on Pelosi, Biden, etc and I know the Bishops have been speaking to these people privately.  But Card. LeFebvre openly and defiantly and formally broke away from the Church and led many to follow him. Christ found the Catholic Church…Card. Lefebvre broke away to found his own Church while publicly declaring that Pope John Paul II was a devil and, in effect, that anyone who did not agree with him, Lefevbre, was a spawn of satan.  Sorry, that’s not the way to go about this.  There are many who have differing opinions about all this…on both sides of the issue.  But abandoning the ship is simply not the way to build up the Body of Christ which is HIS Church…not mine or yours but His! We are members of His Body the Church founded by Him…and Jesus told Peter, not Card. Lefebvre, that He would build His Church on Peter and give to Peter the keys to bind or to loose…Card. Lefevbre has tried to take those ‘keys’ from Peter to use for his own agenda, and however well intentioned that agenda may be, it is not the way to go.  Peace, florin

I too have no trouble criticizing both the schismatic SSPX and those like Biden whose statements all have a hidden message: “I couldn’t care less what the Church teaches.” Florin is exactly correct in what he says above (btw, it would be interesting to know how he learned that bishops are talking privately with bad Catholics on the left). Because one mentions his displeasure with people like Williamson and Fellay and doesn’t mention Biden in the same breath most emphatically does not signify approval of the latter.

God Bless Bishop Fellay.  It’s about time Catholics heard a bishop speak cold, hard TRUTH.

Reading between the lines, the bishop is saying, Ratzinger is a lying, modernist heretic, and slithers around in Rome awaiting his end if he doesn’t repent-HELL!

Bl. John XXIII once stated that “the Church has no enemies.” I think most of us would disagree with this statement. If we think the Church has enemies, then who would they be? Certainly, the Devil and his demons, along with the Spirit of the World and the Spirit of Anti-Christ can be seen as foes of Christ’s Kingdom. Leo XIII let it be known that Masons are enemies of the Church, for their god is Satan. Furthermore, Pope St. Pius X, let it be known that Modernists are heretics and enemies of the Church and Divine Revelation. Is Islam at odds with the Church? Cardinal Newman stated that Mohammed was a foreshadowing of the Anti-Christ. And I think that certain chapters in the Koran would be somewhat confrontational in nature towards the Catholic Church and true Christianity. Was Martin Luther an enemy of the Church after his heresy and revolutionary acts? Many documents from the very founders of Protestantism claim that the Catholic Church is the very “!@#$% of Babylon” mentioned in the Apocalypse.

Oh, but then we balk when it comes to the Jews, don’t we. Have you ever read St. John’s Gospel, chapter 8? Our dear Lord seems to have enemies amongst the Jewish elite. St. Paul does have something to add to this debate as well, I think. I think he calls some of his brethren according to the flesh, “enemies of God.” Well, I would think that an enemy of God would be an enemy of the Church. When we speak of World War II, we say the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and became our enemies. Do we condemn all Japanese? No…but certainly some! There is a reason the Fathers of the Church called many Jewish elite, the “Synagogue of Satan.” Judaism has been a false religion for 2,000 years. Read the Talmud and you will find outright blasphemy against our dearest Lord. If some Jews hate Christ than they hate His Mystical Body. The Jews, by definition, are enemies of Christ and the Church. But we are to love our enemies.

Re: Alvin Sarracino      
As I said, antisemitism seems to raise its ugly head every time SSPX is in question. Our recent popes were quite correct: We should excise this foul medieval accretion from Catholicism without further delay. It has besmirched the Church’s good name for far too long. Fellay is certainly not the first bishop in history to have espoused this shameful nonsense, but we should strive to ensure that he is the last.

The Vatican has a problem with the Society of St. Pius X.  They have no ear - no answer - for the sincere cries of warning from SSPX Traditionalists that something is awry - that something tangible has destroyed the faith and that it can be addressed and cured by working together with tolerance and care.  But in this age, habitually responding with unkind cries of “foul!” instead of offering a thoughtful response to SSPX, the Vatican has backed itself into an embarrassing corner, crying “foul!” ever louder, as a child who wants attention does.  They have found a need for a scapegoat - someone to pin the worst sins on - someone to vilify to make SSPX go away so they don’t have to think that maybe, just maybe, some things they mistakenly designated “holy” are the very basis of the Church’s demise.  Coming before God to admit there’s something wrong is the beginning of the process of reconciliation, just like in the confessional.  That is something the Vatican refuses to do.  There is something horribly wrong. 

False accusations are rampant in the religious and political world today, and sadly, most recently, they are appearing in the Catholic Church’s relations with Jews and the SSPX.  There is nothing more disturbing than hearing that a good person as been falsely accused of being a racist or bigot while they were just trying to do the best they can to communicate some virtuous notion, some article of faith they believe in their heart is right.  Turning on the light of Truth for others is often difficult, especially if you have been disinherited by those you wish to support.  Supreme lack of Christian charity is the accuser’s problem.  Recent reference: Archbishop Gerhard Muller of Ecclesia Dei’s comment on NCRegister (10/04/2012) making a viciously false statement against SSPX Bishop Williamson that he “denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.”  No, Mr. Ecclesia Dei, Williamson never was the problem.  Malicious false accusations of racism from the Vatican that you are cultivating are the problem! 

Q:  For starters, who would an enemy of the Church be?  A:  One who seeks to divide its members and to profit from associating with the winner of the fight that ensues.  The devil himself is involved in such proceedings, as the evil task seeks success via impressing hatred of the outsider’s opponent in others.  Hatred is necessary to intentionally destroy the opponent’s reputation and confidence.  Sometimes, being falsely accused of racism and bigotry leads to suicide - sometimes to murder - but never to a holy outcome unless there is a charitable intervention leading to avoidance of evil.  False accusations of racism and bigotry are one of the most spiritually destructive attacks that satan has ever invented.  The enemies of the Church know it works.  That’s why they use it.  The final blow - public abandonment and ridicule of those who suffer under its persecution - usually results in getting rid of them one way or another. 

“The Church is beyond that!”, you say?  “It doesn’t work with satan to win its arguments!”  Think again.  The value of the spoils of an inner-Church contention between members are nil and incomprehensible to God’s children, but to its enemies, they are priceless.  The clincher here is “incomprehensible to God’s children”.  Running around clueless about the nature of evil after decades of not being taught how to respond, countless Catholics have ended up siding with satan on many a divisive issue - including vilifying Traditional Catholics like the Society of St. Pius X.  As pawns in the yin-yang Catholic theatre, they have nothing to fall back on - no holy solution they can even imagine.  The satanic influence does not compromise with Christ. 

So, let us look charitably upon our neighbors, as Christ teaches.  With good will, if you please.  Let us consider that Bishop Fellay and his former partner, Bishop Williamson of the SSPX are those neighbors.  The enemies of the Church are to be prayed for, that they will convert to the one true faith and not seek to ruin Christianity.

Bishop Fellay clearly chose his words poorly given their reception and the fact that one statement has overshadowed the broader message of his talk.  When listened to in context, it is clear that he is referring to powerful leaders within the Jewish community, as well as powerful freemasons (outside of the Church), and modernists.  Without calling them enemies, he probably should have merely drawn attention to the fact that they are external to the Catholic Church, and should have no say or interest in what groups are accepted in full communion and which groups are not.  Furthermore, outsiders should have absolutely no interest or say in what doctrines and beliefs adherents to the Catholic faith hold.  I encourage anyone with a strong interest in this talk, to listen to it in full length.  You may then see it in a different light.  That being said, VERY poor choice of words on Bishop Fellay’s part.

http://www.sspxaudio.com/20121228-Bishop-Fellay-Conference.mp3

I would also encourage all critics of the sspx to read The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church.  It can be seen as, among other things, a defense of the society’s existence.

http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Crisis-Church-Matthias-Gaudron/dp/1892331799

Peace and God bless

My the tone of these comments it has become obvious that the Kingdom that Jesus talked about really did begin to die after the Edit of Milan.  The Romanization of the church began and the simple teachings of Jesus have nearly vanished.  Now it is about power, and a tragic case of mind control.  The Beatitudes are now a thing of the past, and all the great theologians have been expelled so that we now have a theological dumbing down.  What would Jesus recognize in the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church other than a political organization of Scribes and Pharisees?

First this group is STILL has not been accepted by the Vatican as valid so what they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

Second, I do not understand why Jews would be considered as an “enemy of the church”. Jesus and the apostles were Jews. The Old Testament is filled with Jewish teachings.

Our own Christianity had the basic beginnings that sprang out of Judaism. I liken Judaism to high school courses and Christianity to college courses.

Re Linda Nelson, Angel, and others of their persuasion:
I rest my case. One need only read what they say here. These people are impervious to rational argument or persuasion. Like many lurking about the far right-wing fringes of society both religious and secular, they are conspiracy mongers, convinced that “powerful Jews”, “Catholics ... siding with satan (sic)”, and secret Masonic enemies clothed as clergy at the Vatican, are spoiling everything. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that, for example, ex-SSPX Bishop Williamson is a rabid antisemite who denies the history we all know (see http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/sspx-expels-bishop-williamson/),they persist; the problem, Ms Nelson assures us, is not Williamson the neo-Nazi, it’s the Vatican’s lack of charity toward this rogue!

Reading stuff like this makes me all the more grateful to John Paul II for finally saying aloud that the Church had sinned against the Jews in the past and that antisemitism was (and remains today) a grave sin. Two quotes from him are germane here:  “[the Church rejects] clearly and definitively anti-Semitism in all its expressions…it is not enough to deplore and condemn hostility against the Jewish people; … it is also necessary to foster friendship, esteem and fraternal relations…” and “We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours [i.e. the Jews] to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”

I know that citing this pope is probably not a game-changer for the conspiracy bugs who write above; they probably think he too is a “powerful Mason” or—who knows?—even a “secret Jew”. Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility in their minds. For the rest of us still in the real world, though, his words ought to help us understand why the Vatican is keeping the SSPX at arm’s length. Vatican authorities suspect, as I do, that it is a nest of unreformed Jew-baiters and sedevacantist crackpots.The SSPX’s every action seems only to substantiate this suspicion.

Re Linda Nelson, Angel, and others of their persuasion:
I rest my case. One need only read what they say here. These people are impervious to rational argument or persuasion. Like many lurking about the far right-wing fringes of society both religious and secular, they are conspiracy mongers, convinced that “powerful Jews”, “Catholics ... siding with satan (sic)”, and secret Masonic enemies clothed as clergy at the Vatican, are spoiling everything. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that, for example, ex-SSPX Bishop Williamson is a rabid antisemite who denies history—Fellay even booted him out of the society finally, so egregiously foolish were his opinions about the Shoah—they persist; the problem, Ms Nelson assures us, is not Williamson the neo-Nazi, it’s the Vatican’s lack of charity toward this rogue!

Reading stuff like this makes me all the more grateful to John Paul II for finally saying aloud that the Church had sinned against the Jews in the past and that antisemitism was (and remains today) a grave sin. Two quotes from him are germane here:  “[the Church rejects] clearly and definitively anti-Semitism in all its expressions…it is not enough to deplore and condemn hostility against the Jewish people; … it is also necessary to foster friendship, esteem and fraternal relations…” and “We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours [i.e. the Jews] to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”

I know that citing this pope is probably not a game-changer for the conspiracy bugs who write above; they probably think he too is a “powerful Mason” or—who knows?—even a “secret Jew”. Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility in their minds. For the rest of us still in the real world, though, his words ought to help us understand why the Vatican is keeping the SSPX at arm’s length. Vatican authorities suspect, as I do, that it is a nest of unreformed Jew-baiters and sedevacantist crackpots.The SSPX’s every action seems only to substantiate this suspicion.

Jan. 11th - Steven…satan seems to be using you as a tool to speak making you the enemy of the Church, of Christ Himself ...be careful! Don’t let satan use you as his tool…

Jan. 11th…Linda, the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, not Card. Lefebvre, has tried to work with ‘tolerance’ but has been publicly called satan by Card. Lefebvre and some of his followers…Jesus said that there would always be sinners in HIS Church, as there are everywhere, but that His Church would survive - He did not make this promise to Card. Lefebvre who, however sincere his intentions may have been, turned his back on the Church founded by Christ, publicly attacked the Pope and led so many in his schism and thus became an enemy of the Church and of God.  Luther did the same thing, Henry VIII did the same thing.  And, since Jesus gave the authority to St. Peter for His Church and not to Card. Lefebvre, Card. Lefebvre’s pride led him to move outside the Church and take others with him…those who left the Church need to reconcile - not the other way around.  Yes, there are sinners in the Church - I’m sure there are sinners among your group too…Jesus said there would be for that is part of our fallen human nature…if you want to be part of Card. Lefebvre’s group, that is between you and God. But don’t justify this by attacking Christ’s own Church…

Jan. 11th, furthermore Linda, you accuse those who are divisive of being of satan while you yourself are being divisive…you say we should look charitably on our neighbors while spewing forth evil propaganda…and that’s what it is.  Don’t judge a book by it’s cover…the Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Jesus and with the fullness of faith, has so many obvious sinners while the fallen away group you defend does not…on the surface.  But evil generates evil and those who lead people away from the Church founded by Christ committed a grave sin - they followed the promptings of satan, not of Jesus…if you want to reform the Church as great saints have done, then you remain within the Church…stop preaching about fairness and tolerance while showing none.  I believe there are many good people in the society which broke away from the Church, who were led astray by Card. Lefebvre…but the leaders are fighting Christ and His Church because they want their own interpretation to be accepted over the representatives chosen by Christ Himself when He gave that authority to St. Peter…you may talk and talk and try to convince others that the society and Card. Lefebvre did the right thing…but they did not.  You say we should look charitably upon our neighbors…please follow your own advice and pray for guidance because if you are with the society, you are not in union with the Church founded by Christ…I’m sure you are trying to follow Christ - He will lead you home if you open your heart and your mind to the truth…I will pray for you.

I apologize for my double post above; I saw a computer indication that led me to believe my initial post had not been successful, revised it a bit, and re-posted. Again, sorry. One detail I notice in several posts here, important to keep in mind. The founder of SSPX, Marcel Lefèbvre, was an archbishop, but never a cardinal. A relative of his, though, Joseph-Charles Lefèbvre, was elevated to the cardinalate by John XXIII in 1960. Unlike his rebellious cousin Marcel, Joseph-Charles was a loyal son of the Church till his death, participating in both Vatican II and in the election of Paul VI. I am sure Joseph-Charles would not enjoy being confused with the schismatic even in memory.

Bishop Fellay seems to believe he is holier than the Pope. That conviction in itself raises a big red flag. How can Catholics embrace SSPX when it violates a fundamental belief in the primacy of Peter that unquestionably predates Vatican II.

First of all, I am Catholic and you have depicted me as being with SSPX, which I am not.  Doing that may serve to make readers dismiss my words, but I realize it is because I wish to see reconciliation between them and those who unkindly contend they are outside the Church.  Some of you, like Archbishop Muller of Ecclesia Dei, falsely accuse them of racism (a falacious argument - and who promotes false arguments?).  Vicious, uncharitable attacks are being used by many in the Church to attempt to ruin reputations (like trying to accuse me of being “one of them”, whom you obviously judge as being below standard).  Saying that SSPX is outside the Church does not make it true (only Christ knows what is in their hearts), and defaming them with respect to their loyalty to the Pope and Christ only serves satan’s purpose.  Do not side with satan by omitting SSPX from the category of groups who deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. 

Christ is eternal, ever-present and kind.  Christ is forgiving and most loving.  We must bow to His eternal Goodness.  Christ’s influence is eternal and He is watching the current situation between SSPX and the Vatican.  Christ is omniscient.  Resorting to incendiary attacks about someone’s history who has died (one who, many self-righteously argue, deserves hell) is indeed working with satan to keep reconciliation from happening.  Look within yourself to ask if you really value reconciliation with someone you have judged to be “outside the Church” and if you seek to designate those Jewish people who have chosen to be outside the Church as being one of the groups you wish to see reconciled.  Do the Jewish people wish to see Christ prosper? 

“He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30)  Certainly we can be kind to each other, but reconciliation would mean the Jews’ acceptance of Christ as their only Savior.  The fact that SSPX designates those outside the Church as enemies of the Church is the very argument you yourself are expressing to validate your argument against SSPX!  May God restore your blind eyes!  Designating the Jewish people as being outside the Church is the first step toward their conversion.  A common ground must be met.  There is no mystery - rejecting Christ will never lead to the beatific vision for the Jewish people.  Let us work with kind respect and love. 

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.”  Mark’s teaching applies to everyone on earth, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or secular humanist.  Turning an indifferent eye and a deaf ear to the conversion of the Jews in order to be politically correct is siding with satan.  Designating Catholics as being outside the Church is doing the same.

Linda: Like many whose position is a bit dodgy, you tend to be prolix. I do not think that approach is persuasive, so let me be as direct as possible: If the SSPX is inside the Church rather than outside as you seem to believe, exactly why then is the Vatican wasting its time in talks with this group? And another direct question: If the SSPX is not in fact antisemitic, why is that moniker so often attached to its name by people of every conceivable political and ecclesiastical stripe in countries around the globe?

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22)
“and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now is in the world already.” (1 John 4:3)

I can’t believe all the satanic Hitler-hatred coming from Catholics on this site.  I feel compelled to tell you - Hitler LOST THE WAR!  And satan has been pathologically incensed ever since, vowing to keep the hatred that Hitler spawned alive - as well as only the most powerful demon alive can.  And what, on its plate, can be more hateful than falsely accusing innocent Catholics of being Nazi Jew-haters? 

Marxists (“liberation theologians”) in the Church hierarchy who wish to stimulate changes in touchy issues in the fundamental teachings of Christ - by way of conflicts (preferably violent ones) - are playing the race card, as Marx taught, to get their way.  They are succeeding, over the corpses of dead Catholic souls. 

Whether it’s brown-nosing the Pope or defaming a Traditional Catholic society of priests (and SSPX has many, many priests - enough to make even the lowest demon jealous), satan is using only the most hateful, the most tried-and-true methods.  You ask why there are so many the world over calling SSPX Jew-haters?  I would counter with asking you why there are so many pro-abortionists and rapists and sickness and death in the world.  You are witnessing the fact that satan has a very, very loyal following throughout the world.  Please pray to the Holy Trinity that you will not side with satan in its attempt to destroy the Church.  The Society of St. Pius X are NOT Jew-haters.  Jesus, Mary and Joseph, help them.

Why do you say “breakaway group” as if they are not Catholic? Why do you think they are not Catholic?

Linda: Once again you manage to talk on and on without addressing the questions I asked. I’ll try again: Why is the Vatican in constant ‘talks’ with these people if they are already part of the Catholic Church? (Let me give you a hint: It is because they are schismatics and have been for many decades. Oh, by the way, your own use of the vile phrase “brown-nose” in relation to Pope Benedict leads me to suspect that you harbor the same kind of pride plaguing the SSPX and its followers.)

Concerning the second question I asked you, no one accuses the SSPX with, say, devil worship or embezzlement. Rather, there is constant talk of antisemitism, and this talk comes from all stripes of opinion. You—why am I not surprised by this?—attribute this to a very successful satanic conspiracy. I prefer to believe that where there is smoke, lots of it, there just may be fire.

Yes, satan is in charge of many an aspect of the Church today, whether it’s brownnosing the Pope to get its way, harrassment and defamation of Christ’s people, or self-serving name-calling against a group of priests and their followers. 

Regarding Vatican II, Pope Paul IV (who is in the process of being canonized) describes the concept very well that I have been trying to explain: 

“We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation…. We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. [Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation]

Sorry - got my Roman numerals switched up.  Pope Paul VI is in the process of being canonized.

There is no “sort of” Catholic. Either you’re Catholic or you’re not. Society folks most certainly ARE Catholic.

If you want to find a group that is NOT Catholic, ask any parish to please raise their hand if they think it’s OK to use NFP under ordinary, normal circumstances, or contraception. All those who raise their hand should be asked to please leave, and no longer consider themselves Catholic.

If you were to go into a Society chapel, and ask a question like this, what Catholic teaching would you ask if they are in denial of?

Linda: You seem only to remember facts that appear to buttress your peculiar vision of the Church. It is surprising, for instance, that you dare quote Paul VI, the pope who, in a consistory of 24 May 1976, criticized Archbishop Lefebvre by name because of his continued activities with PPSX; this is a harsh measure by Vatican standards. Later, Pope John Paul II, also now under consideration for canonization, finally had it with this rebellious French schismatic and excommunicated him and the crowd of rebels in PPSX. The archbishop seemingly forgot that he alone did not constitute the Catholic Church any more than Henry VIII of England did. You would do well to freshen your own memory of these matters.

Now Henry VIII and the Catholic bishops who denied papal supremacy did in fact separate themselves from the Church by this fact. Papal comments, canonized or not, do not excommunicate people.

Andrew: You are at least as wrong as Linda on just about every count. Pope John Paul II EXCOMMUNICATED Lefebvre July 1, 1988; it wasn’t some offhand comment by the pope, but a formal excommunication declaring Lefebvre was a schismatic along with all SSPX clerics who participated in the illicit consecration of June 30, 1988. Look it up. That excommunication was not lifted till 2009.

As for the supposed sinners in real Catholic communities as opposed to spotless attendees at the schismatic chapels of the SSPX, I am sure you are right that there is a lot of sin in the authentic Catholic Church. That said, I know of a Continuing Anglican community near my house where, as in the schismatic SSPX chapels, there would be very little if any dissent from standard Catholic teachings on all manner of subjects. But the people there are Anglican, not members of the Catholic Church, and they are not confused about this matter as you and Linda clearly are. You both offer insights, though, into why it is so difficult to deal with this group of schismatics. Language is elastic for them, stretched every which way to conform to their peculiar views of the moment.

I have been following the punitive, self-righteous, and exclusionary verbiage on this thread since it started.  It would seem all your man created rules of conduct are more important than the simple message of Jesus:
Love the Divine.
Love the Divine in one another.
Share the bread and cup in remembrance.
Live the Beatitudes.
Maybe a trip through the verses of Matthew 23 concerning the Scribes and Pharisees may help you to understand how you sound.  May our Lord be in your hearts.

Richard: Imprecision in language and distortion of facts are not helpful in any debate. Neither are simplistic formulas like the one you offer. Your wording makes your Protestantism clear enough. You should confine yourself to debates within those sects. May a trip to the desert proclaimed in your handle spare us any more of your platitudes.

Jack,
Nice try at silencing a Catholic convert of 53 years who has only missed Sunday mass twice.  The teachings of Jesus were simple and worth following.  The teachings of men are complex and punitive for a reason.  Most of us contemplatives are simple, which is why the Church looks upon us with a jaundice eye.  Once we enter our inner room there is no power and control over us.  Besides, nearly all the things you claim to be the true teachings of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church can not be proven, but they do give you an opportunity to be exclusionary and punitive.

Perhaps you should read what you just wrote, Jack. If the excommunication is why you think they are not Catholic, and you obviously know it was lifted, then how can you still think they are not Catholic?

Jack, can you please tell us more about how Anglicans do not venture from traditional Catholic teachings?

Ryan:
You missed my point. This Continuing Anglican community is very traditional, but that respect for traditional teachings, regardless of what they are, cannot in any way make it Catholic. Linda implies that, because SSPX schismatics may follow traditional Catholic teaching concerning sexual matters, that fact makes them somehow automatically “Catholic”. She and some others here fail to understand the concepts of obedience and schism. If you were to set up your own church and follow all Catholic moral teachings perfectly, you still would not be Catholic.

Richard: One of the few accurate things Linda managed to say was that our pews are filled with people who believe themselves Catholic but in fact follow their own religious road; your notions exposed here are prima facie evidence supporting that assertion.

Andrew Goddard: If they are Catholic as you seem to think, why has the Vatican wasted so much time trying to talk to these obstreperous rebels? You SSPX claqueurs are nothing if not tiresomely persistent in your tendentious assertions. Let me quote Pope Benedict to dispel the error you have tried to insinuate here (letter dated March 10, 2009, AFTER the excommunication was lifted):

“As long as the Society [i.e. SSPX] does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

“...[T]he Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers DO NOT LEGITIMATELY EXERCISE ANY MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH.” That is clear to me and answers your question, but I am not sure it will satisfy hidebound schismatics; nothing ever does. Here is the URL for the entire document: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Once upon a time I was in a class concerning the New Testament and we read the Beatitudes together.  One of the ladies in the group got rather indignant and asked if the Church had approved them as they sound like some of that Protestant stuff.  I am always amazed at what we Catholics do not know about our religion.  There is an assumption that tradition is Divine Truth just because we have done it for a long time.  The Rosary is truth but the Beatitudes are questionable?  Amazing.  We forget sometimes that the Church teaches we are all holy, apostolic and priestly people and God speaks directly to each of us in our silence.  Maybe we should all take time to listen.

Jack, surely you don’t think your vocabulary increases your credibility do you? I’m sure Linda can use a thesaurus too. But I don’t know if in person you are really as rude as your writing style makes you out to be. Richard of the Desert is probably just sitting in his room shaking his head.

Whether SSPX Masses are licit has nothing to do with whether or not they, as a group, are Catholic. Also, whether the priests are Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not the people who attend their Masses are Catholic.

What makes people Catholic is their baptism, and they remain Catholic as long as they don’t deny revealed Truth. You’ll probably learn about this when you advance to the 3rd book of the Baltimore Catechism…or was that in book 2?

Would you consider Protestants members of the one Church of Christ?  And even if they were not members of the Church, would you say that they too can be saved?

Andrew: I do not have to use a thesaurus; I speak Spanish, French, and English, and I read Portuguese and Latin. But, no, I don’t think command of language increases my credibility. I apologize if my way of writing exceeds your abilities to read, but it’s simply what I am used to.

The discussion—you may have missed this too—was about an organization and whether it was Catholic, not about those unwary enough to subscribe to its services. Read once again what Pope Benedict said, the parts where he talks about “the society”, i.e. the SSPX, in what I quoted above.

As to Protestants or anyone else for that matter, I suppose they can be saved. Soteriology, however, is not my forte and, at any rate, I don’t spend much time trying to guess who is saved and who damned.

Once again, I apologize for using big words here, but you will find online dictionaries quite helpful.

OK then, if this is true:

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.” - Cardinal Levada
-
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
-
and that even if “Protestants or anyone else for that matter can be saved”, then why all this anti-SSPX rhetoric?

Some thoughts from the Church concerning salvation:

Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to know His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.  Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace (Lumen Gentium 16)

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all persons of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.  For since Christ died for all people, and since the ultimate vocation of the human race is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every person the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (Gaudium et Spes 22)

The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions.  She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of like, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all people.  (Nostra Aetate 2)

Consequently, Church members are exhorted to a course of action:  prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these people, as well as the values in their society and culture.  (Nostra Aetate 2)

Andrew: Because SSPX is divisive, disobedient, and puts in question repeatedly a valid council of the Church. In a word, SSPX spreads error and scandal. And, as a famous American politician once said, “There you go again!” I said I supposed Protestants could be saved but that I am not an expert on such matters. By quoting only part of what I wrote, you tried to make it seem as though my statement was an unqualified affirmation of some truth. You’ve clearly learned lessons from the SSPX book of tricks.

Richard: What you quote is exact. Those tempted to misinterpret, though, need to notice the critical words in the first sentence of your citation: “...who through no fault of their own….” Forget those seven words and you immediately falsify everything else written there.

Just found these thoughts from the current Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Muller. It is aimed directly at rebellious Catholics who adhere to schismatic groups like SSPX:

“Unity in Christ, not a unity produced according to a program and later invoked by a partisan speaker! We are not a community of people aligned to a party program…our unity is gifted to us. We believe in the one Church united in Christ. If you believe in Christ, really believe — not manipulating the teachings of the Church, or singling out individual points to support your own personal ideology, but rather unconditionally entrusting yourself to Christ—then the unity of the Church is also important. Then the Church will not be, as it is sometimes described in Scripture, torn apart by jealousy and ambition.”

So you know, I have nothing to do with the SSPX.
I do however believe in the original understanding of:
-
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” Fourth Lateran Council.
-
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII
-
I also think Vatican II was simply the Church’s effort to restate what the Church had always taught and didn’t change anything or define anything new. Therefore the only way it can be understood, as the SSPX correctly maintains, is as the Church has always taught regarding religious liberty, ecclesiology, collegiality, and ecumenism.
-
I also believe certain people, such as Jews, Masons and modernists, and perhaps yourself, oppose the Vatican recognizing SSPX as being Catholic. Why? Because they believe what the Church has always taught. This is why their bishop referred to them as “enemies of the Church” and this is why they objected… they oppose the Church recognizing any group that actually looks, dresses and thinks in an actually Catholic way… because they are anti-Christ as Messiah, as God, and likewise anti-Church.

Andrew: Whether you belong to SSPX or not is indifferent to me; I am satisfied that you are a fanatic with a single goal in mind, viz. to prove to others and yourself that you and those you agree with are much smarter than the designated leaders of the Catholic Church. You, your fellow cognoscenti, and the handful of schismatic bishops in SSPX constitute, at least in your mind, that remnant that the Church will at sometime find itself reduced to, the few remaining faithful on Earth. Others, among them me, see the world differently; we prefer to have the dog wag the tail, not the other way around.

It is a curious fact that many years ago I meant another Catholic by the name of Goddard. He too was a conspiracy bug, suspicious of people like John Paul II, the pope at that time, and he too harbored antisemitic views. I didn’t buy the snake oil he was retailing back then, and the product doesn’t seem to have improved with age if the sample you offer is indicative.

Don’t leave those crazy Mormons off the list of enemies!

I doubt your Catholic authenticity if you mean what you said about SSPX and then say “Andrew: Whether you belong to SSPX or not is indifferent to me”. Have you no concern for the salvation of souls?

I don’t know who this other Goddard could have been. It certainly wasn’t me. I might be “fanatic” but I’m not anti-semitic. I hope all Jews accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and get baptized so they can be saved. Don’t you?

It’s not a question of smarts. It’s a question of humble acceptance of Catholic dogma or the denial or twisting of it.

Wow.  I took a little break and came back to find that people are attacking my words like flies around dog poop! 

To me, the errors that Bishop Fellay and the Society are against are in plain sight for everyone in the Novus Ordo pew.  The handshake and sexual kiss of peace, women bringing the gifts up to the altar wearing skirts above their butt cheeks along with her boyfriend wearing a violent video game T-shirt.  You know.  The stuff that makes you REALLY uncomfortable at Mass that is ignored. 

Much more than this, though - there are the errors that result from liberal, anti-traditional interpretations of Vatican II documents that are horribly, miserably written.  They are filled with ambiguities that “interpretations” (AKA hermeneutics) can NEVER resolve.  And the fact that such frightfully urgent “interpretations” are necessary at all is a huge problem in itself that should be a red flag to anyone concerned about their veracity. 

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit and I have truthfully have trouble believing the participants in the actual writing of Vatican II documents were even sober.  Only someone who is not thinking straight could write such vague, ambiguous and obscure things, declare them holy, and aggressively (even savagely) defend everything they did.  If we go back and find the alcohol orders and the cache of fine liquors available at every one of those meetings, I’ll bet the tab is through the roof.  (Oh, now because I said that, there will be a rush to find and destroy documents of liquor and wine purchased during the Council - yes, wine the drink that priests are SUPPOSED to use for COMMUNION.)  Actually, I believe those receipts would be a good place to start in an investigation into Vatican II “errors”. 

Because of what the authors have left us with, we now resort to speculation and bickering, just as the Marxist Liberation Theologians prescribed as the method of changing the teachings of the Church.  The one who shouts loudest, says the most vicious things, and sides with satan most often by foul and violent means is the clear winner in Marx’s world.  While the meek sit on the side and wish there was peace.  And poor Traditional priests and Bishops are hit shamelessly by everyone. 

Here Linda puts the frosting on the cake, so to speak, QED; anything I could add to her latest screed would be superfluous. Hers is indeed the mentality that plagues the SSPX crowd! And Andrew, true to form, manages once again to lift part of one sentence out of context, then throws in a dash of tartuffery, and finally blows the sulfurous mixture into a total insouciance for the fate of souls on my part. He says he is not a member of SSPX. Perhaps not, but he certainly plays the role extremely well.

Dave, the Mormons would have been included if they too had pressured Church leaders not to allow SSPX back in or to demand that they accept all of the Vatican II errors as a prerequisite to regaining their rightful canonical status.

You see, Dave, unlike the Masons, Marxists, Modernists, and Jews—oh, yes, especially the Jews!—the Mormons don’t have “inside agents” in the Vatican…yet. Just ask any SSPX zealot to get the whole sordid story of betrayal and treachery. (Before you do so, though, take a stiff drink; you’ll need it, believe me.)

A stiff drink eh?  This is all starting to make sense now

Vatican II documents show something very similar to the effects of alcohol-induced cognitive impairment in their wording (or lack thereof).  With obscure purpose and indecipherable connotations, with unsupported references to unknown entities, with unproven and unprovable vague assertions, the documents use ambiguous, unclear language to prove points (commonly known as a logical fallacy).  Drinking does a real number on communication and decision-making skills and gives drinkers a false sense of accomplishment, leads them on the wrong cognitive path, leads to arguments and egotism, and inhibits moral thinking.  Exactly what we DON’T want in a Vatican II Council document.  It’s interesting that the Vatican is trying to pass of these documents as furthering the “continuity” of the magisterium, when there is no continuity in the documents in the first place.  (Just wait - now you’ll soon hear more from the Vatican lauding their continuity.)

We’ve all heard of the irreconcilable arguments amongst Vatican II Bishops.  We’ve seen them raise their glasses to an unknown vision (was it the Vatican II Spirit of alcoholism?).  And we very clearly have seen the result of what they taught - with closed schools, flight from the seminaries, closed churches, heretical Catholics in public office, and, well, you get the picture.  Discontinuity has few holy fruits. 

Also, Marxist Liberation Theology, taught in a favorable light to most seminarians, is responsible for much that has left Catholicism ravaged.  (Wikipedia gives a good description of Liberation Theology.) Studying Karl Marx and his brand of mixed atheistic Communism and Christianity is something that Archbishop Muller of Ecclesia Dei fell for. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/03/pope-appoints-watchdog-marxist-links 

As a Liberation Theologian appointed by the Pope to the commission, he is now dealing with SSPX, who prefer the Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II rites.  Traditional Catholicism is anathema in that theology, so it is used as a public example of depravity. 

The Marx/Christ mixture is satanic, and its methods are those of public contention, bullying, vilifying and ostracizing those who do not agree to achieve “peace” (those who will not shut up and let them take over).  War in the name of peace is their standard, and changing the teachings of Christ to better fit their needs is their goal.  Marx taught that lying and deception is acceptable if it furthers progress toward a goal of a Communist Paradise.  Since “religion is the opium of the people”, they are always glad when what Marx called “necessary idiots” (those who are ignorant of Marxist means and methods) loudly deny that anything is happening, asserting the Marxist’s intentions are good.  Since the theology is couched in feel-good words and associations with groups and organizations that are known to be beneficent (like nuns, priests, and the faithful), many are unaware of the devastating acts they are participating in until it’s too late. 

Is it too late for the Church?  Are the Liberation Theologians in our Church finished with us?  Is Archbishop Muller a “necessary idiot” or does he have much more in mind for us and SSPX when the Pope (who also has inclinations toward the same theology) passes away?  When they are done displaying SSPX as an example of “bad boys”, will they just toss them out?  Probably.  That’s what Marxists teach. 

Are you a “necessary idiot” who falls for those who sell liberation from sexual morality and tradition, and revise Christ’s holy words to build their own Paradise on earth?  Well, that will never happen.  Anyway, Marxist Liberation Theologians will be overjoyed to hear more of the “conspiracy theory” and “McCarthyism” hate speech that supports their works.  Necessary idiots are a goldmine in Catholic blogs. 

Again, Linda here lends credibility to the assertion that there is little chance of coming to reason with SSPX and its partisans. If I didn’t know better, I would assume her latest rant above is a parody of some bad 1950s Commie-under-every-bed movie. She is as prolix as she is preposterous, but her notions are not at all unusual among those supporting this nest of schismatics. Antisemitism is only the most notorious aspect of the paranoia plaguing SSPX. A generally pestilent and loathsome atmosphere reigns in this pathetic organization.

We need to stop responding to people like Linda Nelson who come here to do the devil’s work…don’t give in to his wily manipulations of the truth…just ignore and say a prayer for those who come forth to do his work against the Catholic Church…the one founded by Christ Himself..

I think Florin is quite right. I will no longer respond to this paranoia. Linda, seek help.

My goodness.  The two of you.  Total posers and hypocrites.  Do you stop now, since you’ve roused us to battle?  I’ve stood by, mostly silent for the past three weeks, watching you lambast us, fellow Catholics, for following our consciences.  Now, I can stand silent no more.  You, Jack Gordon your attitude has been anything but Christian.  Unfounded attack upon unfounded attack.  Please remain silent as you have nothing productive to add to the dialogue.  The words that you use reveal a high level of education and perhaps, vocation, however the content of your statements reveals a lack of depth, a lack of faith, a lack of control over your human rage, and a lack of character.  Why respond to a soul-less, walking thesaurus?  Your arguments are indefensible.  I would like to see you try to defend them.  That is, unless you are too comfortable in your retirement!

To my detractors:  I stand by what I said.
I pray the Holy Trinity will guide you to treat everyone with respect and charity.  It would be a welcome change on these pages.  Thank you for not responding again.

Linda, I think a lot of what you said is exactly right. Perhaps if more of us write long essays like yours it will fill this blog so anyone else who might happen to see it won’t see the nonsense. Jack doesn’t seem capable of making any sense either, reducing what I thought was mature discussion to the level of elementary school kids pushing in the lunch line.  Has Jack actually made any logical statements on here at all? I’m getting the feeling that I should just shake the dust from my sandals. No point just repeating ourselves. May God have mercy on your soul, Jack.

Andrew: Glad to see you have openly stated that you and Linda are on the same page; anyway, it was rather obvious even before this admission that you harbored strong conspiratorial notions. I see that now you have also decided you are one of the apostles. Congratulations.