Orthodox Catholic commentary on current events.
But he was speaking off the cuff? Doesn't that mean it doesn't matter what he says?
I think he was mistranslated.
So if Skojek is not Catholic, what is his heresy? Failure to treat papal opinion as dogma?
God love TLM priests, they can always be counted on to support heresy! "It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls."- Pope St. Pius X.I am sure you will join me, Father, in thanking God for the Novus Ordo, the liturgy that broke the back of the pedophilia running rampant among the pre-Vatican II TLM priesthood!
What are you even talking about?
Dear Mr. Skellmeyer,Please bear in mind new people come to the internet daily. Some of them may actually think you have the slightest clue about what you're talking.If you could please post a disclaimer or something stating that you're actually a lobotomized turtle, and some days your head smashing against the keyboard makes almost intelligible words, it would be a huge help.Thanks!Or, you could just stop being stupid.
"God love TLM priests, they can always be counted on to support heresy!"Let's leave aside the fact that you didn't answer Father's question but instead wish to toss out a red herring in the hopes of distracting people from your baseless, erroneous, and unjust accusation. Instead, let's observed that no faithful Catholic could ever believe that priests who celebrate the traditional Roman "can always be counted on to support heresy." For if your claim is to be taken seriously, then that means you are saying every Roman Rite priest for 1,500 years was and is a supporter of heresy.I think it's more likely that, as a rule it's the traditional Roman Rite priests who down the ages properly understood and understand the Faith, and that it's your own personal understanding that's off. If you really mean to insist that all Catholic priests who celebrate the traditional rites are supporters of heresy (i.e., are heretics), then the only conclusion we can reach is that you yourself do not hold the Catholic Faith. If you don't mean to insist that, then you should humbly retract your outrageous and a-historical claim and apologize.It also means that you shouldn't ever quote St. Pius X as an authority, since, by your own rule about priests who celebrate the traditional Roman liturgy, he can always be counted on to support heresy. How dare you quote the words of an heretical pope!!! ;-)No doubt Mr. Kellmeyer would have been mouth-frothing furious about those who opposed and condemned the heresy and dereliction of duty of Pope Honorius -- right up to the moment that the pope confirmed the condemnation of Honorius.What's a Catholic to do when a pope is formally and permanently condemned by a later pope and Council? What's a Catholic to do when a saintly pope faced with disobedience from heretical priests is moved to underscore the obligation to obey the pope, but is later succeeded by a pope who agrees with the heretical priests who had opposed the saintly pope? Which pope should we listen to? Honorius I or St. Leo II? Are we to believe that the Faith is the creature of each new pope, reshaped and redefined after every conclave?". . . pedophilia running rampant among the pre-Vatican II TLM priesthood!"In fact almost all of the sodomite priests who've been found to have molested of boys were ordained after Vatican II. Thus, if any liturgy is to be implicated in sodomy, contrary to your insinuation against the Roman Church's ancient rites, it would appear to be the post-Vatican II rites that are most associated with this grievous sin against nature. And if the new rites have really broken the back of sodomy in the priesthood, how do we explain the current Roman Pontiff appointing several sodomites or protectors of sodomites to important positions in the Roman Curia, and relying on them to write his documents?
The John Jay report demonstrated quite clearly that the pedophiles were pre-Vatican II priests. The order NOT to ordain homosexuals as priests came out in 1961 - which proves that Rome knew homosexuals were pervasive in the PRE-VC II seminaries. Indeed, one could make a good argument that VC II was called in part to root out the long-standing homosexuality and pedophilia in the Church.If you want to blame the post-conciliar liturgy for the ills of the Church, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: by your rules, the pre-conciliar liturgy was responsible for the homosexual pedophile epidemic, and - again by your rules - the Novus Ordo broke the back of the TLM sexual abuses. FSSP and other TLM priests have a long post-conciliar history of engaging in Freemasonic thought, starting with the grand-daddy of them all Lefebvre, who was a liar and a schismatic from the beginning.
"The John Jay report demonstrated quite clearly that the pedophiles were pre-Vatican II priests."You mean the report that shows the vast majority of cases of priests committing sodomy with pubescent boys took place after 1965?"The order NOT to ordain homosexuals as priests came out in 1961 - which proves that Rome knew homosexuals were pervasive in the PRE-VC II seminaries."Yes, and St. Peter Damian decried the problem in the Middle Ages. Sodomites in Holy Orders is an old problem, and contrary to your belief, it's never been the holy rites of the Church that are the cause of the unholy priests."Indeed, one could make a good argument that VC II was called in part to root out the long-standing homosexuality and pedophilia in the Church."Could you point us to the conciliar document addressing that problem? I'm afraid it's not in my Gonzalez, Abbott, or Flannery.Are you sure you're referring to the right council?"If you want to blame the post-conciliar liturgy for the ills of the Church, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: by your rules, the pre-conciliar liturgy was responsible for the homosexual pedophile epidemic, and - again by your rules - the Novus Ordo broke the back of the TLM sexual abuses."Sorry, but that's a galactic-sized non sequitur. Even if sodomy was just as rampant in the pre-Vatican II Latin Rite priesthood as it has obviously been since 1965, it wouldn't follow that it was the ancient holy rites of the Roman Church that caused that unholiness. On the other hand, it's hardly unreasonable to think that a wholly unprecedented and destabilizing fabrication of a new liturgy, coming at a time when everything the Church had taught and believed for centuries was thrown into doubt, could be one of the more important factors involved the increase in the numbers of active sodomites in the priesthood.The post-conciliar liturgical deform is, of course, just one of the causes of the ills in the Church today. The traditionalist Catholic critique of Vatican II and its aftermath -- a critique you really ought to try to seriously engage one of these days -- doesn't put most of the blame on the liturgical deform. Yet it must have a part in it, since the law of prayer is the law of faith."FSSP and other TLM priests have a long post-conciliar history of engaging in Freemasonic thought, starting with the grand-daddy of them all Lefebvre, who was a liar and a schismatic from the beginning."How did you become such an expert in Freemasonic thought?And you still haven't answered Father McDonald's question . . . .
"You mean the report that shows the vast majority of cases of priests committing sodomy with pubescent boys took place after 1965?" - The priests involved were all formed in pre-Vatican II seminaries and ordained prior to the Council. All the bishops in the council? Formed by the TLM. All the priests, nuns and lay people who fell away? Formed by the TLM. If you want to blame the ills of the post-conciliar Church on the new liturgy, you have to blame the new liturgy on the failures of the TLM. AND you have to recognize that the pedophilia rings were all broken up after the new liturgy was introduced.All you have is post hoc, propter hoc fallacy, and you get upset when you're reasoning turns out to be equally applicable to the TLM.
Post a Comment