Do the folks over on Rorate and in the SSPX have any idea as to what Ricard’s beliefs are as well as his scandalous ecumenical behavior?
We have already seen that he is a big fan of the Talmud, but it doesn’t end there:
In Église de Montpellier for 23 May, Mgr Ricard writes: “This people, whom God has summoned, far from turning in on themselves for comfort, are invited by God to be a people of solidarity, uniting in the first place with our Jewish brothers with whom we celebrate at Pentecost the indefectible fidelity of God to his Covenant through the gift of his Word (Torah) and that of his Spirit.”
“Today Islam must be recognised as one of the religious components of our society.” (La Croix, Friday 9 November 2001)
“…the ideals of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity – must be recalled and promoted.” (Doc. cath., 4 January 2004, no 2305)
Do the folks over on Rorate and in the SSPX have any idea as to what Ricard’s beliefs are as well as his scandalous ecumenical behavior?
We have already seen that he is a big fan of the Talmud, but it doesn’t end there:
In Église de Montpellier for 23 May, Mgr Ricard writes: “This people, whom God has summoned, far from turning in on themselves for comfort, are invited by God to be a people of solidarity, uniting in the first place with our Jewish brothers with whom we celebrate at Pentecost the indefectible fidelity of God to his Covenant through the gift of his Word (Torah) and that of his Spirit.”
“Today Islam must be recognised as one of the religious components of our society.” (La Croix, Friday 9 November 2001)
“…the ideals of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity – must be recalled and promoted.” (Doc. cath., 4 January 2004, no 2305)
It has been my recent experience that the moderators at Rorate don’t want to address these matters with any seriousness. I have tried to generate discussion around the fact that a Catholic bishop who has dedicated himself to preserving Catholic Truth is barred from high level doctrinal discussions (perhaps the most important discussions in 40 years) unless he accepts the official secular version of historical events that have nothing to do with the Faith. They refuse to post my comments.
The story about Cardinal Picard turned into a veritable hug-fest over there.
It has been my recent experience that the moderators at Rorate don’t want to address these matters with any seriousness. I have tried to generate discussion around the fact that a Catholic bishop who has dedicated himself to preserving Catholic Truth is barred from high level doctrinal discussions (perhaps the most important discussions in 40 years) unless he accepts the official secular version of historical events that have nothing to do with the Faith. They refuse to post my comments.
The story about Cardinal Picard turned into a veritable hug-fest over there.
Those posting above have described a chronic problem at Rorate, their penchant for censoring any post that contains serious verifiable evidence about “elder brothers.” Short commentary critical of Judaism (or Jewish history), but without references, are occasionally allowed, but anything serious with verifiable and irrefutable references is summarily pulled down or not allowed at all. In other words, like Marxists, they allow the appearance of opposition, but no serious opposition to their errors. There was a flurry of such activity last week. When the strong arm censorship appeared to be lifted, there were some excellent posts, but they disappeared in less than an hour.
Those posting above have described a chronic problem at Rorate, their penchant for censoring any post that contains serious verifiable evidence about “elder brothers.” Short commentary critical of Judaism (or Jewish history), but without references, are occasionally allowed, but anything serious with verifiable and irrefutable references is summarily pulled down or not allowed at all. In other words, like Marxists, they allow the appearance of opposition, but no serious opposition to their errors. There was a flurry of such activity last week. When the strong arm censorship appeared to be lifted, there were some excellent posts, but they disappeared in less than an hour.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again — the SSPX and Lefebvre have been part of the plot since the beginning.
People will defend Lefebvre despite his vacillations, which brings us right back to the ridiculous way people used to defend John Paul II for his heresies — as if it were just accidental, or senility. These men were brilliant, they spoke many languages, and they knew theology inside and out. And yet anyone who has read the Baltimore catechism knows you can’t attend a service with a member of another religion, which John Paul II did.
Same with Lefebvre. How is it possible, for instance, that Lefebvre knew the Church was taken over by Freemasons, but then decides to have “dialogues” with the same Freemasons? If you know what Freemasons are, you know they have been planning the takeover of their most hated enemy, the Catholic Church, for centuries. You know it is the biggest coup the devil has had since the time of Judas. Trying to have a dialogue with these people is like trying to have a dialogue with a pit bull who is mauling someone’s face.
The Vatican II revolutionaries knew there would be an exodus of traditional Catholics. They also knew that they needed to contain it before it began. Their solution was the SSPX. If the SSPX never existed, the sedevacantists — now scattered and weak and plagued by infighting — would be millions-strong and recognized by many as the true Roman Catholic Church, which indeed they are. And there would be NO DIALOGUE with the traitors, liars and impostors. We would probably even have a Pope that many would accept.
Look carefully and you will see that SSPX is an even more ingenious scam than the Novus Ordo, and one day Lefebvre, for all his pious French demeanor, will be as reviled as Woyjtla or Montini. I believe even Williamson is an actor in this charade — trying to keep even those who see the truth about the Jews in the Conciliar “Church.” Why even bring up the Holocaust? It’s just another way to stir up the usual tired debates and keep people from seeing the evil of the Jews manifesting itself so blatantly right now, as they poison the wells of society, religion, the media, etc.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again — the SSPX and Lefebvre have been part of the plot since the beginning.
People will defend Lefebvre despite his vacillations, which brings us right back to the ridiculous way people used to defend John Paul II for his heresies — as if it were just accidental, or senility. These men were brilliant, they spoke many languages, and they knew theology inside and out. And yet anyone who has read the Baltimore catechism knows you can’t attend a service with a member of another religion, which John Paul II did.
Same with Lefebvre. How is it possible, for instance, that Lefebvre knew the Church was taken over by Freemasons, but then decides to have “dialogues” with the same Freemasons? If you know what Freemasons are, you know they have been planning the takeover of their most hated enemy, the Catholic Church, for centuries. You know it is the biggest coup the devil has had since the time of Judas. Trying to have a dialogue with these people is like trying to have a dialogue with a pit bull who is mauling someone’s face.
The Vatican II revolutionaries knew there would be an exodus of traditional Catholics. They also knew that they needed to contain it before it began. Their solution was the SSPX. If the SSPX never existed, the sedevacantists — now scattered and weak and plagued by infighting — would be millions-strong and recognized by many as the true Roman Catholic Church, which indeed they are. And there would be NO DIALOGUE with the traitors, liars and impostors. We would probably even have a Pope that many would accept.
Look carefully and you will see that SSPX is an even more ingenious scam than the Novus Ordo, and one day Lefebvre, for all his pious French demeanor, will be as reviled as Woyjtla or Montini. I believe even Williamson is an actor in this charade — trying to keep even those who see the truth about the Jews in the Conciliar “Church.” Why even bring up the Holocaust? It’s just another way to stir up the usual tired debates and keep people from seeing the evil of the Jews manifesting itself so blatantly right now, as they poison the wells of society, religion, the media, etc.
Mellowmane: That’s what William Strojie always maintained. The Revolution always makes sure it sets up its own opposition. The SSPX got all of the opposition out of the Church so that VII could go forward without the “troublemakers” around.
Or, as Mr. Strojie put it, the revolution always works both sides of the street.
Mellowmane: That’s what William Strojie always maintained. The Revolution always makes sure it sets up its own opposition. The SSPX got all of the opposition out of the Church so that VII could go forward without the “troublemakers” around.
Or, as Mr. Strojie put it, the revolution always works both sides of the street.
Maurice Pinay 
April 17, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
Do the folks over on Rorate and in the SSPX have any idea as to what Ricard’s beliefs are as well as his scandalous ecumenical behavior?
We have already seen that he is a big fan of the Talmud, but it doesn’t end there:
In Église de Montpellier for 23 May, Mgr Ricard writes: “This people, whom God has summoned, far from turning in on themselves for comfort, are invited by God to be a people of solidarity, uniting in the first place with our Jewish brothers with whom we celebrate at Pentecost the indefectible fidelity of God to his Covenant through the gift of his Word (Torah) and that of his Spirit.”
“Today Islam must be recognised as one of the religious components of our society.” (La Croix, Friday 9 November 2001)
“…the ideals of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity – must be recalled and promoted.” (Doc. cath., 4 January 2004, no 2305)
April 17, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
Do the folks over on Rorate and in the SSPX have any idea as to what Ricard’s beliefs are as well as his scandalous ecumenical behavior?
We have already seen that he is a big fan of the Talmud, but it doesn’t end there:
In Église de Montpellier for 23 May, Mgr Ricard writes: “This people, whom God has summoned, far from turning in on themselves for comfort, are invited by God to be a people of solidarity, uniting in the first place with our Jewish brothers with whom we celebrate at Pentecost the indefectible fidelity of God to his Covenant through the gift of his Word (Torah) and that of his Spirit.”
“Today Islam must be recognised as one of the religious components of our society.” (La Croix, Friday 9 November 2001)
“…the ideals of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity – must be recalled and promoted.” (Doc. cath., 4 January 2004, no 2305)
April 20, 2009 at 2:32 am |
It has been my recent experience that the moderators at Rorate don’t want to address these matters with any seriousness. I have tried to generate discussion around the fact that a Catholic bishop who has dedicated himself to preserving Catholic Truth is barred from high level doctrinal discussions (perhaps the most important discussions in 40 years) unless he accepts the official secular version of historical events that have nothing to do with the Faith. They refuse to post my comments.
The story about Cardinal Picard turned into a veritable hug-fest over there.
April 20, 2009 at 2:32 am |
It has been my recent experience that the moderators at Rorate don’t want to address these matters with any seriousness. I have tried to generate discussion around the fact that a Catholic bishop who has dedicated himself to preserving Catholic Truth is barred from high level doctrinal discussions (perhaps the most important discussions in 40 years) unless he accepts the official secular version of historical events that have nothing to do with the Faith. They refuse to post my comments.
The story about Cardinal Picard turned into a veritable hug-fest over there.
April 20, 2009 at 6:07 am |
Those posting above have described a chronic problem at Rorate, their penchant for censoring any post that contains serious verifiable evidence about “elder brothers.” Short commentary critical of Judaism (or Jewish history), but without references, are occasionally allowed, but anything serious with verifiable and irrefutable references is summarily pulled down or not allowed at all. In other words, like Marxists, they allow the appearance of opposition, but no serious opposition to their errors. There was a flurry of such activity last week. When the strong arm censorship appeared to be lifted, there were some excellent posts, but they disappeared in less than an hour.
One can only wonder who Rorate really serves.
April 20, 2009 at 6:07 am |
Those posting above have described a chronic problem at Rorate, their penchant for censoring any post that contains serious verifiable evidence about “elder brothers.” Short commentary critical of Judaism (or Jewish history), but without references, are occasionally allowed, but anything serious with verifiable and irrefutable references is summarily pulled down or not allowed at all. In other words, like Marxists, they allow the appearance of opposition, but no serious opposition to their errors. There was a flurry of such activity last week. When the strong arm censorship appeared to be lifted, there were some excellent posts, but they disappeared in less than an hour.
One can only wonder who Rorate really serves.
April 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
Watch that Jordanes! He’s a slick one.
April 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
Watch that Jordanes! He’s a slick one.
April 21, 2009 at 2:45 am |
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again — the SSPX and Lefebvre have been part of the plot since the beginning.
People will defend Lefebvre despite his vacillations, which brings us right back to the ridiculous way people used to defend John Paul II for his heresies — as if it were just accidental, or senility. These men were brilliant, they spoke many languages, and they knew theology inside and out. And yet anyone who has read the Baltimore catechism knows you can’t attend a service with a member of another religion, which John Paul II did.
Same with Lefebvre. How is it possible, for instance, that Lefebvre knew the Church was taken over by Freemasons, but then decides to have “dialogues” with the same Freemasons? If you know what Freemasons are, you know they have been planning the takeover of their most hated enemy, the Catholic Church, for centuries. You know it is the biggest coup the devil has had since the time of Judas. Trying to have a dialogue with these people is like trying to have a dialogue with a pit bull who is mauling someone’s face.
The Vatican II revolutionaries knew there would be an exodus of traditional Catholics. They also knew that they needed to contain it before it began. Their solution was the SSPX. If the SSPX never existed, the sedevacantists — now scattered and weak and plagued by infighting — would be millions-strong and recognized by many as the true Roman Catholic Church, which indeed they are. And there would be NO DIALOGUE with the traitors, liars and impostors. We would probably even have a Pope that many would accept.
Look carefully and you will see that SSPX is an even more ingenious scam than the Novus Ordo, and one day Lefebvre, for all his pious French demeanor, will be as reviled as Woyjtla or Montini. I believe even Williamson is an actor in this charade — trying to keep even those who see the truth about the Jews in the Conciliar “Church.” Why even bring up the Holocaust? It’s just another way to stir up the usual tired debates and keep people from seeing the evil of the Jews manifesting itself so blatantly right now, as they poison the wells of society, religion, the media, etc.
April 21, 2009 at 2:45 am |
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again — the SSPX and Lefebvre have been part of the plot since the beginning.
People will defend Lefebvre despite his vacillations, which brings us right back to the ridiculous way people used to defend John Paul II for his heresies — as if it were just accidental, or senility. These men were brilliant, they spoke many languages, and they knew theology inside and out. And yet anyone who has read the Baltimore catechism knows you can’t attend a service with a member of another religion, which John Paul II did.
Same with Lefebvre. How is it possible, for instance, that Lefebvre knew the Church was taken over by Freemasons, but then decides to have “dialogues” with the same Freemasons? If you know what Freemasons are, you know they have been planning the takeover of their most hated enemy, the Catholic Church, for centuries. You know it is the biggest coup the devil has had since the time of Judas. Trying to have a dialogue with these people is like trying to have a dialogue with a pit bull who is mauling someone’s face.
The Vatican II revolutionaries knew there would be an exodus of traditional Catholics. They also knew that they needed to contain it before it began. Their solution was the SSPX. If the SSPX never existed, the sedevacantists — now scattered and weak and plagued by infighting — would be millions-strong and recognized by many as the true Roman Catholic Church, which indeed they are. And there would be NO DIALOGUE with the traitors, liars and impostors. We would probably even have a Pope that many would accept.
Look carefully and you will see that SSPX is an even more ingenious scam than the Novus Ordo, and one day Lefebvre, for all his pious French demeanor, will be as reviled as Woyjtla or Montini. I believe even Williamson is an actor in this charade — trying to keep even those who see the truth about the Jews in the Conciliar “Church.” Why even bring up the Holocaust? It’s just another way to stir up the usual tired debates and keep people from seeing the evil of the Jews manifesting itself so blatantly right now, as they poison the wells of society, religion, the media, etc.
April 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
Mellowmane: That’s what William Strojie always maintained. The Revolution always makes sure it sets up its own opposition. The SSPX got all of the opposition out of the Church so that VII could go forward without the “troublemakers” around.
Or, as Mr. Strojie put it, the revolution always works both sides of the street.
April 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
Mellowmane: That’s what William Strojie always maintained. The Revolution always makes sure it sets up its own opposition. The SSPX got all of the opposition out of the Church so that VII could go forward without the “troublemakers” around.
Or, as Mr. Strojie put it, the revolution always works both sides of the street.