Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 31st, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,337
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)

Radical Powerhouse

The Society of St. Pius X, which has chapels and schools across the United States, remains a font of anti-Semitic propaganda.

by Heidi Beirich


French Archbishop Marcel-François Lefabvre, who founded the Society of St. Pius X in 1970, is the spiritual father of the radical traditionalist movement.

The powerhouse organization of the radical traditionalist Catholic world is a sprawling international order called the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by the late French archbishop, Marcel-François Lefebvre, in 1970. Although there have been recent attempts by the Vatican to pull SSPX back into the Catholic mainstream, the organization, all of whose priests were excommunicated in the late 1980s, has continued to publish anti-Semitic materials, flirt with Holocaust denial and reject any reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

Lefebvre was always on the hard right. During World War II, he supported the pro-Nazi Vichy regime, a puppet government in the part of France not occupied by the Germans. He lamented the eventual liberation of the country, describing it as "the victory of Freemasonry against the Catholic order of Petain. It was the invasion of the barbarians without faith or law!"

Lefebvre later was on an advisory committee to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which enacted several liberalizing and modernizing reforms within the church. But the archbishop refused to sign the council's final reports on religious liberty and the modern church, the first sign of a rebellion that would only grow in later years. In 1970, he founded SSPX as a seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.

In 1974, Lefebvre publicly denounced as heretical the Vatican II reforms and the subsequent adoption of the new Mass, celebrated in local languages instead of traditional Latin. As a result, Pope Paul VI ordered the archbishop to shut down his Swiss seminary. But Lefebvre refused to comply, leading the Vatican to suspend his right to perform priestly functions (a step short of excommunication) in 1976.

In 1988, Lefebvre took his most radical step yet, consecrating four bishops in defiance of the Vatican. Pope John Paul II responded by excommunicating Lefebvre and all SSPX priests, and declaring SSPX in formal schism with the church.

The following year, police arrested fugitive French war criminal Paul Touvier, who had been hidden for years by the order, at an SSPX monastery in Nice, France. Touvier was later convicted of ordering the execution of seven Jews in 1944.

Also in 1989, one of Lefebvre's "bishops," Englishman Richard Williamson, gave a speech to a Canadian church in which he decried the alleged persecution of Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel by the Canadian government. Williams, then rector of SSPX's main North American seminary in Winona, Minn., told his audience: "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies." The Canadian government reacted by banning all SSPX publications.

In the course of his struggle with the Vatican, Lefebvre became a hero to many, emerging as the world's leading critic of church reforms ending the Latin Mass and reaching out to other religions. Already by the mid-1970s, priests ordained by the archbishop were starting chapels and seminaries in the United States. Today, SSPX's American operation, headquartered in Kansas City, Kan., claims 103 chapels and 25 schools, in addition to Kansas City-based Angelus Press. Scholar Michael Cuneo has estimated SSPX has up to 30,000 U. S. adherents.

It is in The Angelus, published monthly by the SSPX press, and on SSPX's website, that the radical anti-Semitism of the order is most evident today. One example now on the website is a 1997 Angelus article by SSPX priests Michael Crowdy and Kenneth Novak that calls for locking Jews into ghettos because "Jews are known to kill Christians." It also blames Jews for the French Revolution, communism and capitalism; suggests a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy has destroyed the Catholic Church; and describes Judaism as "inimical to all nations."

Another document reproduced on the SSPX's current website is a 1959 letter from Lefebvre's close friend, Bishop Gerald Sigaud, who also rejected the Vatican II reforms. "Money, the media, and international politics are for a large part in the hands of Jews," Bishop Sigaud wrote. "Those who have revealed the atomic secrets of the USA were … all Jews. The founders of communism were Jews."

The Angelus Press sells anti-Semitic tomes like Hilaire Beloc's The Jews, which blames Jews for Bolshevism and corrupt financial practices, and Monsignor George Dillon's Freemasonry Unmasked, which purports to explain a centuries-old Judeo-Masonic plot to destroy the Catholic Church. More recent SSPX publications include the 2005 pamphlet Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, by Franz Schmidberger, the former superior general of the SSPX. Schmidberger denounces Third World immigration into Western countries as "destroying our national identity and, furthermore, the whole of Christianity," and accuses the Jews of deicide.

Other extremists published in the pages of The Angelus (and carried on the SSPX's current website) include the late Father Denis Fahey; John Vennari, head of Catholic Family News (see profile, p. 29); and Robert Sungenis, the particularly virulent leader of Catholic Apologetics International (see profile, p. 28).

Through it all, SSPX denies all allegations of anti-Semitism.

But even some fellow radical traditionalists have accused SSPX of that and worse. Fidelity, a magazine run by hard-liner E. Michael Jones (see Culture Wars/Fidelity Press profile, p. 29), in 1992 charged a principal SSPX leader in Kansas City of Hitler worship and promoting Nazism to his students. Although the man accused by Fidelity hotly denied the charges, the students quoted by Jones stood by their allegations.

In recent months, Pope Benedict XVI has extended an olive branch to SSPX members, inviting them to return to the church. But the sect's leaders rejected the suggestion outright. As a result, Benedict last September approved an institute for French priests who left the movement. The pope's move marked the effective end to efforts by the Vatican to bring the SSPX sect back into the Catholic fold.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=397
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,337
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Good article by Beirich, bias aside. Hadn't heard of these guys before. Time to do some digging...
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,337
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Home page
http://www.sspx.org/

Their press
http://www.angeluspress.org/

Articles touching on some of our topics
http://www.sspx.org/articles_index.htm#sedevacantism
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,337
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

ROMAN PROTESTANTS
By Fr. Basil Wrighton

Originally written in August 1982 issue of The Angelus magazine, Fr. Wrighton expertly shows how "the spirit of Vatican II" is protestantizing Catholics.

Whatever the new "ecumenism" may say or mean, the plain fact remains that there is fundamental antithesis between "Catholic" and "Protestant." One has only to reflect on the history of these two religions to see how they contradict and exclude one another. While the one claims to expound a divine revelation with divinely conferred authority, and to administer supernatural sacraments as a means of divine grace, the other professes only to comment on the Scriptures by the light of human reason, and fights shy of anything supernatural or miraculous. While the one upholds the great Christian mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the other has become very doubtful about these mysteries and included to reject some or all of them as outdated superstitions. The same holds good concerning angels and devils, hell, purgatory and heaven: these are very real for Catholics, very unreal for Protestants, at any rate for the contemporary type.

For the Protestant mentality is essentially skeptical and fissiparous. Once it had broken away from the parent Christian stock and committed itself to the vagaries of private judgment, it went on changing, evolving and splitting up into ever new sects. For a time it held on the main tenets of Christian faith, but as the sects became more and more liberal, they tended to drop them overboard or explain them away. Low-church grows into broad-church, and broad-church evolves toward no-church.

There have, of course, been reactions against this devolution. "Fundamentalist" minorities in various times and places have dug in their heels and refused to move with the times, hanging on to some semblance of the original faith. A more intellectual and more influential reaction was that of Newman and his Tractarian followers, who reasoned their way back to a substantially Catholic theology, emerging as a "high-church" party within the Anglican establishment. But they could never be really at home in that flock —how could they? Newman himself was quick to perceive that they had no future there; he thereupon made his submission to Rome, and many of his disciples followed him, to the great advantage of both the neophytes and their hosts. We never thought to see this historic decision reversed.

Now, however, since Vatican the Second we have been faced with the hitherto incredible spectacle of a mass movement in reverse —a movement of Catholics towards Protestantism. It began with the caucus of modernist prelates and their "experts" who brought off a successful coup d’etat at the first session of the Council, by tearing up the authorized agenda and substituting their own program [cf. the article, Archbishop Lefebvre Preparing the Council, and Fr. Wrighton's article, Collegiality]. This gave them a certain control of the proceedings and enabled them to devise loopholes and ambiguities in the acta for subsequent exploitation. The "pastoral" rather than dogmatic character of this Council made its texts all the more susceptible of tendentious interpretation.

It was of course the same progressive party which got the job of implementing the conciliar decrees, and that is where the trouble became most serious. The Party’s first concern was with the liturgy, which of all the Church’s institutions stood in least need of reform, and which no responsible Catholic wanted to change. The Council had made a few cautious, limited and reasonable concessions for the vernacular languages to be used in scriptural readings and prayers in which the people took a vocal part. These apart, it insisted on the retention of Latin. But that was not what the Party wanted. The existing lex orandi was an obstacle to their new religion, so it had to be destroyed. The Church text was defied, and the Holy Mass of all the Catholic ages, the Church’s most sacred treasure and the most beautiful thing this side of heaven, was cunningly demolished by installments and replaced by a completely different rite, entirely vernacular and frequently vulgar, celebrated back to front, and shorn of the traditional gestures of reverence and the verbal safeguards of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine —just the things that Cranmer himself had suppressed. The sacrificial element was consigned to oblivion, and all the emphasis transferred to the "memorial" and "meal" elements, just as in the Protestant "Lord’s Supper." The obvious purpose was to make the Eucharist so "ecumenical" that it could be shared by those who had no belief in either the Sacrifice or the Real Presence. Can one imagine anything more dastardly than this betrayal of the Holy of Holies for the beaux yeux of believers? Yet the Modernists were allowed —and are still allowed —to get away with it and to impose it on the whole Church of the West. No such subversion has ever before been known in the Catholic Church.

And what a vernacular! —the shabby, ephemeral speech of the streets and the pubs brought into the sanctuary! The whole concept of a vernacular liturgy is indeed a monstrosity, only to be excused by total illiteracy of the worshippers. Are the Catholics of the West so illiterate that they cannot read even the simplest prayer book? Liturgy is an essentially sacred thing, eternal truths clad in an unchanging form: in a word, it must be hieratic, not demotic. The Church has been telling us this for centuries, and had repeated it emphatically as recently as 1962 (the Apostolic Constitution of John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia); but the Church was now made to eat her own words and swing over to the Protestant slogan of "a language understanded of the people" —as if Latin had been a mere mumbo-jumbo to our people for all these centuries!

Since the Novus Ordo Missae was designed as an "ecumenical" liturgy, ambivalence was essential to it. Hence the many alternative formulas (Confiteors, Canons, etc.) left to the option of the celebrant, together with the studied ambiguity of the wording where any definite Catholic doctrine (such as transubstantiation or sacrifice) is involved. Hence the abolition of the Offertory prayers, and the reduction of the Consecration to what can be taken as a mere narrative. The result of it all has been to stir up controversy among the faithful as to whether the new liturgy can be regarded as sacramentally valid. To take the negative view would amount to questioning the God-given authority of the Church which has sanctioned the changes. But a careful study of such works as Michael Davies’ masterly trilogy on the Liturgical Revolution will show that the bare essentials of validity have been preserved, but in so thoroughly Protestantized a setting and mentality that lapses from validity are much more likely to occur, and the Catholic faith cannot be expected to survive or flourish in such an environment. All that used to protect and nourish this faith has been ruthlessly cut away in the interests of "ecumenism", and the effect of the revolution can be plainly seen in the vast exodus from the Church which has followed it.

The Novus Ordo was only a first step. The Party had many more changes up its sleeve. The revolution was to be "on-going," the faithful were to have no respite from shocks and scandals. Soon we had Communion in the hand, a gratuitous profanation borrowed from the Dutch dissenters and railroaded into the Church elsewhere by admiring episcopal conferences in face of papal protest and popular disgust. Then came the Lay Ministers, male and female, handing out Holy Communion, while the priest looks on from his chair —unemployed, redundant. It is a galloping process of "desacralization." Nothing is now to be held sacred or inviolable. All that was sacred in our religion from time immemorial is being dragged down to a common and profane level, to adapt it to the abject spirit of this age.

So much for what is going on with official approval, within the widening limits of the law. I have said nothing about the spate of outrages and sacrileges which have sprung up in the wake of the Novus Ordo, for these should be abhorrent even to progressives. They simply did not happen under the old order; the re fore the new order is responsible for them. But authority does nothing to correct them. There seems to be no limit to what the bishops will now tolerate —so long as the abuses are committed on the liberal, revolutionary side. But if any poor deprived Catholic on the other side attempts to revive the Holy Mass, then the fulminations begin! The only capital offence that remains, it seems, is fidelity to Catholic tradition.

When the President of Una Voce at an interview with Archbishop (now Cardinal) Benelli in Rome in October 1976, pointed out the existing liturgical chaos and asked how, in view of this state of things, the suppression of the old Mass could be justified, he was told that "those who wish to retain the old Mass have a different ecclesiology." This from one of the closest advisors of the then Pope; it meant that those who were faithful to Catholic tradition were now to be treated as dissidents. The phrase quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus ("What has been believed always, everywhere, and by all") as a criterion of orthodoxy bad now been rejected in favor of a new Party Line which contradicted the Church’s entire previous tradition. What was forbidden and condemned yesterday becomes lawful today, and mandatory tomorrow. What had always been seen as black, is now white, and vice versa —because the Party says so. This comes close to the Bolshevik criterion of morality: what is right or wrong is simply what helps or hinders the Party.

Pope Paul VI himself used to speak of a "new orientation" of the Church’s life and liturgy following Vatican II, and the whole charge against Archbishop Lefebvre in that pontificate was that His Grace would not accept this fatal orientation. He could not accept it —we cannot accept it —because it is an entirely new thing in the Church, a new ethos incompatible with Catholic dogmatic tradition. If we accept this reorientation, we must hold that the Church’s teaching has been utterly mistaken all through the past twenty centuries of its history, from the Apostles onward, until light dawned at last in the nineteen-sixties, thanks to Bugnini and his men. It was an about-turn, away from the supernatural and transcendent towards the natural and worldly, from the divine to the merely human. Those who have eyes to see can see more clearly every day that such a periagoge, if persisted in, can only lead to the destruction of the Catholic and Christian religion.

The Party, modernist and progressive, which seized power in the Church from the Council onwards and is constantly building it up by selective appointments, is moving in the same direction as the Protestant reformers whom it copied so closely in the new liturgy. But it is going much faster and further than they went. It is Liberal-Protestant, which means in the long run non-Christian and anti-Christian. It has allied itself with the secular humanism which now rules the Western world, and is even making overtures to the communist powers, after having rendered the Council virtually ineffectual by refusing to condemn the world’s greatest menace.

It should be noted that the ideology of Liberal-Protestantism is practically the same as that of the Modernism which appeared somewhat later in the Catholic Church. It disintegrates traditional beliefs in much the same way, and both can be seen as concurrent stages in the destruction of Christianity itself. St. Pius X remarked this in his encyclical Pascendi in 1907: historical Protestantism and Modernism, he says, are successive stages in the progress to Atheism.

Contemporary liberals (e.g., those who write in the ex-Catholic Tablet) are apt to crow with delight over the notion that the Catholic religion has undergone a "mutation" in consequence of Vatican II —or rather, "the spirit of Vatican II," a spook which as often as not is made to contradict the letter of the Council. They fail to understand, it seems, that the Catholic religion is of such a nature that a "mutation" —i.e., a radical and permanent change —can only destroy it.

From these observations, and from many others which could be mentioned, there emerges the picture of a Church which is unrecognizable as the Church we were brought up in —rather like an ugly stepmother, all spots and wrinkles, in place of the Holy Mother Church we knew and loved in pre-conciliar days. It is not only the ecclesiology that is different; everything is different. The bogus "ecumenism" aims at ironing out the distinctions of true and false in religion, so that Catholic doctrine goes into the melting pot with everything else. The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation are dismissed as no longer "relevant" to the "adult man" of the twentieth century. Christ’s hierarchical Kingdom of God, transcending space and time, must now give place to the "People of God," this-worldly, democratic, liberal and egalitarian. The ministerial priesthood must no longer be distinguished from the common priesthood of the faithful, and the Pope must forego his supreme and paternal authority and resign himself to being a mere primus inter pares, the spokesman of the bishops, whose claim to "collegiality" implies that it is for them to decide all questions in committee, by a majority of votes.

With doctrine thus being whittled away for the sake of specious agreement with heterodox bodies, and with the supreme authority being put into commission, the prospect before the Conciliar Church becomes bleakly Protestant, and ultimately non-Christian. A further catastrophic development is that the Neo-Modernists, unlike the earlier breed, have now scrapped the Ten Commandments, done away with moral absolutes and the notion of sin as an offence against God, and reduced morality to the "situation ethics" of secular humanism, where literally everything is permitted as long as one thinks it meets one’s needs of the moment or develops one’s "personality."

Now that sin has been swept under the carpet, those two bastions of Catholic spirituality, confession and penance, are of course found to be superfluous. The deserted confessionals are being removed from the churches, and the sacrament, when it is used, tends to become a sort of psychiatric session. As for the laws of fasting and abstinence, they are virtually abolished. Before the Council about a hundred days of the year were affected by fasting or abstinence or both. Since then a series of wholesale swipes has reduced them to a derisory two days in the year! Another concession to Protestantism, which from its earliest days has despised the se weapons of the spirit. This progressive ideology has of course taken over the Catholic schools, seminaries and universities, and bought up the Catholic press: all these institutions are failing, or have already fallen, into the "ex-Catholic" category. Even the expensive schools run by the religious orders themselves have joined the Modernist bandwagon. Many faithful Catholics have found themselves obliged to take their children away from "Catholic", schools in order to save their faith. As for the others, the present hapless generation of children will, for the most part apparently, become a write-off. The only hope of a genuinely Catholic education lies now in new foundations, at the cost of much sacrifice and struggle for the faithful remnant. A grace-selected remnant there will certainly be, for the continuance of the Church, but the majority of our once-Catholic population, those who will not bestir themselves to resist and protest against what has been done to them, finding it easier to swim with the post-conciliar stream, are becoming daily and visibly more and more assimilated in manners, morals and beliefs to their Protestant neighbors, and will soon be indistinguishable from them. "Ecumenism" will then have attained its goal, not by a return of the separated brethren to the one true fold, but by a massive apostasy from that fold, led by its own shepherds —a massive sell-out of Catholic truth.

A fearful example of this sell-out may be seen in the "pastoral" councils and congresses of recent years —an updated kind of "robber councils" of lay persons and clerics, approved and attended by the national hierarchies for the furtherance of "renewal" or revolution. Among the most notorious have been those of Holland and America (the Detroit "Call to Action"), and (in 1980) Liverpool. At this latest festival of loquacity and pop-theology the participants (hand-picked Modernists, of course) called for the scrapping among other things, of considerable portions of the moral law (God’s eternal law). At the end of it all, the bishops got up and effusively thanked and congratulated the pastoral freebooters. If anyone cares to remember this conciliabulum, it may well go down in history as the Latrocinium Liverpolitanum ("The Robber Council of Liverpool").

What shall we call the multitudes of ex-Catholic shepherds and their sheep who have

either defected or drifted into a new religion? Perhaps we might call them "Roman Protestants." We older Catholics did not like being called Roman Catholics, for we did not admit that there was any other kind of Catholics. But there are various kinds of Romans, and many kinds of Protestants; and Rome is now the headquarters, not only of the Catholic Church, but of the Modernist Mafia which has invaded and subjected it. At the English CoIlege in Rome, that venerable nursery of episcopabiles, we got occasional pep-talks on the cardinal virtue of romanita (Romishness). That was in the nineteen-twenties, when Rome was the citadel of orthodoxy, and we saw nothing incongruous in such a virtue. Things are very different in the Deutero-Vatican era, and I often wonder whether my contemporaries and epigoni, mitred or otherwise, might not have done well to dilute their romanita with a much stiffer dose of cattolicita. It might have saved some of them from ending up as Roman Protestants.

When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The simple faithful have always done this in times of epidemic heresy. Such crisis are happily very rare. The gravest in the Church’s past history was the Arian crisis of the fourth century, when, as St. Jerome expressed it, "the whole world groaned in astonishment to find themselves Arian;" or, as Newman puts it, "there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘ecclesia docens’." We are living in such a crisis now, that of the Modernist Reformation. The Church was drugged for a major "mutation" in the nineteen-sixties, and is now gradually coming round to find itself Liberal-Protestant. It is in this situation that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of becoming either recusants or renegades.

Sixteen hundred years ago, when the bulk of the hierarchy had strayed from the faith of Nicaea and even the Pope faltered for a time, St. Athanasius headed the faithful few who stood out for Catholic truth against a world in the grip of heresy. He had much to suffer, and was even excommunicated, but eventually his cause prevailed and the faith was saved. In our day likewise, amid the ceaseless babble of post-conciliar Newspeak, one episcopal voice has been heard to observe, in plain French, that one religion is not as good as another, that faith and morals are not variable with times and circumstances, and (with regard to "renewal") that the emperor has no clothes! For the audacity of these views, and for his fidelity to Catholic tradition, he is denounced and persecuted by the liberal establishment, but will not recant. His witness and his work continues, and the day will come when a restored Church will bless his name. Once again, magna est veritas et praevalebit.

OTHER ARTICLES ON THIS TOPIC
THE TRUE NOTION OF TRADITION

In this excellent article, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais shows that the Church's definition of "Tradition" is not the Modernists' sound-bite, "living tradition"

POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH: IS IT A NEW RELIGION?

This Catholic FAQ makes the proper distinctions while showing the revolutionary nature of Vatican II

WHAT VATICAN II SHOULD HAVE DONE!
Bishop Sigaud's Letter to Cardinal Tardini

Written in 1959 with regard to the preparations for Vatican II, it is a clear-sighted account of what Vatican II should have done. Formerly printed in The Angelus.

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/roman_protestants.htm
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #5
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society..._anti-Semitism

Alleged anti-Semitism

Some claim that anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism exist in important circles of the Society - an allegation that defenders of the SSPX reject, stating that the Society has priests and supporters who have Jewish backgrounds.[71]

The views of Bishop Richard Williamson have been a particular source of controversy, as have those of another British SSPX cleric, the late Fr. Michael Crowdy.[72] For example, Bishop Wiliamson has written:

"[U]ntil [the Jews] re-discover their true Messianic vocation, they may be expected to continue fanatically agitating, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish world-dominion, to prepare the Anti-Christ's throne in Jerusalem. So we may fear their continuing to play their major part in the agitation of the East and in the corruption of the West. Here the wise Catholic will remember that, again, the ex-Christian nations have only their own Liberalism to blame for allowing free circulation within Christendom to the enemies of Christ."[73]

Bishop Williamson's supporters counter that he has never advocated racist hatred of Jews, and that he hopes for the Jews' conversion and salvation. Williamson's views, moreover, on this and other subjects are controversial even within traditionalist Catholicism: see the main article on him for more details.

In 1989, Paul Touvier, a fugitive wanted for war crimes, was arrested in the SSPX priory in Nice. The SSPX stated at the time that Touvier had been granted asylum there as "an act of charity to a homeless man".[74] In 1994, Touvier was sentenced to life imprisonment for ordering the execution of seven Jews at Rillieux-la-Pape in 1944, allegedly in reprisal for the Resistance's killing of the Vichy minister Philippe Henriot.[75] On his death in 1996, a Requiem Mass was offered for him at the SSPX church of St Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris.[citation needed] Touvier had expressed remorse for his actions and had asked for forgiveness.[citation needed]

The SSPX was also accused of anti-Semitism in a 2006 report on Traditionalist Catholicism published by the American Southern Poverty Law Center. Defenders of the Society have strongly criticised the report and accused the SPLC of using accusations of anti-Semitism as a means of "silencing opponents of liberalism."[76] They have drawn parallels to similar accusations against Jewish scholars like Norman Finkelstein.
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #6
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Excellent reading--thanks!

I once went to an SSPX parish, but was disturbed by the numbers of third-worlders (you know, the types of indians and filipinos who think they're more conservative and Western than Europeans). I did chat with a sister there who did not hesitate to mention the role jews have played in the media. I bought a little booklet on Freemasonry at the bookstall where they had a poster of Mel Gibson and his priest. Poor Mel.

Anyways, for me, race comes first. I'm not about to sit in a Church where I'm surrounded by aliens. Then again, I haven't moved out of my multiculti hell-hole, partly because I feel that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. (Perhaps I'm delusional). We are in a period of chastisement. SSPX believes Benedict is the real pope. If he is, he is in need of some serious conversion. It's been said that Europe is the Church and the Church is Europe. Well, just as Holy Mother Church has been turned into a whore post Vat. II, Mother Europe has been whored out and invaded--sold down the river for a few shekels. This is what happens when folks choose mammon over God.
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #7
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
I once went to an SSPX parish
Sounds like a nice place for a white wedding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
Anyways, for me, race comes first. I'm not about to sit in a Church where I'm surrounded by aliens.
You need a big enough extended family to take over the place and make the rice niggers and curry niggers useful.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=6269

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
If he is, he is in need of some serious conversion.
On a mission.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
This is what happens when folks choose mammon over God.

Last edited by Mike Mazzone of Palatine; October 31st, 2008 at 12:55 PM.
 
Old October 31st, 2008 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,337
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
Excellent reading--thanks!

I once went to an SSPX parish, but was disturbed by the numbers of third-worlders (you know, the types of indians and filipinos who think they're more conservative and Western than Europeans). I did chat with a sister there who did not hesitate to mention the role jews have played in the media. I bought a little booklet on Freemasonry at the bookstall where they had a poster of Mel Gibson and his priest. Poor Mel.

Anyways, for me, race comes first. I'm not about to sit in a Church where I'm surrounded by aliens. Then again, I haven't moved out of my multiculti hell-hole, partly because I feel that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. (Perhaps I'm delusional). We are in a period of chastisement. SSPX believes Benedict is the real pope. If he is, he is in need of some serious conversion. It's been said that Europe is the Church and the Church is Europe. Well, just as Holy Mother Church has been turned into a whore post Vat. II, Mother Europe has been whored out and invaded--sold down the river for a few shekels. This is what happens when folks choose mammon over God.
Well, apparently one of their issues with Rome has been resolved - the Latin mass is now ok'd for priests in every parrish.

I'm glad to see there's at least one group of Catholics that understands the real meaning of Vatican II - opening a 2,000-year-old institution to the same degenerate policies that have already destroyed much of the West.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #9
Kind Lampshade Maker
The paranormal silent type
 
Kind Lampshade Maker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where you least expect
Posts: 8,265
Kind Lampshade Maker
Default Fellini's skillfull interpretation of morbid Catholic kitsch:

__________________
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #10
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
Anyways, for me, race comes first.
E. Michael Jones, VNN's favorite Catholic, says racism casts "aspersions on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism." Comments?
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #11
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
E. Michael Jones, VNN's favorite Catholic, says racism casts "aspersions on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism." Comments?
Sounds ambiguous.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspersions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficacy
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #12
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
E. Michael Jones, VNN's favorite Catholic, says racism casts "aspersions on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism." Comments?
Well, I don't see how. God created all creatures (including Satan), but that doesn't mean we're all the same. Anyone with eyes to see, will acknowledge the superiority of the White race and our unique role. While here on earth, we need to deal with earthly realities.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #13
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
Well, I don't see how. God created all creatures (including Satan), but that doesn't mean we're all the same. Anyone with eyes to see, will acknowledge the superiority of the White race and our unique role. While here on earth, we need to deal with earthly realities.
Indeed. Baptism is God's recognition of Holy White Power.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #14
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mazzone of Palatine View Post
Indeed. Baptism is God's recognition of Holy White Power.
I think we may be on the same page, brother! More or less
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #15
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
I think we may be on the same page, brother! (More or less
'Tis God's Holy Will, Sister Anne!
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #16
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,087
Mike in Denver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
E. Michael Jones, VNN's favorite Catholic, says racism casts "aspersions on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism." Comments?
There is nothing at all ambiguous about this statement, and it provides an opportunity to explain the chief problem with all Christianity, including Catholicism.

First: I am not a Christian. I am a Northern European Pagan. However, I was baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic. I became fairly conversant with Roman Catholic Dogma and Doctrine. For a while I taught adult Catechism classes. I'll explain this in Roman Catholic terms.

Among other purposes, baptism is the first step to communion with the Body of Christ on earth and in Heaven. The Roman Catholic Church is the Body of Christ on earth.

The Sacrament of Baptism, within the Roman Catholic Church, signifies that one is capable of receiving the Sacrament of Communion. Receiving Communion signifies that you are in full communion with the entire Body of Christ, and on earth, that is the Church in its entirety.

Nigger, mud, asian, or whatever...be Baptized and you are one big happy family. Sorry, no canonical way around it.

'racism casts "aspersions on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism."'

Racism then denies that the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion are effective.

Not to pick on Catholics. Protestants have their own version of the above.

Mike
__________________
You have to remember I live in Denver and some things are perfectly legal here that aren't where you live.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #17
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

But can't I be in communion with every living thing on earth? (At least on some level). That doesn't mean every one of God's creatures has my best interests at heart.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #18
Mike Mazzone of Palatine
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
But can't I be in communion with every living thing on earth? (At least on some level). That doesn't mean every one of God's creatures has my best interests at heart.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #19
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Also, as I see it, race comes first because I need it to survive, just as I need food, water, etc. God would not want me to neglect these things. When the White race looks after primary things such as basic existence, it can then go on to do great work.
 
Old November 4th, 2008 #20
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,087
Mike in Denver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne View Post
But can't I be in communion with every living thing on earth? (At least on some level). That doesn't mean every one of God's creatures has my best interests at heart.
A beautiful statement, and very Pagan, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in sync with Roman Catholic Catechism. My memory is pretty good, but I can't dig out anything right now, about communion with all living things. St. Francis seemed to believe this, but I have always suspected he was more Pagan than Christian.

As a Pagan, I like your statement, though I can't quite work jews and muds into it.

Mike
__________________
You have to remember I live in Denver and some things are perfectly legal here that aren't where you live.
 
Reply

Tags
christianity is jewish, kwml

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.
Page generated in 0.17892 seconds.