i am wondering if any catholics are interested in working for the kingship of christ and a restoration of the catholic social order. Check out the NEW Hotbot Tell me when this page is updated

Counterrevolutionary Links, Catholic, Royal and Communitarian Accueil! Catholic Links I Royalist Links I Communitarian Links I Papal Encyclicals Catholic Webrings Affiliated Links Carmelite Links

CRCLinks Home

(This Site is under construction. I will be adding to it at least once a week, so you might want to receive an eMail when it is updated! At first, I'm simply putting in the links. Then as I have time, I will include commentary on each link.)

You have reached CRCLinks; the ultimate Directory of links to sites Catholic, Royal and Communitarian. This page is (and will remain) under construction. Its aim is to be the first source for anyone seeking information on Traditional Catholicism, Monarchism, the Counter Revolution and attempts at implementing the Traditional Social Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in an effort to create a just Social Order. In other words, if youre interested in sites pertaining to the Triumph of the Social Reign of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary, you've come to the right place.

This Site is maintained by J.-M. Weismiller, T.O.Carm., a middle-aged, lay, married Catholic who has a real job to support his family. He would appreciate your help. If you have a site, or know of a site that should be listed here but is not, please email to jm_weismiller@mail2france.com with your suggestion. If you don't like the translations of some of the comments (they're done with the help of BabelFish and Mail2World!), feel free to correct them and email them to the same address. If, which God forbid!, you should find a broken link, please let him know!

For the record and because many people find these things important, I believe the following: A) John Paul II is the true Pope of the Catholic Church, B) The Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI is a valid Catholic Mass, tho' seriously deficient in Catholic teaching, and C) The Consecration of Russia has not been done as requested by OL of Fatima. I am the sworn liegeman of His Most Christian Majesty, LouisXX, King of France and Navarre and am convinced that his Restoration will be the beginning of the total defeat of the Revolution.

For those who may be more comfortable in a language other than English we have included links to translator sites on each page. In order to facilitate communication between people who might be using this site we would like to recommend (the free) eMail server at Mail2World at www.mail2world.com. Type your email message in your language, click on the translation box and it arrives both in the original language and the translation! Mail2World

Search My Site

Tell A Friend! Type In Your Name:

Type In Your E-mail:

Your Friend's E-mail:

Your Comments:

Receive copy:

Unknown Gem Type: tlx.bravenet.counter BabelFish Translator

BabelFish en Francaise

All text and commentary (but not links) © 2001, 2002, 2003 by J.-M. Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Last updated on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 8:02:29 PM

-- chip waguespack (cmonarchp@aol.com), August 12, 2003

Answers

Response to catholic monarchy

Jesus said :

"Let that which belongs to Caesar be Caesar's. That which belongs to God is God's."

I think the above spells things quite well ...

a sort of (Catholic) religious (meta) State is *not* definitivelly a *good* idea (for those in doubt a bit of St. Thomas Aquinas at http://icu.catholicity.com/c00413.htm should clarify things a lot) ...

-- António Meireles (am@epandemic.com), August 12, 2003.

Can you say TALIBAN?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 01, 2003.

Hi Chris Ill take a rain check on your offer thanks, with the greatest of respect your friend sounds like hes a few sandwiches short of a picnic....

" I am the sworn liegeman of His Most Christian Majesty, LouisXX, King of France and Navarre and am convinced that his Restoration will be the beginning of the total defeat of the Revolution."

.... However we have a royal monarch of sorts on the forum ourselves. Search the forum for a man called Jake, a former maritime dockyard navy cleaner who believes he is the Pope. As a note of caution though he has some strange penchants. Does either yourself or Mr Weismiller have a beard? Just be careful.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 01, 2003.

There's somebody named Jake who posts in the Anarchy 2 forum. His posts are meaningless, all he does is write illegible posts full of racial slurs and homophobia. He also likes to impersonate people, posting under their names and saying he likes to molest children and the like. Could it be the same person?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

Absolutely not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 27, 2003.

a former maritime dockyard navy cleaner who believes he is the Pope. As a note of caution though he has some strange penchants. Does either yourself or Mr Weismiller have a beard? Just be careful.

Away for nearly a week, and I see I needn't even be around to provide all of you good new springtimers with a little target practice.

You're welcome. No charge.

Be not afraid. I guess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

There's somebody named Jake who posts in the Anarchy 2 forum. His posts are meaningless, all he does is write illegible posts full of racial slurs and homophobia. He also likes to impersonate people, posting under their names and saying he likes to molest children and the like.

Much as I love to bask in publicity, it must be another Jake. Anarchists are boring.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 28, 2003.

Im sure you laughed it off anyway but if not sorry.

I never laugh. About anything. Ever.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Jake, So I hear you're the Pope...

Kiss my ring, Commerade.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 29, 2003.

I'm not Catholic so I won't be labelling you a heathen like these other lemmings do.

I would be interested in hearing ehat you have to say.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

I'm not Catholic

You should be. If you're not Catholic by the time you die, you will go to Hell for all eternity.

I would be interested in hearing ehat you have to say.

You sure about that?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 29, 2003.

Actualy I was baptized Catholic. I just don't follow the religion any more.

You claim you're the Pope?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Actualy I was baptized Catholic. I just don't follow the religion any more.

In that case, you stand to occupy an even lower place in Hell should you go there. This is serious stuff, my friend. "Don't go there," as they say.

You claim you're the Pope?

Oh, stop it.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 30, 2003.

I love truth in a shotglass.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

I love truth in a shotglass.

i love just about anything normally served in a shot glass, lol, but then again, i just turned twenty one, what, a month and a half ago...? lost track of days already, rats!!!

just kidding, glass of wine here, or drink with dinner there, but im no drunkard (cant say the same for some of my college buddies though).

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 30, 2003.

Truth is 100 proof, and can only be taken straight. Add a little ice or a mixer, and it's not truth anymore. Funny how tasting it makes most of us choke, no?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 30, 2003.

See this is what I like about Mormons. If you're not a Mormon, they think you're going to ehll and will burn for all eternity, but they're nice about it. All I'm hearing out of Jake is "have a nice time in hell". The Mormons will talk to you with a smile on their face forever.

Lighten up, guys.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

All I'm hearing out of Jake is "have a nice time in hell".

I didn't write anything "between the lines" for you to read. If you do go to Hell, you will not have a nice time, but I do not want you to go there. On the contrary, I want you to go to Heaven, because that's what God wants.

I'm not being flippant about what faces you should you die in your present state of apostasy, because it's no laughing matter. I told you that this is serious stuff, and if you think I'm not "being nice about it" like the Mormons you know, it's because there's no "nice" (and effective) way to say what needs to be said to you.

Would you say one Hail Mary a day for a month?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 02, 2003.

"Denis, the Carthusian, calls the Most Blessed Virgin "the advocate of all the wicked who have recourse to her." Since, then, 0 great Mother of God, thy office is to defend the causes of the most guilty criminals who have recourse to thee, behold me now at thy feet; to thee I have recourse, and I address thee in the words of St. Thomas of Villanova: "0 gracious advocate, fulfill thy charge." Now quickly enter upon thy office, undertake my cause: it is true that I have indeed been guilty before my Lord, having offended Him, after the many benefits and graces He has conferred upon me; but the evil is done; thou canst save me. Thou hast only to tell thy God that thou defendest me, and then I shall be forgiven, and shall be saved."

--St. Alphonsus Liguori, 21st visit from Visits to the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

"Wicked"? We are all of us one of them "wicked who have recourse to her"; who isn't, really. So St. Alphonsus completes the above thoughts with this plea: "My dear Mother, thou hast to save me" in the curious style of a demand.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 03, 2003.

jake, it cant have been THAT long since you were 21....

Truth is 100 proof, and can only be taken straight.

doesnt everyone know straight alchohol is two hundred proof?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2003.

jake, it cant have been THAT long since you were 21....

12.5 years, but on my 21st birthday, I was overseas in a country where the drinking age was "tall enough to put money on the bar."

doesnt everyone know straight alchohol is two hundred proof?

Actually, no. I had no idea.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 03, 2003.

Ireland, right?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

So... any time a Catholic country elects a president or PM or king...it's instantly and for all time no different than the Muslim Taliban?

Just like that. No need to make distinctions, no need for taking into consideration differences of religion, no need to glance at actual historical precedents (such as the Polish Kingdom's acceptance of Jews and others into the realm)... just instant close-minded belief that a Catholic kingdom must be no different than the short-lived reign of the Taliban in Afganistan?

Tell me, which regimes in world history have been most bloody and repressive? Religious ones or atheistic ones?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

Oooh. A can of worms.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2003.

Wait...elect a king? If you're talking about a Democracy, I'm on board. The term Monarchy generaly implies a system of hereditary, unelected rulers. A theocratic monarchy is a breeding ground for dictatorship. If the people really want the government to reflect their religion, they will vote for such changes.

Democracy is always the best way to go.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

I love that line out of The Patriot:

"Would you tell me, please... why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

This is going to sound bizarre, but here goes:

The pontiff of the Catholic Church is the visible head of all society, of all the world and all it's inhabitants, whether they in fact recognize it or not.

The papacy at this point in history is as Christ wearing a crown of thorns and walking the trail to His crucifixion. "So you are a King?" says Pilate. Then off He goes to die on a cross. It seems fair enough to me to speculate that the office of Vicar of Christ in this particular age of Christendom contain shadows of what the head of the body itself, Christ, endured so long ago. Just some random musings.

In so many ways people were expecting the Messiah to be a great temporal ruler of nations and a weilder of common power. I wonder sometimes if the 12 disciples themselves didn't expect as much right up until the day of the Descent of the Holy Ghost. Great popularity, great sway, great glory... clueless crowds waving palm branches. But the real thing looked so different from all expectations. I wonder of part of Judas' betrayal consisted of thinking that the glory of the Messiah could be bought and paid for via the purse that he held jurisdiction over. Everything worthwhile is bought and paid for in blood.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 12, 2003.

From Luke:

31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

33 Who said to him: Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death.

34 And he said: I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me. And he said to them:

35 When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything?

36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.

37 For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end.

38 But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough.

39 And going out, he went, according to his custom, to the Mount of Olives. And his disciples also followed him.

40 And when he was come to the place, he said to them: Pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

41 And he was withdrawn away from them a stone's cast. And kneeling down, he prayed.

42 Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.

43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed the longer.

44 And his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.

45 And when he rose up from prayer and was come to the disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow.

46 And he said to them: Why sleep you? Arise: pray: lest you enter into temptation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 13, 2003.

"This is going to sound bizarre, but here goes: The pontiff of the Catholic Church is the visible head of all society, of all the world and all it's inhabitants, whether they in fact recognize it or not."

Not "bizarre," but incomplete because missing one word: spiritual.
"The pontiff ... is the visible" spiritual "head ... of all the world" -- because God wants every person to be a member of the Catholic Church and thus subject spiritually to the pope.

But the pontiff is not the visible temporal head of all the world. As was correctly stated above, the pope is the "Vicar of Christ." And, since Jesus Christ told Pontius Pilate, "My kingship is not of this world," it follows that the vicar of Jesus Christ also does not have a kingship that is of this world.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

He is also the caretaker of God's truth and teachings on earth (note I said caretaker, not judge and not king).

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

From Unam Sanctam:

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

The document concludes with this infallible, dogmatic proclamation:

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

So clearly, it IS within the pontiff's jurisdiction to have the ultimate say over temporal matters.

Period. If one denies this, they deny the Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

I hate it when that happens.

At any rate, the separation of the pontiff from temporal concerns and relegates his authority only to the spiritual realm is heresy.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

It would not be heresy even if it were true that the Pope holds temporal authority over elected rulers of nations, because this would be a strictly administrative matter, not a moral or doctrinal issue.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

You are right, Paul M.
This is yet another case of "sola scriptura" [SS] -- with a twist.

That discredited principle leads admitted Protestants into error because they consider the Bible to be only "rule of faith" -- and they consider themselves capable of interpreting the written Word of God without the Church's help.
But here we see the discredited principle at work in a case in which the "scriptura" [writing] is a papal document from the year 1302 (by Boniface VIII). Here we see that "sola scriptura" has led someone (who considers himself a Catholic) into error, because he thinks that he is capable of interpreting the document without help. But he now has the Church's help from you (plus a few words more from me and the "Catholic Encyclopedia").

As you stated, what is being tossed at us -- with italic, bold, and underlined whistles and bells -- is not something doctrinal (faith or morals), but something administrative/disciplinary and subject to change with changing conditions. And, boy did the conditions change after 1302! -- which helps to explain why our pope today never claims even indirectly to have temporal governance of the nations of the world.

Even when the old discipline was in effect, says the Bull, "the material sword ... [was] to be administered ... by the hands of kings and soldiers ...". This is what I meant, earlier in the thread, by saying that the pope is not a temporal ruler any more than Jesus was an Earthly king. We are not being unfaithful to the dogmatic definition at the end of the Bull, because we are "subject to the Roman pontiff" in the way required of us by God.

As the old "Catholic Encyclopedia" article on "Unam sanctam" says:
"The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe." Exactly!
The Bull was occasioned in 1302 by a dispute between the pope and the king of France.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Let me try this again.

John said:

"But the pontiff is not the visible temporal head of all the world."

But the Bull Unam Sanctam said this:

"Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."

That's a clear refutation. How is it not so? Hey, I'm stupid. Help me out here; I have no gift to bring that's fit to give our King?

This should be simple, so I'll let you guys fire away and explain to me these great truths and how I should best perceive them. I can't stand it when my Catholic Faith is compromised, so I would love to hear how it ain't so and that I'm misguided.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

Already explained, Sen~or Sola Scriptura. As has happened COUNTLESS times on a MYRIAD of subjects, you don't bother to read, ponder, and understand what others have said. So you keep coming back and RE-QUOTING the same stuff, asking the same pointless questions, etc..

I will not waste further time. At this point in history, you get ONE chance only -- and you ought to be thrilled that you even get ONE. If you don't "get it" from the first reading of our two posts, you have three choices:
(1) Go back and keep reading it until you get it, or
(2) Move on to another thread and a different topic, or
(3) Move on to another forum.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

(4) Keep the Faith whole and undefiled.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

Paul, I have absolutely no idea why you are deleting posts of mine which are in complete compliance with forum rules.

Here's a somewhat toned-down version, which should be completely acceptable. If not, please explain why not:

______________

"As has happened COUNTLESS times on a MYRIAD of subjects, you don't bother to read, ponder, and understand what others have said."

See the bolded part? The Church has never required me to read, ponder and understand what others have said. If this is so, I demand the same from you regarding the things that I have written. As it stands, I can demand no such thing. We are equals, John; peers.

Assuming I'm literate, what the Church has in fact required of me is that I read, ponder, and at least try to understand what has been declared, professed and defined by the Church, not by you. This would be true assent to the teachings of the Church. I need not lend assent to peers within the Church, but to the Church herself.

"So you keep coming back and RE-QUOTING the same stuff, asking the same pointless questions, etc.."

Naturally. I want to know why you are contradicting an infallible document.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

It has been clearly and repeatedly explained to you why the referenced papal bull is NOT "an infallible document". Apparently you don't want your private interpretation of matters to be upset by the facts - but the facts are not going to change, no matter how many times you repeat the same error.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

The entire document is not infallible as you say. The following part, however, is:

"Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

It is because of the use of the preface "we declare, say, pronounce, and define...".

Evidence for this is to be found in yet another document (Vatican I) containing an infallible statement concerning infallibility itself:

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

So while yet not all of the text in the above document Unam Sanctam, as you say rightly, is not specifically Ex Cathedra except the bolded which you see above,

...by your own rightly-maintained arguments elsewhere, we are required to give assent beyond what is pronounced Ex Cathedra, and we are required to lend our assent to the entire document. It is the teaching of the Church, and furthermore:

...because what comes before in the document is summed up in the infallible state which is in bold above. This is super relevant.

Paul, this is irrefutable. It's the Catholic doctrine of the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

We've got a serious problem here, Paul. I in fact do know what the Church actually teaches regarding infallibility and what it means to lend true assent to the Catholic Church and to the Roman pontiff.

I know what the real teaching is, and what it consists of. While I'm personally somewhat of an idiot, I've got a healthy educational background.

Now I'm saying that you people don't have it right, and are not accurately expressing what the Church actually teaches. Not me, mind you, but what the Church teaches.

If this is burdensome because of the truth that it exposes, then by all means delete me.

If you feel that you are correct and have the weight of the Catholic Church on your side, then surely you will be able to show me wrong.

I would happily take the latter if you are correct, as it is my desire to follow Catholic doctrine. But if the former is the case and I am deleted without being engaged on the matter (which I have not been yet despite claims to the contrary), and simply being declared in error without due process by a jury of my peers, then I can only assume that the truth is not on your side.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

"declared in error without due process by a jury of my peers"

Should read, declared in error by my peers. Because that's not how Catholic Truth is determined.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

Moderator, please just get it over with and BAN the brainless, obnoxious, useless, pathetic jerk, Paul "Emerald" Moeller. For two years, some of us have had to suffer the incessant stream of putrid verbal scum regurgitated by this neanderthal and his fellow schismatic stooges (Mrs. Jake, Mr. Regina, and "Isabel"). The above posts should prove even to an overly tolerant person like you that these people are sick in the head, incorrigible, defiant, puffed-up-to-the-max with pride and self-love.

PLEASE BAN THEM ALL ... NOW AND FOREVER -- in saecula saeculorum.

With their souls firmly in satan's grasp, they are now WORTHLESS -- and even worse than worthless, because they draw others into mortally sinful heresy and schism. You still have a few brief moments in which to redeem yourself and avoid condemning yourself. Please don't continue in error until the bitter end.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Look, this is pretty straight forward. John, you said something that was not in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church:

"But the pontiff is not the visible temporal head of all the world."

But the Bull Unam Sanctam said this:

"Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."

You twist and bend the words of the Church to your own interpretation, while you deny it, and you turn to your traditional Catholic brothers and falsely accuse them of the same.

For instance, Paul says this:

"It has been clearly and repeatedly explained to you why the referenced papal bull is NOT "an infallible document"."

Who are you people to be interpreting Catholic doctrine for me? You don't speak in the name of the Church; you speak in the name of yourselves and your own private interpretations. I can readily see for myself, thank you, what the Church is teaching me. The Church clearly teaches me without your assistance.

The Church has not rescinded the Bull Unam Sanctam.

YOU have rescinded it by your own private interpretation. It clearly says what it says, and you are clearly denying it.

For goodness sake, look at this unsupportable accusation:

"Apparently you don't want your private interpretation of matters to be upset by the facts - but the facts are not going to change, no matter how many times you repeat the same error."

You accuse me? Heck, you're guilty, Paul, and so is John. You pick and choose what Catholic doctrines to believe and what not to believe. You are the one claiming that you don't have to believe a teaching of the Church if it's not stated infallibly.

I dare you to let this post stand and to defend it. Deletion means to me that you cannot defend it.

You know that I'm a sincere in defending the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2003.

With their souls firmly in satan's grasp, they are now WORTHLESS -- and even worse than worthless

No soul is "worthless." Not even mine.

To say that someone's soul is "worthless" runs against Divinely revealed Catholic truth, reeks of the mortal sin of despair, and mocks the good God Who is the Author of all life by pointing an arrogant finger in His Holy Face and saying that He is cruel and incapable of mercy.

Quite the contrary. Each soul has infinite value before God, Who created it out of nothing, suffered a bitter Passion for its sake, and wills it to be an adorer of Him for all eternity.

When such opinions (souls being "worthless")are held up to the light of truth as handed down to us from the Church, they become...well, worthless.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 17, 2003.

This is becoming monotonous, Joke. In thread after thread, you are showing yourself to be either sickeningly devious or astoundingly dumb.

Here you are either pretending that I said that your soul is worthless -- or you actually believe that I said this, because you cannot read English. I'm beginning to believe that it is the latter. Why? Because it would go a long way to explaining how you could remain in schism and heresy. If (like your pal, P. Moeller) you cannot even understand basic English, it stands to reason that you are bound to be fooled by the shoddy SSPX-style logic of pseudo-traditionalism.

Now, having said all that, I will either (1) explain to others how you misrepresented what I said, or (2) explain to you how you misunderstood what I said.

Just now, you quoted and attacked only part of a sentence of mine, ripping it out of context. My true meaning can be seen by looking at the whole sentence:

With their souls firmly in satan's grasp, they are now WORTHLESS -- and even worse than worthless, because they draw others into mortally sinful heresy and schism.

A person with even below-average intelligence, if he reads that with care, will see that the word "they" refers to the people whom I have been criticizing -- not to their "souls." This can be seen by noting the phrase that begins with the word "because." Notice that "they" (these people, not these "souls") "draw others" (other people) away from the Church.

Besides, anyone who has "known" me, here at forum, for even a week, would know that I would never say that human souls could be "worthless." The fact that you had the nerve (or stupidity) to accuse me of such a thing should make you hang your head in shame (or embarrassment). So, I reiterate ... you and your cronies are WORTHLESS to this forum -- and "even worse than worthless."

I intend to make this my last post on this thread. Kindly avoid being foolish enough to tempt me to go against my intention.
May God forgive you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.