Restore the Church
blog*spot

Friday, August 01, 2003

Dialogue with Muslims is Working? 

Some have said I am far too hard on Apolonio Latar III. Yet I disagree. It is precisely because I have so much respect of him that I press him so hard on these issues. His brilliant philosophical mind should realize the inherent contradictions and weakness of his position. And while he should be commended for placing a high value on spirituality, spirituality must also tie in with knowing the Catholic faith, and to be an able defender of it, if one is to be an apologist, as Mr. Latar is. So I will press my good friend on these issues, because I want him to see the folly of his ways. I also know when he responds to me, I presume he has the same mentality.

In his latest defense of novelty, Mr. Latar defends the interreligious dialogues with Islam as working, and providing numerous benefits. One of his primary arguments seems to be that since non-dialogue with them didn't work, dialogue is now the best policy. That of course is a fallacy right there. Just because A didn't get the job done doesn't mean B will.

He recognizes the distinction Islam currently faces, between moderate Muslims and militant Muslims, yet returns to grouping them together. Here again is my suggestion. If we are to dialogue with Muslims, to secure the rights of our evangelists, and to bring Muslims closer to Holy Mother Church, talk only with the moderate ones, who swear off persecution of Christians. For those militant muslims, take a hardline approach. Refuse dialogue, and condemn them. Do the same thing the Church had done for centuries, pray for Muslims trapped in darkness, yet also seek the protection of our evangelists. Use the political relationship we have developed with many Muslims in our dealings against the culture of death of the United Nations to our advantage. We are playing with only half a deck of cards here. It seems we are too afraid of "offending" people, indeed Apolonio has said such, that we shouldn't focus so much on preaching Christ to them, since it offends them. At times I follow the thinking of St. Pius X when it came to dialogue with those hostile to the Church "Diplomacy be damned!"

There are numerous leading moderate Muslims who have a serious problem with Militant Islam. Work with these Muslims against Militant Islam. Support those who are combatting Militant Islam and terrorism, rather than condeming their efforts to secure the safety of their own people as an "offense crying to God for revenge." If we are truly serious about these dialogues, we need to come to the table with a full deck of cards, and be willing to stand up to those who are evil.

Let's throw out the current playbook, and revise such.

New Articles at Defenders Apologetics Ministry 

The Problem of Exaggeration

Response to John Pacheco's "Neo-Traditionalist" challenge

2 new articles by Guest columnist Adam Kolanski, I am featured as a co-writer in the latter. 2 very well laid out and balanced articles by Mr. Kolanski

New Archbishops Stance on Communion 

Reception of Communion up to Individual

Perhaps all the hoop-la about the new Archbishop of Boston was premature. While he came down hard on sexual deviancy in the Church at his installation Mass, we now see an amibigious, partly true, but imprecise stance on the reception of communion. While it is certainly true pro-abortion "Catholics" should refrain from communion on their own, where is the directive stating that people who openly support the slaughter of innocent children are not to receive communion, that being pro-abortion, and voting pro-abortion, can incur excommunication upon oneself? Leaving it up to the individual can be quite dangerous. As pastor of souls, perhaps a dose of pre-emption should be undertaken. Those priests who are well aware of one's pro-abortion views, should deny communion to these people until they recant their blashpemous views, lest they create sacrelige to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Yes this is tough talk, yet with humans, tough talk is what works.

A Truly Great Pope! 

This month marks the centenary of the great St. Pius X's ascendancy to the throne of St. Peter. From 1903 until his saintly death in 1914, St. Guiseppe Sarto was Pope Pius X and ruled the Church with faith, with courage, and with wisdom. The Catholic Family News are dedicating an entire issue to this holy Pope's papacy. Check out the online articles: http://www.oltyn.com/cfn.htm.

The charge of Assent 

Apolonio Latar has written on the value of Pacem in Terris, and formulates an argument that we must give it assent. This of course is not in dispute. The level is what form of assent must be given. Apolonio of course goes on a tangent, I think again missing the boat here. We already know that the Ordinary Magesterium does not contain novelty. The Magesterium, in whatever form, teaches nothing novel. Likewise, Vatican I precisely states the Holy Spirit was not given so that Peter may invent doctrine, yet gaurd the deposit of faith. So we must examine if the teachings that I believe some pertintent questions can be raised, what level, if any they are of the Magesterium. Furthermore, once this has been established, we must then examine just what it entails as a magesterial statement. Finally, we must then examine excactly what type of assent must be given on the issue.

For example, if we must concede that global governance indepedent of God ran by the United Nations is a magesterial teaching, does this mean we must adhere to such things as the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination against all Women? Must we accept the United Nations Human Rights Charter when it states that if we use our rights contrary to the goals of the United Nations, they may strip them from us? Therefore, the UN states they are the ones who grant and take away rights, not God. This will be examined more in-depth. These 3 things had to be laid out as groundwork before we continue.

Thursday, July 31, 2003

The "Greatness" of Popes 

Coming within the next week we will recall the 100th anniversary of a truly remarkable event: The crowning of the first Pope since Pius V who was canonized a saint. St. Pius X was a truly great Pope. Whether it was standing up to the government of France, battling modernism, establishing "Committees of vigilance" against modernism, clearing out seminaries, promoting Sacred Music, promoting the Sacred Liturgy and authentic liturigcal reform, promoting the Rosary and the Divine Office, releasing the monumental Encyclical Pascendi, the Anti-Modernist Oath, Cardinal Sarto(his name before Pius X) was a truly great pope. I say truly because nowadays, it seems as if people have a confusion about the Pope. They seem to think that all Popes were great men. History does not paint this picture.

There are many who proclaim that our current Pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II, has been the greatest Pope of the 20th century, if not of all time. A Pope's job is to protect the flock, and be a firm gaurd against novelty, binding the Church to the Deposit of Faith. I am in no way uncharitable in saying that the current Pontificate has failed drastically on both counts. The Souls of the flock are constantly endangered when they attend liberal seminaries which do not even hide their open dissent from infallible Catholic doctrine, in many areas of the world their bodies are in danger because of fierece state persecution, only to see the Vatican praise the persecutors of them! We have almost entire continents of apostate Bishops, especially in North America, where very few deny anymore that this grouping of Bishops has done incredible damage. We see the emergence of a homosexual culture in the priesthood. Gone are the days of manly priests, truly standing as alter Christus. Now there are many devout priests out there, but their emphasis has been almost drowned out in a crowd of egalitarianism. On pastoring the faithful, we must say, he can hardly be called "great." There is no comparison between St. Pius X, St. Pius V, and John Paul II. These 2 popes were the only 2 saints in the papacy over the past several centuries.

On regard of holding firm to the Deposit of Faith, as one who refuses to deny empirical evidence, I must say the performance here has also not been very positive. While he has done some good, by speaking out in clear force against womens ordination, all too many times we have seen the compromising of the Churches traditions to that of the world. We have seen the Churches liturgy descend to the point where even many Protestant services are more reverent. Though he originally stood tall against altar girls, the current Pontiff finally caved to the pressures of the world, and called them a very good thing for the liturgy. Meanwhile, that which the Church has had forever is now locked away, and a desire for it is greeted with contempt. I am of course referring to the Traditional Latin Mass. Ratzinger himself described the issue this way, and truly sees it as a great credibility problem for the Church today. The arguments have all been dismantled for those who claim the Novus Ordo isn't really new, but is truly traditional. We have seen novelty after novelty in the area of ecumenism.

Is John Paul II the worst Pope ever? I wouldn't think so. While there have been many unfavorable aspects of the Papacy from an empirical standpoint, which cannot be disputed, we have had far more disastarous Popes from the Past. Yet to call him "John Paul the Great" after he stood over the gravest apostasy since the Arian crisis, I believe is insulting to those who truly have the name of Great, such as St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great, as well as truly holy pontifs such as Pius V and Pius X.

We are facing a similar situation as in the days of Cardinal Sarto. We must be frank with reality, the current Pontiff probably does not have that much time left, after ruling for 25 years. This was the same amount of time Leo XIII ruled in the days of Cardinal Sarto. I am not comparing Leo XIII and John Paul II here, except for the amount of time they ruled. Both wrote an incredible amount of material and both Pontiffs enjoyed a large popularity. (Whether or not John Paul II has been a "great pope", he surely has been a popular one with the faithful no doubt.) The only difference is with the current papacy, despite my views upon him, I feel there are those who will make him seem as far right as Pius X who wish to have power. Come the passing of the current Holy Father, Catholicism will face a turning point. Does it continue on the path of the world, or does it rediscover it's calling, and enter a true "New Springtime?"

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Priest Protested, his crime, being Catholic! 

That Old Time Religion

Fr. John Perricone, priest of Our Lady of Mount Caramel has gotten himself into a bit of trouble with the layity there. For once, a priest of the Novus Ordo isn't in the news for mollesting someone. This we should be thankful, I guess. Now, he is under attack for using Latin, and being too much of an authority-type!

What are these crimes of being insensitive to the people? When he celebrates Mass, the ultimate worship one can give to God, his focus is on God, not the people. Read through all these accusations, and if anything, this guy seems like a stand-up priest. Rather than wanting to defend himself, he wanted to tell the reporter about the beauty of the Traditional Mass. I would say what he is doing, is in alignment with Vatican II's constitution on the liturgy, since it advocated no destruction of altars, no mass facing the People, none of these things.

Yet the protestors against him are "Children of God", who want "No Vatican II rollback." It is obvious to the faithful, to the liberals, and to the traditionalists Vatican II has been the source of the massive change, yet our Neo-Catholic friends say not much really changed, it's still the same old Church.

Notice the Protestant statement at the end of the article, essentially equating the Mass with the priest. This is one of the largest problems of the liturgical destruction since Vatican II. Before, which priest celebrated Mass was absolutely irrelevant. The only thing you were hearing out of him was the homily, which was one of the least important parts of the Mass. The priest stood as Alter Christus, acting in persona Christi. Who he was made little difference. That is another reason why he didn't face the people, our attention should be on God, not on which priest it is. Yet sadly, in today's New Mass, since so much is left to the discretion of the priest, Alter Christus is pushed aside, and the priest's personality is given precedence.

On "Rad-Trads" 

Apolonio has written a seemingly angry response to us at Restore The Church. I believe he has misread what I had said, so allow me to clarify. First he has stated that I lied in claiming that Apolonio was through responding to me. Whatever happened to the Ignatian principle of charity he so loves to talk about? Apolonio made his wishes quite known he didn't feel like responding to us at Restore the Church, whether it be ever or not as often is really irrelevant, that was all I was pointing out.

Now in regard to the Pope misleading people, or the potential for such, I think Apolonio again misses the point. The point being, Apolonio has swore he will stand behind the Pope, NO MATTER WHAT. The operative words are no matter what. He says this by quoting Newman, that we must follow Peter "Wherever he goes", and in his posts on obedience. How can a pontiff mislead you, if you must follow him wherever he goes? The simple fact is, that Apolonio, by using this standard of obedience, must follow the prelate, even when he committs objective error or scandal. That was the glaring hole I was pointing out in his ideas.

"Response:
First of all, one is allowed to criticize. However, one should criticize or complain TO ROME, not to man about Rome. I have said this many times and to him before. He simply does not understand it. Donum Veritatis said,"

Actaully, by Apolonio's standards, I ask once again, how can you criticize, even to Rome, since this is "Not following Peter wherever he goes" and from before "to criticize the Pope shows spiritual immaturity." Yet its not "complaining." It's called raising legitimate questions to our prelates, and also to the faithful, so they may think as well.

"Second, Adrian asked, "What ELSE CAN WE DO." In other words, one can we do other than complaining to Rome. Third, yes, we can simply "just pray." It's not my fault Kevin does not put primacy on prayer. I put a heavy primacy on prayer just as many of the saints did. Read any spiritual writer and they will emphasize prayer. And why can't we just pray? What did St. Monica do other than pray? She relied on prayer and God did the rest. Kevin simply doesn't have faith in God that He can turn things around."

Notice that in the beginning of the post Apolonio accuses me(and Restore the Church) of lies and being uncharitable. I don't know how he can make that statement, and then turn around and say things such as this. First, I do put a primacy on prayer, had he actually read all my post that he is responding to, he would notice the specific emphasis I put upon prayer. And how much emphasis in the past I have put on trusting in God. I will allow the reader to judge, yet I will also ask Apolonio to exhibit the same amount of charity he wishes his opponents to also engage in.

"Praying for Rome and not doing anything publically is not hypocrisy. This is just bad reasoning. "

As much as Apolonio wishes this was my argument, this won't work. My point was that you act one way outwardly, and another on the inside. In other words, let's say praying for a change in the ecumenical project, yet at the same time outwardly upholding the very project you want strucken from the record. That I would say is hypocripsy.

"Response:
I never said we shouldn't preach hell. I said, "Did he forget the doctrine of hell? Of course not. He simply does not emphasize on it." One can teach hell without emphasizing on it. John Paul II has taught the existence of hell, but did not emphasize on it. "

If you are not placing much emphasis on it, you surely aren't really teaching it or preaching it. It's a comment in passing in reality. So here, we see a distinction without a difference Apolonio is making.

"I NEVER said we SHOULDN'T preach hell. This is a lie again. He might say, "Well, didn't you say we shouldn't preach hell to these people?" And as I have always answered, the Pope believes that preaching hell would scare people away and will give the impression of the same old "convert or go to hell". However, Pope John Paul approaches evangelization differently and we shouldn't criticize him for that just because his approach is different. Does this mean that **we** shouldn't or can't? Of course not. It simply does not follow. "

As he continues to level the charge of "liar liar" perhaps he should read a little more closely. Notice that he says we should preach it, but not to them, because it might scare them away. I of course seriously disagree with that proposition, as 12 men preached hell quite a bit, and converted the worlds largest empire. He seems to think that the idea that maybe the Pope, by not preaching hell to them, is causing far more damage than good, is "criticizing and attacking the Pope" as if we are going after him personally. Logic 101 teaches you the difference between attacking the ideal, and attacking the person. Yet again, they are grouped together, in the notion that we cannot speak against the Pope when he is doing wrong. So this is no lie, but a dead on analysis.

"I sent him a Instant Message about this, showing specifically how it contradicted the faith, but he said he was busy. He said he will send me the email either that night or the day after. I never received any email. And I AM STILL WAITING. It's a nice try though, trying to shift the burden of proof. "

As Apolonio well knows, I just got a new apartment, and am moving my stuff there, so he knows I am busy. It's not shifting the burden of proof, it's simply asking, how can one support Global Governance by the United Nations, and uphold Catholic theology at the same time, when the UN is diametrically opposed to such.

"It's funny though. First, Kevin criticized the Church for its ambiguity. Then, he criticized the Pope's actions. Now, he will criticize an encyclical of John XXIII. I wonder how far he will go. Pius XII said we must give some sort of assent to teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. and Vatican 2 said we must give religious submission of mind and will to the authentic Magisterium. Dr. Ott said,"

Ok, yet is the idea of global governance apart of the authentic magesteruim? Is it officially part of the magesteruim, because the Pope says so? The Magesteruim cannot invent something out of a hat. So the quotes he cites, unless he can prove this is a magesterial area, are absolutely irrelevant, and a smoke screen.

"I wonder how far Kevin will go. I await his criticism of John XXIII and the Living Magisterium."

All this will do is question the prudence of working with the United Nations, and if this can be reconcilled with Catholic theology on our approach to the world. This is not part of the Living Magesterium. Now the burden of proof on that point, is on Apolonio, to prove that much. When he attemtps to, we at Restore the Church only hope and yes pray that Mr. Latar will show the same amount of charity that he wishes everyone else show, instead of just denouncing someone as a liar. Follow the Ignatian Principle of Charity my friend.

Monday, July 28, 2003

Get The Schismatic! Yet another Catholic recognizes Reality 

Atila Sinke Guiameres made a comment about the most recent issue of Catholic World Report.

Birds Eye View of the News

I'm waiting for the conservative, neo, blind-eye, whatever you may call them Catholics to denounce yet another schismatic. When traditionalists make these points, we are schismatics. When Msgr. Klaus Gamber said Paul VI had no authority to give us a New Rite of the Mass, the New Mass is inferior, and we witnessed the destruction of part of the Churches Tradition, Gamber is noted by the Vatican as the one liturigical scholar who understands the thinking of the Church, as Cardinal Ratzinger noted. Yet when traditionalists make these same points, our Neo-Catholic friends denounce us as schismatics and not loyal to the Pope.

Don't you realize though Kevin, you are just a layman, you should keep your mouth shut! St. Paul wasn't a layman, and even those laymen who rebuked Popes, well, you aren't them! This argument was made by the Lidless Eye Inquisition essentially(wasn't directed to me explictly, but to traditionalists in general). St. Thomas interpreted this as a prelate's subjects may rebuke a prelate publicly. He did not say only if they are fellow Bishops. I will prefer the Angelic Doctors analysis of the passage over a bunch of angry anti-traditionalists. In regards to the second claim, well I'm not a canonized saint, were those people canonized saints when they did this? Of Course not. If anything, their heroism is part of what was considered during the canonization process(back when it actually meant something). Furthermore, we are to imitate those who have gone before us. Therefore, these arguments are yet again the products of the Neo-Catholic excuse factory.

Pray, but don't criticize 

A new addition to "The Pope can never error and if you criticize him you are spiritually immature" department, we see yet another post from our Lidless Eye Inquisitors. Here they stressed something that is surely important, and us traditionalists should always do, and that is constant prayer. As Traditionalists, after all the polemics are done, after all our devestating arguments against the "New Springtime", if we do not pray, we are nothing. We should pray the Rosary Daily. Pray to St. Michael invoking his defense, as he is the one who in the end, will, by the power of God, conquer the devil. (Interestingly enough, that prayer was removed from the post-mas Rubrics of the Novus Ordo, replaced by socializing).

They then mention some "radical traditionalist" who says we should pray for the Pope's death. If such a person has done so, he surely is spiritually immature, and is not a traditionalist by even the SSPX's standards, you know, that schismatic group Apolonio despises! If someone stated this, they are not even a Catholic, much less a traditionalist.

What about the people the pope has mislead? Apolonio asks. This is quite a telling statement in and of itself. This vindicates the traditionalist position, that the Pope, while probably(and I would say surely) meaning good, he has misled people. That means the Pope has done quite wrong. Yet according to Apolonio, we aren't to state the obvious, just pray. In other words, act one way externally, yet another way internally. In short, Apolonio has just inadvertently advocated hypocripsy.

He then states that us rad-trads who don't see any conversion in the hearts of people the Pontiff has dialogued with simply "lack faith." I see. When all empirical evidence points to the exact opposite, it still cannot be true. Why? Because the man who has been behind these projects that have all gone south is the Pope, and well, the Pope can do no wrong, hence, things will turn around. He attempts to make the comparison to Abraham. Here's the problem: God promised Abraham a son. The Holy Father did not say the praying to false Gods at Assisi and kissing the Koran were meant to bring massive conversions to the Holy Church, or any conversions. Indeed, the Assisi meeting had nothing to do with converting them, but praying for world peace. By this empirical standard as well, there has been more violence than ever before. Yet again, the Pope has to be right, he is not only infallible, but inspired, in application, while they always fall back on the "he's only infallible" statement, which for them, is only in theory. John Paul II's intentions for Kissing the Koran are I assume softening the tension between the religions(he actually has never stated why he did it, as far as I know.) By this empirical standard, Islam has become more radical, more extreme, and more violent towards Christians. Yet again, we are told to simply have faith, since the Pope is wise, and implicitly, can do no wrong. Whatever happened to loving a father so much, realizing that even he is human, and can make mistakes, and pleading for the father not to do something that will bear no good? in the name of obedience, this is impossible.

He then tries to defend the idea we shouldn't preach hell, since the Pope doesn't emphasize hell. We are not taught about hell, hence, many people no longer really think it is there, and if it is, then in reality, the only ones there are fallen angels! He talks about the massive suffering that his Holiness has gone through. Allow me to tell a story.

The story is about a Jew. A Jew who hated Christians, and led in their persecutions. Then he converted to Catholicism. The man spread the Gospel, and because of it was beaten, arrested, several times someone attempted murder on him, and many people he knew were killed. He suffered constantly for the faith. Yet, he still preached hell, and if anything, this intense suffering made him preach hell all the more often. This person, is non other than St. Paul himself. I could truly list numerous other people who throughout history suffered terribly, yet still emphasized the reality of hell, because they knew it wasn't something to take lightly. Yet again, is there any evidence for His Holiness abandoning emphasis on hell, since we essentially have "hell on earth?" I would argue certainly there has been no positive actions of this, other than everyone feels good, being lured into a false sense of security that they don't have to worry about hell, since it's already bad enough here. That is selling the Church up the river without a paddle, even if it was unintentional. We Traditionalists, who actually love the papacy, instead of just being yes-men, care about the soul of the Pope, as well as the soul of the entire Church, and we appeal the Pontiff to use his authority for the Good of the Church.

While Apolonio may have swore off responding to us at Restore the Church, we will continue to expose the errors of the New Springtime, so that a true springtime will result. Amen.

Cars and Modernists 

"I will not attend the Mass when this other lunatic is on the loose," said Ruth Finley. "That's why we have automobiles. If you're not happy, move on."

So many options in the New Mass are acceptable. But God forbid that the priest, traditionally minded should say "Corpus Christi". The Catholics who are rebelling against Fr. John Perricone are victims- plain and simple. If anyone doubts that the New Ordo is a revolution and a repudiation of Catholic tradition let them look no further than this article.

Catholics, supposedly nourished by the New Mass have such afury and hatred of even the slightest tinge of traditionalism incorporated in the New Order that they are demanding their bishop to remove Fr. John Perricone. Is Fr. Perricone a secret SSPXer? Is he a Feenyite? No, he is a regular on EWTN, he quietly, with his bishop's permission supports the Latin Mass. He would be, by many traditionalists standards a Neo-Catholic or "Indultarian".

The trick of revolutionaries is to make people hate the past. THe past is intolerant, dark and not suited for 'modern man'. Anyone who supports it is a lunatic- as was intimated about Fr. Zigrang in Texas and is now being claimed by parishoners of Fr. Perricone. This is the heralded springtime in which supposedly faithful Catholics consider the slightest hint of how their grandparents worshipped to be the work of 'lunatics'. The Novus Ordo allows for lots of differnt options for differnt prayers, but luckily for these faithful followers of Vatican II- their cars provide them te options of many parishes where they can safely hide from Catholicism entombed in the Novus Ordo.


Look for the sign the parish lady is holding: "We are the People of God. No Vatican II Rollback." I wonder if the lidless eye folks would condemn this women for being disobedient to her priest- or John Perricone for being insensitive. But the eeper question is- if Vatican II changed nothing substantial- why are people defending it so viciously?

Sunday, July 27, 2003

Yet another Response to Apolonio 

Apolonio Latar has done something the Lidless Eye Inquisition has become quite fond of lately, attacking and criticizing us at Restore the Church. I do chuckle though friends. Everytime they fire off a round of ammunition, they are actually shooting blanks. Now he has decided to go after my blog, and attempt to paint me a hypocrite, but with far far more pleasnt wording. Let us take a look at what he has to say.

Actually, I didn't misrepresent Apolonio's views. He may have thought I did, but I then clarified him in that e-mail exchange, which I still have the majority of, if anyone is interested in seeing them. My argument was Apolonio's advocating we can't offend them, something he has said numerous times to justify directing pagans to pray to the Green Thumb, incensing Buddha on our altars, and kissing a book our ancestors were made martyrs of because of their denial of it. To Apolonio, if we would've preached Christ and him crucified, that would've been "offensive." Therefore, it seems ecumenism has developed yet again, this time to "just don't offend them, even if they need to be!" So nice try Apolonio, but you are still stuck.

"Of course we need good martyrs to stand up for the faith. It is the blood of martyrs, I believe, which develops doctrine, since they are the closest to Christ. However, what we also need is less persecution from these Muslim countries. And John Paul II is trying to do that by having a dialogue. The Christians from the Muslim countries agree with me that the persecution ought to stop and I believe Ian believes that as well. John Paul II knows this and so does Rome. So how do we stop it? By dialogue. Again, as I have quoted many times, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange said,


"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice...And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)"

Okay, let's take a look at this. First, we all agree the persecution should stop. Yet obviously, since this "dialogue"(whatever that means, I think it's nothing but meaningless talk), Islam has grown increasingly militant. If the dialogue was working so well as Apolonio claims, how does he explain away 9-11, which introduced most Americans(and indeed most of Western Civilization) to Militant Islam, which grows incredibly by the day? How do we explain the increasing persecutions of Christians, most notably in Lebanon? What about the Sudan, where more and more Catholics each day are sold into slavery, then executed? Again, to bring up these manners would be "offending Muslims" so we can't do this. I have no problem with dialouge, given it has verifiable results, and people become closer to converting to the Catholic Church. By all empirical standards, the opposite has happened. Apolonio in his heart of hearts knows this, since he has stated that since we can't know the hearts of man, we don't know how many converted, therefore, we should keep dialoguing. He can offer no evidence the dialogue has been successful, so again, he engages in blind obedience on non-doctrinal matters, something extremely Un-Catholic. Perhaps our conservative friends for once should develop the "Catholic way of thinking!"

"Corey Zelinski by the way, might be joining the SSPX, which Kevin himself believe is schismatic. I don't know how joining the SSPX would be a "priest for Tradition". If I am mistaken on this issue, I will retract. However, I have talked to Corey and others about this and he explicitly said that he was thinking of joining."

About Mr. Zelinski, me and him had a very very long talk on many issues, and he denied no article of faith, and has a love of tradition. Despite Mr. Latar's view, not every attendant of an SSPX chapel is ipso facto schismatic. Whether or not he decides to join them officially is quite up to him, and if schismatic attitudes are developed, or an official canonical declaration were to be issued against him, we at Restore the Church would follow suit and comply with the Churches ruling.

He then talks about some of the personal views of the people on the blog. Views it is also well known I disagree with. And they certainly haven't published those views. Perhaps Mr. Latar should stop working with Tim Staples, who views nothing wrong with Catholics encouraging pagans to pray to their false Gods! Associating with someone is not a complete agreement with them, as Apolonio well knows. On the issue of the liturgy, the sacraments, ecuemnism, dialogue, etc, all members of Restore the Church are in complete harmony. So this is a "unity in diversity", a true application of such.

"And that's the problem with the blog basically. They claim to defend "Traditionalism". However, whenever I make a critique, they will say I misrepresented their views. The answer to that is simple. When I make a critique if Rad-Tradism, I don't think of them all the time. "

This is entirely true, but when writing response articles to us, you do misrepresent us, or when dealing with us in private, or on discussion boards, you do not cease your misrepresentations. Therefore, I do take you to task on this issue. I won't let you get away with statements that are clearly false, and do nothing but give my reputation unneccessary black marks, as we all know you and your colleague were CLEARLY guilty of before, which instance I will not mention that.

"I will try not to respond as much to that blog anymore. They are not the only Rad-Trads out there. At times, it gets useless. But I will interact with them if they would want to debate on a particular issue. Kevin and I were debating on the Assisi event a couple of weeks ago and it lead to his criticism of John XXIII, which by the way is an encyclical and it needs some sort of assent as Pius XII and Vatican 2 taught. "

We agree we are not the only rad-trads. Yet you merely ceasing maliciously attacking this organization, does not mean we will cease pointing out the blind obedience of certain members of the Lidless Eye Inquisition. Do we have better things to do? Probably. Yet I'm not giving up on Apolonio, or other non-traditionalists whom I dialogue with. We are debating the question of John XXIII and global governance by the United Nations, which he no doubt favored. I eagerly await how either Apolonio(or Shawn McElhinney whom he consulted) is willing to argue that global governance ran by an organization that directly contradicts the Catholic faith, demonizes her morality, and runs independent of God is somehow a good idea for Catholics. This is one area even most "neo" Catholics fail to turn to, since many, in private admission whom I have dialogued with, quite frankly view it an embarassment. Yet in defending the "indefectibility of the Church" as Shawn said, the members of the Lidless Eye Inquisition feel necessary to defend yet again the indefensible. I can't wait.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?