Boycott Catholic-Pages.Com

nyj · Feb 22, 2002

I typically use Catholic-Pages.Com as my web search generator and my opening page when my browser opens. Today however once I started Explorer and it came to the page, I was in for a surprise. Off to the right there is a "Shopping" box and it promotes various Catholic items... books, rosaries, statues, etc.

The book that was "For Sale" at the time was Martin Malachi's "The Jesuits : The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church". I was floored. I wrote the owner of the website asking him to reconsider promoting this book, his reply was as follows:

Tom,

Have you read the book? Do you know any Jesuits?

I will continue promoting the book. It does not attack the Catholic Church. It attacks those that seek to destroy the Faith from within.

God bless,
Paul

I have read the book, or at least parts of it that I could stomach. Martin Malachi was a traitor to the Catholic Church (accepting the Profession of Faith of Campos prior to his death), that a Catholic site now supports Martin Malachi's views is abhorrent, this site may as well support the SSPX.

So why do I bother writing this? Because I think it's a shame that a site of such potential should promote such damaging ideas. I ask you to either write the webmaster or just reconsider visiting this site whatsoever. As for me, I've discontinued my link to that place.

ZooMom · Feb 26, 2002

Don't think I've ever been there, but thanks for the heads-up!

In the 'Catholic' section of our bookstores are M. Martin's books, as well as Lehaye and other Catholic detractors. I asked the clerk why these books are there when they are plainly not Catholic, but anti-Catholic. Especially when I have to special order books by genuine Catholics because they are not stocked! I got a few nervous looks and an answer that basically boiled down to, "I just work here..."

Kotton · Feb 27, 2002

Do you know any Jesuits?

This line, from the reply to Tom, jumped out to me. Just yesterday I e-mailed my Jesuit cousin at Loyola University. I had received an e-mail from my brother with a 'Catholic History and Geneology Guide', and there was a Jesuit link so I thought of Richard. If I could tap his brain for ideas to use in apologetics, WOW. He is quite the 'intellectual' and in the Theology dept., but he would no doubt be busy and such info goes over the head of most fundies.

Well, it was an idea.

Kotton

Augustine · Mar 6, 2002

...how does his affiliation with the SSPX make him a "traitor" to the Catholic faith?

I've yet to hear an SSPX priest preach heresy, whether in realms of doctrine or morals, and profess anything save the Catholic faith. Nor have I seen any of them go to Italy, and pray with Buddhists, animists, Hindus, you name it. I wish I could say that about all of our priests, Bishops, Cardinals...

Augustine

Wolseley · Mar 6, 2002

I've yet to hear an SSPX priest preach heresy, whether in realms of doctrine or morals, and profess anything save the Catholic faith.

How about voluntary submission to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and refusal to engage in open schism with the Holy See?

niwde · Mar 7, 2002

dun care
god will deal with them
as for our holy father

GO John Paul 2

Wolseley · Mar 7, 2002

BTW, did anyone see where 26 priests and 28,000 laypeople belonging to one of Archbishop LeFebvre's schismatic groups in Brazil re-joined the Catholic Church last January? The so-called "Society of St. John Marie Vianney", devised by Archbishop LeFebvre and Bishop Antionio Castro back in the 1970's, went out of existance on January 18 this year; there are a few holdouts, but for all intents and purposes, this particular "sister" organization of LeFebvre's "Society of St. Pius X" is now back in the fold of Rome.

Kotton · Mar 7, 2002

Yep Wols, I read that. It's a case of wanting to retain the proper doctrine in Catholic worship, but somehow getting off track. Glad they are back.

Kotton

nyj · Mar 7, 2002

Originally posted by Wolseley
BTW, did anyone see where 26 priests and 28,000 laypeople belonging to one of Archbishop LeFebvre's schismatic groups in Brazil re-joined the Catholic Church last January? The so-called "Society of St. John Marie Vianney", devised by Archbishop LeFebvre and Bishop Antionio Castro back in the 1970's, went out of existance on January 18 this year; there are a few holdouts, but for all intents and purposes, this particular "sister" organization of LeFebvre's "Society of St. Pius X" is now back in the fold of Rome.

Not only that, but it was the group from Campos... where the schism first picked up speed in the first place. This was a very significant change of events... so much so that the SSPX petitioned the group at Campos to reconsider.

Dave Ulchers · Mar 7, 2002

So I don't get it -- what does the book say?

Avila · Mar 7, 2002

I heard that too, and rejoiced! I was exceedingly glad to see such a prominent group to come back home!

DU I haven't read the book, but it evidently doesn't portray the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in an unfair and negative manner.

Dave Ulchers · Mar 7, 2002

doesn't??

If it does, is it just theology? I don't know anything about them other than one guy who taught history on EWTN and was boring as all get out. But I'm sure there are good Catholics who do disapprove of their theology, like say, Dominicans for example, right?

I mean, all those jokes have a basis in truth...

A Jesuit, a Dominican and a Franciscan were walking along an old road, debating the greatness of their orders. Suddenly, an apparition of the Holy Family appeared in front of them, with Jesus in a manger and Mary and Joseph praying over him. The Franciscan fell on his face, over come with awe at the sight of God born in such poverty. The Dominican fell to his knees, adoring the beautiful reflection of the Trinity in the Holy Family. The Jesuit walked up to Joseph, put his arm around his shoulder, and said, "Have you given any thought to His education?

nyj · Mar 7, 2002

Originally posted by Avila
DU I haven't read the book, but it evidently doesn't portray the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in an unfair and negative manner. [/B]

From what I've read of the book, it does portray the Jesuits in an unfair and negative manner. Malachi accuses the Jesuits of trying to undermine the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church which is just plain bumpkus if you ask me. Why does he do so? IMO he does so for the following: The Jesuits are often used as a contrast to the SSPX.

In 1770-1773 the Jesuits were suppressed as an order. Their missions were taken from them, their education system was handed over to other Church authorities and the order was disbanded. Reason? Political. From a theological standpoint, the Jesuits remained on solid ground and no fault could be found as it concerned their orthodoxy. In this case, the Jesuits had every right to protest the treatment they received, yet they complied completely and totally.

In contrast, the SSPX, when told to comply with ecclesial authorities, failed to do so... deciding to act in rebellion to the Church and favoring schism over obedience.

Martin Malachi was an SSPX-sympatizer and even claimed to hold to the Campos declaration. Malachi was also an ex-Jesuit.

Wolseley · Mar 7, 2002

Malachi Martin.

Sorry. I don't give any credence at all to a guy who claims he saw Satanic rituals taking place inside St. Peter's Basilica.

.

Avila · Mar 7, 2002

Sorry guys!!! Bad grammar!! I did mean to use "does" instead of "doesn't". I think my hickish evil twin sister must've slipped in the "n't" part.

As for the Jesuits, St. Ignatius wanted them to be as a spiritual army fighting for the church - even used his military background to do it. They just eventually became more known for their education....

GateXII · Mar 7, 2002

I don't quite understand your beef with Fr. Martin - especially your harshness in calling him a "traitor". Personally, I think he was very educated AND EXPERIENCED with inside-Vatican affairs (probably more than most who author on the subject). I also find his books quite insightful. Unfortunately, a person would have to be open-minded to see that.

I can understand your issues with his book "The Jesuits" or any of his other novels; since they are just that - novels. Although they are about 85% based on fact, you still need to take some of the writing with a grain of salt. However, if you were to read any of his non-fiction books you would realize how great a man/Catholic Fr. Martin truly was. One book in particular, "The Keys of This Blood", which is about Pope JP II's struggle with Russia & the West for control of the New World Order is outstanding. I recently began reading it (I've already read three others & loved each one) & I believe my eyes are finally beginning to open with respect to His Holiness. I have sooooo much more respect for him as our Pope after READING a book by the "traitor" - hmmmm, go figure. :scratch:

Although part of me still believes that His Holiness has less than succeeded in leading his flock in a spiritual way towards Salvation, I now do believe that he is/was truly devoting all his actions as Pope in service to our Heavenly Mother on a more global geo-political & geo-religious plane by attempting to unite governments/nations to be one with Christ.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think he has completely failed in leading his flock, but instead chose to embrace a hands-off policy when dealing with the deterioration within the Catholic Church, and leaving that responsibility to his Church subordinates (as corrupt as they may be). However, I believe/hope that a day will come (or may have already come recently) when His Holiness, as successor of St. Peter, will also reflect the words that Jesus spoke:

"And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon!' Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me [the truth], strengthen your brethren.' " (Luke 22:31-32)

There was definitely plenty of wheat to sift at The Second Vatican Council.

Catholics may see hard evidence of John Paul's return to Christ if/when he presents a "Protocol of Salvation", which I believe will have an earth shattering effect. If such a document ever materializes, it may finally put the true Catholic faith back on track by returning to Tradition - the way the faith was prior to Vatican II. This is my hope anyway.

Secondly... in response to your shot at the SSPX

In defense of the SSPX, I believe that they have NOT been truly excommunicated according to Canon Law; for it is a Catholic's duty (Archbishop Lefebrve & his organization in this case) to disobey any judgement or decision (even a Pope's) that is not consistent with Church Tradition. Because I believe that the SSPX has done NOTHING to contradict Church Tradition (that is, the dogma according to the Catechism of The COUNCIL OF TRENT, - NOT Vatican II since it does stray), but rather they embrace it more than any other "Roman Catholic" church/organization within the last 25 years, they are definitely NOT in schism. The SSPX has never, nor will they ever denounce the authority of the papacy (which would indicate schism). It is a whole other issue with their disobedience. Disobedience can, and is in this case, justifiable with respect to Canon Law. According to Scripture:

"But though we [Vatican II], or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we [Council of Trent] have preached to you, let him be anathema". (Gal. i. 8.)

For that reason alone, I believe they have NOT been excommunicated in God's eyes - nor mine.

MARK MY WORDS!!!! You WILL see a day VERY soon when His Holiness will once again (as he did originally, 1976 - 1988) consider the SSPX one with Rome. Maybe even as early as this year. I can feel it.

Any comments/opinions?

God Bless!!!

Dave Ulchers · Mar 7, 2002

What's a "Protocol of Salvation" supposed to be?

What strays from tradition in Vactican II, especially with regards to Trent?

nyj · Mar 7, 2002

Originally posted by GateXII
I don't quite understand your beef with Fr. Martin - especially your harshness in calling him a "traitor".

Before his death, Martin Malachi's website (now defunct, my information comes from EWTN) claimed that he adhered to the Profession of Faith of Campos. Campos was where Archbishop Lefevbre along with Bishop Mayer ordained four bishops against the will of the Vatican and drew an immediate excommunication under Canon Law 1382 Ecclesia Dei. Martin Malachi held the same beliefs these excommunicants held, which is why I lump him in with them.

Personally, I think he was very educated AND EXPERIENCED with inside-Vatican affairs (probably more than most who author on the subject). I also find his books quite insightful.

Which means very little when it comes to justifying open disobedience. Archbishop Lefevbre was an educated and experienced man, but he outright disobeyed the Catholic Church, in clear rejection of his vows of obedience.

Unfortunately, a person would have to be open-minded to see that.

Personal digs at me do nothing to change history.

I can understand your issues with his book "The Jesuits" or any of his other novels; since they are just that - novels.

If you expect us to buy that it's just "fiction", I have a bridge that I'd like to sell you in turn. It spans the East River (for a point of reference).

In defense of the SSPX, I believe that they have NOT been truly excommunicated according to Canon Law; for it is a Catholic's duty (Archbishop Lefebrve & his organization in this case) to disobey any judgement or decision (even a Pope's) that is not consistent with Church Tradition. Because I believe that the SSPX has done NOTHING to contradict Church Tradition (that is, the dogma according to the Catechism of The COUNCIL OF TRENT, - NOT Vatican II since it does stray), but rather they embrace it more than any other "Roman Catholic" church/organization within the last 25 years, they are definitely NOT in schism. The SSPX has never, nor will they ever denounce the authority of the papacy (which would indicate schism). It is a whole other issue with their disobedience. Disobedience can, and is in this case, justifiable with respect to Canon Law.

That's baloney and you know it. Canon Law is clear on the subject of the excommunication and the Vatican has confirmed it. Archbishop Lefevbre and Bishop Mayer, along with everyone else who took part in that ordination are schismatics and are no longer Catholic.

For that reason alone, I believe they have NOT been excommunicated in God's eyes - nor mine.

Well what does matter is how God views it, and since His Church has decreed that they were schismatics, that is good enough for me. It should be good enough for you too.

MARK MY WORDS!!!! You WILL see a day VERY soon when His Holiness will once again (as he did originally, 1976 - 1988) consider the SSPX one with Rome. Maybe even as early as this year. I can feel it.

Yes, once they place their pride aside and accept the authority of Rome. Unfortunately, since the SSPX tried to dissuade the camp at Campos from returning to the fold, I doubt we will see a reconciliation this year.

SSPX · Mar 8, 2002

Originally posted by Wolseley
BTW, did anyone see where 26 priests and 28,000 laypeople belonging to one of Archbishop LeFebvre's schismatic groups in Brazil re-joined the Catholic Church last January? The so-called "Society of St. John Marie Vianney", devised by Archbishop LeFebvre and Bishop Antionio Castro back in the 1970's,

The Priestly Union of St. John Marie Vianney was formed in the 1980's, after Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer retired at the madatory retirement age of 75 in 1983. The Bishop who succeeded him attempted to force the priests and faithful of the diocese of Campos into accepting the new Mass, but they refused and as a result were forced out of their parishes, and formed the Priestly Union. These priests never left the Catholic Church, but were forced out of their parishes because of their fidelity to the traditional Mass. When Pope Paul VI came out with the new rite of Mass, Bishop de Castro Mayer wrote to Rome asking for a doctrinal clarification of the new rite. Since Rome never wrote back he authorized his priests to continue saying the traditional rite.

went out of existance on January 18 this year; there are a few holdouts, but for all intents and purposes, this particular "sister" organization of LeFebvre's "Society of St. Pius X" is now back in the fold of Rome.

Click to expand...

What hold outs? From what I heard, all the priests went along with the deal.

Joe

SSPX · Mar 8, 2002

Originally posted by nyj
That's baloney and you know it. Canon Law is clear on the subject of the excommunication and the Vatican has confirmed it. Archbishop Lefevbre and Bishop Mayer, along with everyone else who took part in that ordination are schismatics and are no longer Catholic.

Not even Pope John Paul II has made that claim. The only persons actually named as schismatic were Abp. Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and the 4 bishops consecrated by them. Regardless, its obvious that the charge of schism is groundless. Canon law does not list consecration of a bishop without pontifical mandate as a schismatic act. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre did not incur excommunication, because as canon law (1324) says:

"No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept acted only under compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; [or] acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor"

So, even if Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong for thinking the consecrations were necessary, it cannot be denied that he truly believed they were necessary, thus, he did not incurr automatic excommunication.

Well what does matter is how God views it, and since His Church has decreed that they were schismatics, that is good enough for me. It should be good enough for you too.

He was not speaking ex cathedra, so its possibe he erred. You can't trust Pope John Paul II to be teaching the truth. The recent controversy Justice Scalia sparked over the Death Penalty is a good example. Because Scalia holds to what the Church has always taught, and not what John Paul II is inventing, he was labeled a dissenter.

Yes, once they place their pride aside and accept the authority of Rome.

The resistance will continue until the Freemasons and Modernists in the Vatican convert to Tradition. In the meantime we will continue to work out our salvation the old fashioned way. Its not a question of accepting anyone's authority; we ackowneldge the authority held by the modernists in Rome, and in the dioceses, but we will not accept their modernist errors, or their protestant Mass. We are content with Tradition.

Joe

Boycott Catholic-Pages.Com

Goodbye, my puppy

Thanks for the memories...

Senior Member

Active Member

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Active Member

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Senior Member

Goodbye, my puppy

Well-Known Member

Boohoo moomoo, cebu

Well-Known Member

Goodbye, my puppy

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Boohoo moomoo, cebu

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Goodbye, my puppy

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads