How do you sell a lie? Make it look like the Truth. Some of the most dangerous distortions in the Church sound deeply Catholic. Can you spot the lie in this quote?
Hi, there are several things you have incorrect about ecumenism. Vatican II opened the door to denying that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. Hence, we have radical Jews who are out to ban the Holy Bible. I'm serious, here. My advice as an old Catholic and traditionalist: you need to read this book. I read it 3 times. It was not offered to me by a Catholic priest but a Jew, Henry Makow.
"The Plot Against the Church" by Maurice Pinay, a pen name for the faithful pre-Vatican iI Roman Curia. It was a warning. No priest since VII will discuss or criticize the Jews, with the exception of a few.
The result of ecumenism is silence on these topics. Have an open mind.
"This book focuses on a widely misunderstood topic: the long struggle of faithful Catholics against the treachery and interference of malicious Jews, especially those who have infiltrated the Church and harmed her from within.
"Virtually all Modern Church histories avoid the topic, either by failing to disclose any treachery by Jewish actors, or by failing to identify the Jewish background of certain heretics, or by dismissing long-standing Christian distrust of Jews as mere superstition or prejudice. Contemporary Christians, who consider themselves well educated, may be shocked to find out just how serious and long-standing the Church's problem with "Jewish" subversion really is. The information in this book is a badly needed corrective to the 'sanitized', pro-Jewish Catholic histories that are found in virtually all modern Catholic institutions.
"....unity of all honorable people in the world, all who believe in God and the good cause, is necessary in order to fight the Jewish-Communist monster, which advances unceasingly and thirsty for blood, threatening all mankind equally, without discrimination of race or religion."
Yeah, the anti V2 movement doesn't approve of the "let's be kind and friendly to outsiders" method, which is the method Jesus practiced. They prefer the Jonathon Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1741) style of missions work. Which is distinctly non catholic.
No it is not the method Our Lord practiced at all:
“But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household”
Friendship and niceness is false and hypocritical unless accompanied by truth.
I'm not sure the point you're making or what exactly you're saying this in response to. But while I'm not a "niceness" kind of guy (Good is more important than "nice") I don't believe friendship and niceness are hypocritical unless accompanied by truth. Friendship is itself a truth. Technically, so is niceness (for as long as it remains ordered toward Good). They become more or less projected toward subsequent or higher truths, but they don't necessarily have to start out perfect. Most friendships don't, and niceness sometimes doesn't.
“ For example, niceness is not a good in itself, but it's rooted in a good”
No. I don’t agree with that. Let’s take an example, I know women who fall for men whom are at first nice but then have sex with them and ditch them or worse. How is that niceness rooted in a good? This is in fact an example of how niceness can be rooted in evil. Evil spirits are usually very nice until they have you where they want you. Niceness divorced from truth always becomes evil somewhere along the line.
I think you are equivicating kind = nice. This is a common mistake. Nice does not mean kind. They are very different. Nice is polite cowardice, while kind is courageous love. Jesus is always kind, but never nice.
You see id agree but this is a societal thing and I just saw a post in Reddit which sums this up - the headline was ‘Why do people expect Christian’s to be doormats’? And it’s a good question. The roots of the answer though exist in what we are talking about - because Christian’s are expected to be unfailingly nice but kindness is forgotten but this whole thing has its roots in this performative presentation of the Gospels. Jesus was sometimes not very nice at all;
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Here Our Lord is basically saying His own people are dumb - that is the long and short of it and He, as ever, isn’t wrong, in many things Christian’s are painfully naive to the point of stupidity.
And yet we are called to be wise as serpents yet gentle as doves(IIRC). We need to stop being nice doormats and proceed boldly with kindness and charity. We need to stop listening to the anti-deists when they tell us to be doormats. We need to stop listening to the demons saying evangelizing through words and holy deeds isn't charity. To be Christian is to be kind, which is part and parcel of Love.
1) agreed, good and truth is more important than nice 2) kind-of, a truth is always subordinate to the truth 3) niceness has become in modern society a virtue divorced from being good and true so no it’s not a truth at all, niceness has become coda for celebrating evil and condemning good
I'm not really disagreeing with what you're saying. I just feel like you're reducing it to a fault, to where it's completely isolated from the potential benefits of its own nature. For example, niceness is not a good in itself, but it's rooted in a good. Because one of the characteristics of the good is that it is dynamic (it “DOES”, so to speak), niceness—being rooted in a good— can lead to a higher good or a higher truth. I think the way you're framing it, specifically, is an abstraction from the whole reality of it. It makes it intrinsically bad where it is not so. See what I mean?
I agree with your point but not with your framing because it necessarily rules out half of the full picture.
Some Catholics want it too easy. Shortcuts and rough edges. You have to be nimble when evangelizing. ometimes you need an olive branch. And sometimes you need a heavy hand, but even that requires strategy and restraint. Ecumenism and evangelization are by no means simple—not if you’re doing it right.
Some in the Church oversimplify it, either from the Left (indifferentism) or the Right (elitism).
What do you mean by ecumenism? I would point out to you that the pre-Vatican II church was not at all ecumenical, even towards other Christians. Now that it is more ecumenical it takes that approach towards all religions, which I don’t think even the early church did.
I wouldn’t say it’s “more ecumenical”, it really has always been so, even in the early church. What changed was the approach
The older approach emphasized the uniqueness of the Catholic Church much more directly, and relations with separated Christians were often defensive or confrontational.
But Vatican II didn’t invent the idea of engaging non-Catholics respectfully. The early Church interacted with pagans, Jews, philosophers, and heretics constantly. Sometimes sharply, sometimes patiently, sometimes evangelistically. What changed after the Council wasn’t whether the Church spoke to the world, but the tone, method, and emphasis of that engagement.
The pre-Vatican-II approach isn’t off the table. I “go there” sometimes; it’s closer to my personality (lol). But I also find it doesn’t necessarily achieve the goal because the human culture has changed. Even in my lifetime I’ve had to revise my strategies at least twice. Vatican II’s ecumenical approach needed to happen. I’ve brought more people closer to the Church through patience and charity while standing on the Truth. That’s what Vatican II is emphasizing.
I guess I think of ecumenicism as working towards unity, which is fine for Christian churches, but never towards other religions. Perhaps Lefebvre is working with that definition.
One of the things that frustrates me to no end is that he knows exactly what the Church means by ecumenism. It's not theologically cryptic or novel So That quote from him either demonstrates inexcusable ignorance or deception. It may be hard to believe, except that I notice bishops even today sometimes do that same thing. They frame things as confusing or theologically cryptic, which I know are not confusing or cryptic to them.
I agree with you on what ecumenism should not be. As I said in the article, it shouldn't be going along just to get along. It's supposed to move people to the truth, which is the Catholic faith, so it is about unity, but it's not about indifferentism. It's about unity in the truth. People in the church today are guilty of making ecumenism what it was never intended to be: indifferentism.
Hi, there are several things you have incorrect about ecumenism. Vatican II opened the door to denying that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. Hence, we have radical Jews who are out to ban the Holy Bible. I'm serious, here. My advice as an old Catholic and traditionalist: you need to read this book. I read it 3 times. It was not offered to me by a Catholic priest but a Jew, Henry Makow.
"The Plot Against the Church" by Maurice Pinay, a pen name for the faithful pre-Vatican iI Roman Curia. It was a warning. No priest since VII will discuss or criticize the Jews, with the exception of a few.
The result of ecumenism is silence on these topics. Have an open mind.
"This book focuses on a widely misunderstood topic: the long struggle of faithful Catholics against the treachery and interference of malicious Jews, especially those who have infiltrated the Church and harmed her from within.
"Virtually all Modern Church histories avoid the topic, either by failing to disclose any treachery by Jewish actors, or by failing to identify the Jewish background of certain heretics, or by dismissing long-standing Christian distrust of Jews as mere superstition or prejudice. Contemporary Christians, who consider themselves well educated, may be shocked to find out just how serious and long-standing the Church's problem with "Jewish" subversion really is. The information in this book is a badly needed corrective to the 'sanitized', pro-Jewish Catholic histories that are found in virtually all modern Catholic institutions.
"....unity of all honorable people in the world, all who believe in God and the good cause, is necessary in order to fight the Jewish-Communist monster, which advances unceasingly and thirsty for blood, threatening all mankind equally, without discrimination of race or religion."
The Plot Against The Church. Maurice Pinay. 1962.
www.hpb.com/books
The quote above is from an online free download of Section IV here:
"The Jewish Fifth Column in the Clergy."
https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=pinay&book=plot2&story=fifth
I'm open to questions. I'm not open to debate you. There are other essential books of hidden Catholic history I can inform you of. Peace.
Yeah, the anti V2 movement doesn't approve of the "let's be kind and friendly to outsiders" method, which is the method Jesus practiced. They prefer the Jonathon Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1741) style of missions work. Which is distinctly non catholic.
No it is not the method Our Lord practiced at all:
“But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household”
Friendship and niceness is false and hypocritical unless accompanied by truth.
I'm not sure the point you're making or what exactly you're saying this in response to. But while I'm not a "niceness" kind of guy (Good is more important than "nice") I don't believe friendship and niceness are hypocritical unless accompanied by truth. Friendship is itself a truth. Technically, so is niceness (for as long as it remains ordered toward Good). They become more or less projected toward subsequent or higher truths, but they don't necessarily have to start out perfect. Most friendships don't, and niceness sometimes doesn't.
“ For example, niceness is not a good in itself, but it's rooted in a good”
No. I don’t agree with that. Let’s take an example, I know women who fall for men whom are at first nice but then have sex with them and ditch them or worse. How is that niceness rooted in a good? This is in fact an example of how niceness can be rooted in evil. Evil spirits are usually very nice until they have you where they want you. Niceness divorced from truth always becomes evil somewhere along the line.
I think you are equivicating kind = nice. This is a common mistake. Nice does not mean kind. They are very different. Nice is polite cowardice, while kind is courageous love. Jesus is always kind, but never nice.
You see id agree but this is a societal thing and I just saw a post in Reddit which sums this up - the headline was ‘Why do people expect Christian’s to be doormats’? And it’s a good question. The roots of the answer though exist in what we are talking about - because Christian’s are expected to be unfailingly nice but kindness is forgotten but this whole thing has its roots in this performative presentation of the Gospels. Jesus was sometimes not very nice at all;
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Here Our Lord is basically saying His own people are dumb - that is the long and short of it and He, as ever, isn’t wrong, in many things Christian’s are painfully naive to the point of stupidity.
And yet we are called to be wise as serpents yet gentle as doves(IIRC). We need to stop being nice doormats and proceed boldly with kindness and charity. We need to stop listening to the anti-deists when they tell us to be doormats. We need to stop listening to the demons saying evangelizing through words and holy deeds isn't charity. To be Christian is to be kind, which is part and parcel of Love.
1) agreed, good and truth is more important than nice 2) kind-of, a truth is always subordinate to the truth 3) niceness has become in modern society a virtue divorced from being good and true so no it’s not a truth at all, niceness has become coda for celebrating evil and condemning good
I'm not really disagreeing with what you're saying. I just feel like you're reducing it to a fault, to where it's completely isolated from the potential benefits of its own nature. For example, niceness is not a good in itself, but it's rooted in a good. Because one of the characteristics of the good is that it is dynamic (it “DOES”, so to speak), niceness—being rooted in a good— can lead to a higher good or a higher truth. I think the way you're framing it, specifically, is an abstraction from the whole reality of it. It makes it intrinsically bad where it is not so. See what I mean?
I agree with your point but not with your framing because it necessarily rules out half of the full picture.
Some Catholics want it too easy. Shortcuts and rough edges. You have to be nimble when evangelizing. ometimes you need an olive branch. And sometimes you need a heavy hand, but even that requires strategy and restraint. Ecumenism and evangelization are by no means simple—not if you’re doing it right.
Some in the Church oversimplify it, either from the Left (indifferentism) or the Right (elitism).
What do you mean by ecumenism? I would point out to you that the pre-Vatican II church was not at all ecumenical, even towards other Christians. Now that it is more ecumenical it takes that approach towards all religions, which I don’t think even the early church did.
I wouldn’t say it’s “more ecumenical”, it really has always been so, even in the early church. What changed was the approach
The older approach emphasized the uniqueness of the Catholic Church much more directly, and relations with separated Christians were often defensive or confrontational.
But Vatican II didn’t invent the idea of engaging non-Catholics respectfully. The early Church interacted with pagans, Jews, philosophers, and heretics constantly. Sometimes sharply, sometimes patiently, sometimes evangelistically. What changed after the Council wasn’t whether the Church spoke to the world, but the tone, method, and emphasis of that engagement.
The pre-Vatican-II approach isn’t off the table. I “go there” sometimes; it’s closer to my personality (lol). But I also find it doesn’t necessarily achieve the goal because the human culture has changed. Even in my lifetime I’ve had to revise my strategies at least twice. Vatican II’s ecumenical approach needed to happen. I’ve brought more people closer to the Church through patience and charity while standing on the Truth. That’s what Vatican II is emphasizing.
I guess I think of ecumenicism as working towards unity, which is fine for Christian churches, but never towards other religions. Perhaps Lefebvre is working with that definition.
One of the things that frustrates me to no end is that he knows exactly what the Church means by ecumenism. It's not theologically cryptic or novel So That quote from him either demonstrates inexcusable ignorance or deception. It may be hard to believe, except that I notice bishops even today sometimes do that same thing. They frame things as confusing or theologically cryptic, which I know are not confusing or cryptic to them.
I agree with you on what ecumenism should not be. As I said in the article, it shouldn't be going along just to get along. It's supposed to move people to the truth, which is the Catholic faith, so it is about unity, but it's not about indifferentism. It's about unity in the truth. People in the church today are guilty of making ecumenism what it was never intended to be: indifferentism.