Haunting message fron indigenous Amazonian.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

But more important than the death of HIS Mystical Body - being catholic means, that You have to suffer a lot - is that pseudoPaganism, in reality it's not a polyTheism, it's a monism&communism, a vulgarROUSSEAUIsm or vulgarAnacreonticicm - in the tradition of the Nazis, by the way - of decadent&tired Europeans, who want to hole up as soon as possible in "Mother Nature" (=Leviathan).
"You have to know one thing: Already the 'Primitives' are not nature-beings, but culture-beings." (LeviStrauss)

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests. Their Levitical "solution" of temporary AbStention is pharisaical.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

Married "priests" have been tolerated (tolerare = to suffer), but not accepted by the Church.
I didn't write Bergoglio, thus i am clearly no SedisVacantist, instead i consider Francis to be pope; yet - as the statement as a whole made quite clear - i&we can really not take His Holeness with his pettybourgeois "Christianity", reduced to Eco/Social-ethics intellectually serious. (And there is no need to do so, there have been enough heretical popes in ChurchHistory - why not also an anthropotheistical antiChrist?)

[Georg Ebner]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

Married "priests" have been tolerated (tolerare = to suffer), but not accepted by the Church.

I'm afraid I just don't understand what the difference is or why it's relevant. Somebody either is a priest or isn't one. And I don't think the pastoral situation of a parish of middle-class ex-Anglicans in the suburban US or UK is so much worse than that of a parish of indigenous Amazonians in the middle of the rainforest that resorting to ordaining married men makes sense in the former case but not the latter.

I didn't write Bergoglio, thus i am clearly no SedisVacantist, instead i consider Francis to be pope; yet - as the statement as a whole made quite clear - i&we can really not take His Holeness with his pettybourgeois "Christianity", reduced to Eco/Social-ethics intellectually serious. (And there is no need to do so, there have been enough heretical popes in ChurchHistory - why not also an anthropotheistical antiChrist?)

I don't want to get into the "heretical popes" argument with you again, but it seems to me that there's a difference between believing that the Pope is in theological error and personally attacking him as an "anthropotheistical antiChrist". The former is a standard Traditionalist position these days; the latter is unbecoming of any man of goodwill, and still more unbecoming of a Catholic. If you would content yourself with arguing the former, I'd find it a lot easier to have productive conversations with you.

Priest is only, who is married with HIS bride. As a result: Acceptable: Unmarried priests or convertits with a real metanoia and no more copulation (a la St.JOSEPH). Tolerable: Convertits/Uniied with occasional abstention (a la Jewish Levites). Inacceptable: Selfrighteous pettybourgeois immanentists, who are integrated & interested only in this world (and its "social justice" or "environmental protection").
As an Austrian i know some of those small voles&rats: This has nothing to do with the Amazonas - it was formerly offered to His Em. Card. Hummes to send missionaries, what that creature rejected in panic -, but only with "our" bankrupt "church".

Prove us, that pope Francis does not put "<human> life above <divine> doctrine", and we will stop calling His Holeness an atheistic and anthropotheistical antiChristian.
Show me any genial left-Christian in WorldHistory and i am able to take pope Francis intellectually serious. I can only think of LAMENNAIS, an idiot of some - low - intellectual importance, who caused tragically the depature of SAINTE-BEUVE, a huge intelligence, from Christianity.
While insisting, that the greatest thinkers (PLATON, DESCARTES, HUME, KANT) and poets (HOMER, DANTE, SHAKESPEARE, GOETHE) were (at least unconscious) catholics i agree, that intelligent atheists&agnostics have existed. But 99%-Christians (so liberal or even left ones) have not.