Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Stevus, a note about your sig --  (Read 2055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline s2srea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5106
  • Reputation: +3896/-48
  • Gender: Male
Stevus, a note about your sig --
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2011, 08:43:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Its funny Raoul- I thought your confirmation would bring you the gifts of the Holy Ghost but you expose none of them in your comments here. Unfortunately you're coming off as severely prideful. You are very intelligent, but intelligence can be used by satan for evil. I will pray for you a little more.

    Quote

    "I'm probably going too fast for people and making connections that they don't see yet. "
    "I think I'm seeing how the anti-Christ will arise so soon after the Great Monarch, and this is why."
    "I'm not saying this is an official prophecy or that I had a vision, these are just ideas, but they're coming to me in a wave."


    Its not that what you're saying is wrong (Because in essence you're just reciting quotes you've read in your own words),... No that is not wrong; the point is is that you and I are 'no ones'- you're not even a priest. I don't know... but there's something off-putting about the way you're posing these "ideas" (Thesaurus.com: visions, prophesy, revelations) ... We can read prophesy, but its interpretation should only be taken so far within ourselves. We shouldn't use it and believe we understand "everything". Thats not what prophesy is designed for.

    And you attack ABL only because it serves your sede-mindedness Raoul- face it. It is not something unexpected from you. You attack his person so that you can "feel" more correct and on the right side. Its only natural. Again, you're very intelligent- but it seems like the devil is attacking you through your pride.... ?

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7174/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #16 on: May 09, 2011, 09:30:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • First off, Raoul, how do you know that ABL is a loved figure in my community? On the contrary, actually. Believe me, ABL is practically anything but loved where I live. I may have access to two TLMs, but both are over two hours away. I live in a pretty modernist part of the south where just about every Catholic is a Novus Ordite. So I actually live in an area where I have to hear nothing but criticisms of him, not praise.

    And I think s2srea has a point. The reason you criticize LeFebvre is so you can make your stance look good. And no offense Raoul, but on the subject of Archbishop LeFebvre you need to get your facts straight. ABL was not an enemy of sedes. He sympathized towards sedes, the only reason you and other sedes see him as an anti-sede is because he chose not to declare Paul VI or JPII as an anti-pope. And how the HECK did he drag people into the Vatican II Church? He never celebrated the Novus Ordo, nor did he have any desire to. Again, you need to get your facts straight on this matter, otherwise you argumnt looks extremely weak.

    Also, please explain to me how sedevacantism will be declared a fact. Can you prove it's a fact? No, you cannot. Not unless God revealed to you that He has a preference, and so far we don't know which stance God prefers. I cannot be 100% certain that my non-sede stance is a fact. I am very well aware that the sede stance may be right, I'm just not ready to declare Benedict an anti-pope (although I will concede that Paul VI was an anti-pope). Back to the original subject, I'd be willing to bet, Raoul, that the parish you attend on Sundays wouldn't exist if not for LeFebvre.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.


    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8166
    • Reputation: +2544/-1122
    • Gender: Male
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #17 on: May 09, 2011, 09:35:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    The Monarch is literally invincible while he is fulfilling the prophecies, he is protected by God Himself...


    This has nothing to do with the end of his reign, about which it is said he will go to the Holy Land and lay down his crown upon the Mount of Olives.

    Anyway, what will be will be...and it will all happen according to the most holy and adorable will of God.
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #18 on: May 09, 2011, 11:55:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gladius_veritatis
    Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.


    No.  His name is Cardinal Lienart, and your understanding is correct -- i.e., even if Lienart was, as some say, a Mason, albeit unknown at the time, such would NOT affect the validity of his actions.

    Quote
    I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.


    I do not think anyone does.  Mike (Raoul) can answer for himself, of course, but I imagine he would say his 'attack' is not illogical.  If I understand his motive correctly, his OP is about setting (or trying to set) the record straight about Fr. le Floch, etc.


    This is such a tired out argument. He was a Freemason, and there's really no doubt about that anymore. That was the reason Father Luigi Villa got all his teeth knocked out, was because he specifically revealed that Lienart was a mason.

    But, this argument still holds no water, because when a bishop is ordained, he receives the "fullness of orders." So even if Lienart had a defect in intention, there were two other bishops with him when Archbishop Lefevbre was made a bishop, and they conferred the sacrament. It's highly unlikely that the other two bishops there were Freemasons as well. Their names were not on the List of the Peccorelli.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Stevus, a note about your sig --
    « Reply #19 on: May 09, 2011, 01:02:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Raoul,

    I already knew this story and so I did not fail to "dig" around my quote. However, what you have presented is a very misleading account of what happened.

    The quote stands as a very true and prophetic observation.  When you know the full story of what happened to Fr. LeFloch, it is very sad, but not surprising.

    I will let John Vennari tell the tale...

    http://www.cfnews.org/LefebvreBio.htm

    Quote
    Marcel Goes to Rome

    In 1919, when Marcel announced his intention to become a priest, his father cautioned him against studying at his home diocese at Lille. Bishop Lienart, the local ordinary, displayed a progressivist frame of mind, and Marcel’s father was uneasy with the spirit of the diocesan seminary. So at the advice of the renowned Father Collins, Marcel followed his older brother Rene into the French Seminary in Rome. This was a decisive moment in the formation of Marcel Lefebvre for it was here that he came under the influence of Father Le Floch.

    Father Henri Le Floch was a teacher whom one would give his eye-teeth to be formed under. Thoroughly Catholic, thoroughly committed to the scholasticism of Saint Thomas, thoroughly anti-liberal and anti-Modernist, thoroughly imbued with the Roman school of theology, and with the competence to convey these truths so they be central to one’s life, Father Le Floch trained his men. Archbishop Lefebvre readily admitted that were it not for the solid formation he received from Father Le Floch, he too might have succuмbed to the creeping liberalism of the age.

    The Archbishop said at his September 23, 1979 Jubilee sermon, “I will never thank God enough for allowing me to know that extraordinary man.” He said of Father Le Floch:

    “He was the one who taught us what the popes were to the world and the Church, what they had taught for a century and a half against liberalism, modernism and Communism, the whole doctrine of the Church on these topics. He really made us understand and share in this battle of the Popes to preserve the world and the Church from these scourges which plague us today. That was a revelation to me.”

    Archbishop Lefebvre continued:

    “I listened to what the older students were talking about. I listened to their reactions and especially to what my professors and Superior had taught me. And I realized that in fact I had quite a few wrong ideas ... I was very pleased to learn the truth, happy to learn that I had been wrong, that I had to change my way of thinking about certain things, especially in studying the encyclicals of the Popes, which showed us all the modern errors, those magnificent encyclicals of the Popes up to St. Pius X and Pius XI.

    “... For me it was a complete revelation. And that was how the desire was quietly born to conform our judgment to that of the Popes. We used to say to ourselves: how did the Popes judge these events, ideas, men and times? And Fr. Le Floch showed us clearly what the main ideas of the various Popes were: always the same thing, exactly the same in their encyclicals. That showed us ... how we should look at history ... And consequently it stayed with us.”[2]

    Elsewhere Archbishop said that thanks to Father Le Floch, “We were mobilized against this dreadful liberalism.”[3]

    “Think With the Church”

    Father Le Floch inculcated into the students the key principle, “Sentire cuм Ecclesia” — Think with the Church. Think as the Church thinks, judge as the Popes judged, in light of St. Thomas Aquinas, “leaving aside all personal ideas in order to embrace the mind of the Church.”

    In this environment, Marcel cut his teeth on the magnificent teaching of the Popes from the 19th and early 20th Century, which condemned the Masonic modern world born from the French Revolution. He learned that evil principles, no matter how seductively dressed, are evil nonetheless. These principles cause the ruin of souls, the destruction of society, and rob Our Lord of His Rights as King and Redeemer.

    Marcel was privileged to attend the seminary’s “St. Thomas Lectures”. They were designed to stimulate the philosophy and theology student’s tastes for studying contemporary questions (“judge as the Church judges”) in the light of Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Popes.

    At one such lecture, in the presence of Archbishop Chollet of Cambrai, Father George Michel put the Masonic Declaration of the Rights of Man on trial. After this brilliant presentation, Archbishop Chollet summarized: “God alone is a pure right ... originally we have nothing but debts: we have rights precisely to help us pay our debts.” The Biography comments, “This beautifully expressed the objective nature of rights and reaffirmed the primacy of the common good — both of which were ideas ignored by the liberal individualism of the Revolution”.

    The anti-revolutionary training of the seminarians did not escape the notice of European governments. A tragic conflict ensued that devastated young Marcel, and showed him at an early age the malice of the liberals.

    The Ax Falls on Father Le Floch

    The French Seminary produced a formidable Catholic clergy who defied the liberal spirit of the age. Many of those trained in the French Seminary in Rome would become bishops. The last thing wanted by the Masonic government of France was an army of bishops and priests tearing the mask off their liberal pretensions. It could bring down their whole world. It could ruin everything. Something had to be done.

    Already, France’s government was in uproar over the French Seminary where “political ideas which go against the laws of the Republic are flourishing.” On March 10, 1925, France’s Cardinals and Bishops issued a declaration on the injustice of the secular laws and the “steps to be taken against them.” Then in France’s Chamber of Deputies on March 20, the bishop’s declaration was denounced as coming “dir-ectly from the French Seminary in Rome.” With disgust, the French politicians quoted an extract from Father George Michel’s St. Thomas Lecture: “The State has the duty to recognize the Cath-olic religions as the sole true form of divine worship ... and to profess it publicly”, and to protect it, “if necessary with the armed forces.” This caused shrieks of horror from those present. A talk by Father Lucien Lefebvre[4] was quoted with equal loathing: “The State has no rights over education.” The politicians were furious. “That is the respect they have for the secular laws”, one of them said.

    Shortly after, the French government pressured Pope Pius XI to “tone down” the French seminary’s counter-revolutionary program. In one of his worst decisions — along with the suppression of Padre Pio and the decision that led to the slaughter of the Mexican Cristeros — Pius XI yielded and dismissed Father Le Floch: despite the fact that he was a model Rector since 1904; despite the fact that he was revered by students and former students who were now eminent Churchmen; des-pite the fact that an independent probe showed Father Le Floch to be faithful to Catholic doctrine without crease.[5] This occurred around the same time Pius XI condemned Action Francais, an anti-liberalism organization ad-mired by Pope Saint Pius X[6] that Pope Pius XII sought unsuccessfully to resurrect.[7]

    Marcel was not at the seminary for Father Le Floch’s tribulation. Away on mandatory military service, he learned the details through heartbreaking letters from fellow students. He returned to find the atmosphere of the French Seminary changed. Father Le Floch was gone. No longer were the seminarians trained for combat with the modern world, but more in a spirit of detente. It was Marcel’s first taste of opposition to Catholic principles from within the Church.

    Nonetheless, Providence had arranged that Marcel study at the French Seminary just in time. He was trained during the final years of Father Le Floch’s regime. He received solid Catholic principles that would direct him for the rest of his life, and prepare him for future battles that, as a young seminarian, he would hardly dream possible.