Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Peregrine on March 02, 2012, 01:16:27 PM
-
An Overview & Plea
Heartfelt thanks to Hobbledehoy, who has done a masterful job in the original thread to expose the perilous agenda of the Toth-Gebel-gαye-Hall group. As usual, people with little or nothing to contribute to the substance of the matter have cluttered things up and/or derailed the topic, so this is an attempt to get back on track.
A brief overview: When Fr. Ramolla was unjustly expelled from St. Gertrude the Great church in November 2009, the above named persons, along with many others, rushed to his defense. More importantly, they worked hard to establish St. Albert the Great church and St. Anthony of Padua chapel, under Fr. Ramolla's pastorship. This was the Catholic response to an absurd calamity brought about by the behavior of Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada.
But this was apparently not enough for the little group, so they felt compelled to launch a campaign to "destroy Dolan, Cekada, and Sanborn." We assume they were motivated by the desire to remove some of the evil that inevitably seeps into God's Church. Tragically, however, they chose shockingly base tactics, more worthy of demons than of Catholics. Their notoriously vile websites (VoVwatch, Pistrina Liturgica, RCcorner, LayPulpit, etc.) seemed to compete with each other on which could spew the most vulgar bashing of their intended victims whose numbers grew to include anyone they perceived as opposing their ultimate agenda. Not content with exposing facts, which evidently failed to "destroy" their targets, they resorted to clever ridicule, hideous mockery, and outright vicious calumny. And despite their feverish efforts, they have still failed to destroy their targets.
As Hobbledehoy explained, it appears that their ultimate goal is to transform the Catholic Church into a non-Catholic institution under the absolute control of the laity. Rather than parishes having lay boards that assist with the financial and material management of the church, their goal is to have the clergy completely subordinate to the lay boards.
When Father Ramolla, whom they first championed, took immediate action and dismissed a member of the clergy whose behavior was a danger to the parishioners and seminarians, he transgressed their fundamental premise by acting as a real Catholic priest rather than as a lowly employee who cannot move without consulting the lay board and obtaining their permission.
As a result, the Toth-gαye-Gebel-Hall troop is feverishly working to destroy Father Ramolla and replace him with other clergy who will compliantly serve as their sacrament-dispensing puppets.
HOW TRAGIC ! At this time more than ever the Catholic Church desperately needs intelligent and energetic soldiers of Christ who pour their hearts and souls into building up the Body of Christ. Yet here we have intelligent and energetic persons claiming to be Catholic while tearing apart the fragile remnant on earth.
Craig: Everyone acknowledges your academic abilities and clever writing. But rather than wasting time on destructive diatribes, which may give you some kind of sadistic pleasure, why not use your gifts to build up the few existing oases of Catholicism?
Jim: Your first letters to SGG parishioners were beautifully written and inspiring. How could you sink to such vulgarity and dishonesty on the Lay Pulpit? That is not the way to persuade people to seek the truth and correct errors. You can do so much more for God by keeping to the high road.
Janet: You are a firebrand eager to defend the Church. In the past, clergy have voraciously devoured your generous resources, and it's understandable that you want to prevent such clerical abuse in the future. But locking the clergy in an iron cage is not the solution. You know from experience that there are no perfect priests, and sooner or later they all have failings. We have to do the best we can to keep them on the path of holiness, by our prayer and gentle reproaches, not by whips and cages.
Father Hall: You have been taken advantage of and suffered terrible mistreatment by other clergy, and it's understandable that you are inclined to go along with the idea of absolute control by lay boards. Yet you surely know that the laity are just as weak and fallible as the clergy, so it is preposterous to hand over to them the rightful role of the clergy. I pray that you will once again turn your efforts to supporting what few chapels we have, even though they may be somewhat flawed.
Readers on the CathInfo forum: Please let's all pray harder than ever during this time of Lent that the Holy Ghost will lavish His Gifts, especially wisdom, piety and fortitude, on His poor bedraggled little army on earth. Amen.
-
Cupertino, seriously, there is no need for me or anyone to give personal explanations of our knowledge of details, support of efforts, familiarity with individuals, change of opinions, etc. This is precisely the sort of thing that clutters up and derails the threads.
However, since you have a personal interest in this and asked publicly, I will reply briefly but will not engage in further discussion that is not directly on topic.
There were two campaigns. Hopefully, my dates are correct.
(1) To "destroy D/C/S" - This entered the public arena in June 2010 with the launch of Pistrina Liturgica, whose initial goal was to discredit Fr. Cekada's book. I supported this in the beginning, as the book indeed has many flaws. Later Pistrina took on MHT Seminary, and I felt it made some valid points. Progressively the editorials became repulsive. Recently it has begun promoting Campaign 2.
VoVwatch was launched in January 2011, and I was in favor of the general idea but horrified at the style and in no way supported it.
(2) To reduce the clergy to impotent employees of lay boards. This became public with RCcorner in February 2011, and from the start I opposed it.
I believed that T-G-G-H were sincere in wanting to help the Church and generally encouraged their efforts, while at the same time expressing my dismay at some of their methods.
At this point, the group is simply wreaking havoc on the Church, and I am praying hard for each of them to come to their senses.
-
Excellent points peregrine. Pride can find its way into what started out to be a good response to injustice. We need not keep feeding the fire of this dispute but pray for some sort of good resulotion. I know some here on cathinfo want to bury anyone that doesn't agree with them on this issue, and that is the sure sign of pride.
-
... I hardly think my questions to you either clutters or derails anything.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Cupertino, seriously, there is no need for me or anyone to give personal explanations of our knowledge of details, support of efforts, familiarity with individuals, change of opinions, etc. This is precisely the sort of thing that clutters up and derails the threads.
.
If this is so, why not ask Matthew to lock your thread so nobody clutters it up by responding to you?
-
Thank you very much Peregrine!
(2) To reduce the clergy to impotent employees of lay boards.
Indeed this is the ultimate goal of the cabal, and the lay-board of St. Albert's does not seem to realize the great peril that is threatening to destroy any potential rehabilitation of tranquility that was disturbed by the betrayal of gαye and Hall in October and November of last year.
Forsooth, Toth, as an excellent Americanist, has began a political campaign of sorts, as elections to the new lay-board at St. Albert's are about to begin:
http://www.pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2012/03/iron-time-of-doubt.html
Perhaps in the Sede Vacante we can't expect mere men to behave well. With no hierarchy, there is no locus of control to keep an error-prone man from pursuing material advantages and earthly prestige at the expense of his brother and sister. For some stout souls, the answer is to cross these hungry status-seekers off and stay home alone. For others, however, the need for some form of Catholic community and the sacraments urges them to remain with such clergy notwithstanding the nagging doubts and the absence of longed-for consolation.
If you are among the latter, you have an option. You don't simply have to take it. You can start by taking back your chapels. You are not powerless or without resources. You hold the pursestrings, and you can demand that your clergy clean up their act. But you must act together -- as a community -- if you want the peace you've been searching for.
When at last the Restoration gives us a sovereign Roman pontiff, Catholicism can return to a monarchy, but in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin. [emphases mine]
How can a monarchy be restored with a democracy? It may theoretically work in secular constructs, but not with the Church.
As I have written in times past, these people are taking advantage of the exceedingly devastated predicament of the Church in order to establish a lay-controlled church, suited to their tastes.
This last post at Pristina, as the more recent posts there, have been specifically addressed to the "the educated and affluent Traddie minority" - in this case being the members or potential members of the lay-board of St. Albert's.
If "the educated and affluent Traddie minority" at Fairfield pays heed to the absurdities of Toth, then the faithful shall unfortunately pay a heavy price.
The faithful want a Priest: yet the lay-boards, according to this new lay-ecclesiology, would have him merely adorning the sacred Altar, and little else more. Yet Toth and his crew would readily point and wag fingers when the very Priest whom they were treating as a "sacramental machine" (as Toth put it) suddenly decides to be just that: a walking Ciborium, distanced and disenchanted, willing to leave everything behind at the first chance.
What sort of an example is that for the younger generations, for the Seminarians? I would not blame them if they left the Seminary, if that is the future that awaits them: to be the play-ball of dissensions and board meetings, to be threatened and intimidated, atop of the anxieties and Crosses that are concomitant with Priesthood, especially in our day.
This, this is ultimately what Toth wants apparently: for others to be turned away from the Priesthood, or to seek it with the intention of pleasing these over-powered layfolk, and truly have a "lay Church" - the sixteenth chapter of the Prophecy of Ezechiel to be realized once again. [/size][/font]
-
I can second Cupertino for reminding Peregrine that the leaders of the attacks against SGG and its clergy were hard at work long before November 2009.
In addition to the ones Cupertino mentions, Gebel had circulated an attack letter of his own in July 2008, Bernard Hall had been attacking the SGG school principal and meddling in his (the principal's) family since May 2009, and Fr. Ramolla had been badmouthing Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn and the seminary all over Europe during his 2009 summer vacation.
By September 2009 the revolutionaries had everything organized to lure other unwitting souls to their side with agitprop, to whip these people up into a mob mentality and to launch an attack on many fronts once the signal was given. Like the French Revolution, anyone with even slightest gripe was sympathized with and welcomed into the mob, just as long as you were "against the regime." Power to the people!
All this is in Fr. Cekada's "School Dazed" article of November 23, 2009, which I recommend that everyone read:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/11/23/school-dazed/
As soon as Hall was fired, he and Janet gαye invited Fr. Jenkins over to their house to meet SGG parishioners that Hall was trying to disaffect -- Fr. Jenkins, who didn't even consider Fr. Ramolla a PRIEST and would have refused the sacraments to Hall two weeks early! Like Arabs, the revolutionaries believed "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
So, Peregrine, the Ramolla revolution wasn't just "a good idea" that went bad in 2010, as you seem to say, because those who fomented it had been doing their evil work for a very long time. It was bad from the beginning, and its leaders hurt a lot of good people, some of whom will not even go to Mass now as a result.
A supposedly religiously-motivated undertaking that began so badly, by being fired by hate, grudges and gossip, was bound to end badly. The leaders and cheerleaders of the revolution (Fr. Ramolla, Hall, gαye, Gebel, Shea, Toth, Droleskey, etc.) ended up turning against each other, just like the revolutionaries in France did, and after two and a half years, there's now no bishop (apart from the tainted Slupski) or priest who will have anything to do with Fr. Ramolla. Meanwhile, many Catholics he initially lured away from SGG have figured out they were sold a bill of goods and have left St. Albert's.
Once you stir up hate and unleash it, it blinds you and there's no telling where it will end up.
-
Instead, I, a stranger, immediately got a PM from SJB here trying to convince me of it. The most vile campaign worthy of demons started quite early and still smolders.
First off, you're no stranger. Secondly, I told you where to go to verify. I did this because this person can verify it. If he was unwilling to talk, then you could have dismissed it. Instead of trying to verify with the source, you made it public.
You're not interested in the truth, you're interested in your own agenda.
-
By September 2009 the revolutionaries had everything organized to lure other unwitting souls to their side with agitprop, to whip these people up into a mob mentality and to launch an attack on many fronts once the signal was given. Like the French Revolution, anyone with even slightest gripe was sympathized with and welcomed into the mob, just as long as you were "against the regime." Power to the people!
As I've shown previously, the problem in Columbus was the taking of the building fund and changing of locks, etc. ... all done by Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan. This happened before anybody left St. Clares. The SGG cabal decided that they would liquidate the Columbus chapel, something they had tried in 2006 when the chapel went up for sale one fall day without anybody knowing until the sign appeared in the front yard. This, combined with the fact Fr. Cekada didn't show his face in Columbus for many months and neither he nor Bp. Dolan ever attempted to explain or contact any of the parishioners personally, something they always did in the previous scandals the hot-headed Bp. Dolan usually created.
-
SJB,
With all due respect, you have lost your marbles. You insist on incessantly attacking the SGG and Traditional clergy in general in nearly every thread you post on. You completely ignore any and all advice to let the subject drop. You accuse Canute of having his own agenda, yet it is clear from your posts that your agenda is to continually slander not just the SGG, but anyone else you don't like (i.e Malachi Martin).
I am not an SGG supporter, but you must give credit where credit is due. You look at me, I have issues with the FSSP and their theological position, but you don't see me constantly criticizing them. You know why? Because they still do SOME good. They are part of the Traditional clergy, and thus I still respect them, even though I disagree with their position.
You have stated your case against the SGG time and time again ever since the "Bishop Pivarunas Big Blunder" thread. You've been asked by numerous people to stop, but you won't listen because you are consumed by pride. You have an axe to grind and won't rest until you destroy the SGG's reputation. That is precisely why Eamon was the only ally you had here. Now that he has left you have no one on your side, and that isn't because this forum is full of SGG supporters, most people here don't support the SGG. Rather, it is because no one else here wants to spend their entire time slamming Traditional priests.
You seem to hold grudges against people who disagree with you, even if they don't support the SGG, and even hold grudges against those who tell you to stop. Raoul kindly told you last week that you lack humility, to which you gave a smart-aleck answer. You also started your slander campaign against Malachi Martin the other day in an attempt to re-ignite your feud with Elizabeth, and when she didn't respond you made two more posts trying to grab her attention. Your intent is simply to go around the forums picking fights with other users. And when someone tells you that you've gone too far, your only response is "don't read this discussion then".
Your posts have made it blatantly obvious that you do not have much respect for the Traditional clergy. You've whined and ranted about this for months, wasting all of your time and spiritual knowledge railing against the clergy. It's time to give this issue a rest already.
I expect the same response from you that you have given everyone else, but you really need to consider what I've said. If you keep this up, you will develop a resentment towards all priests, which can be very dangerous to the soul. Stop and examine your conscience.
God Bless.
-
2) the idea that Fr. Ramolla was suddenly and suprisingly fired for speaking "truth to power" from the pulpit of his employers, as if to give the impression that he was a martyr for "truth" and a victim.
BTW, the source of the cliché "speaking truth to power" is an 15 Aug. 1942 letter by Bayard Rustin, leftist agitator, card-carrying socialist, gαy rights activist and buddy of Martin Luther King -- a great role model for leading a revolution.
-
With all due respect, you have lost your marbles. You insist on incessantly attacking the SGG and Traditional clergy in general in nearly every thread you post on. You completely ignore any and all advice to let the subject drop. You accuse Canute of having his own agenda, yet it is clear from your posts that your agenda is to continually slander not just the SGG, but anyone else you don't like (i.e Malachi Martin).
Oh yes, SS, "all due respect' then you say "you've lost your marbles?"
I have never "attacked" the Traditional clergy in general, whatever that might mean. Why don't you call for Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino to let the subjects drop? Here is a guy who keeps appearing under different pseudonyms and has a history of getting involved in controversies, yet you give him a pass? Why?
Are you supporting Malachi Martin? Or merely critical of any criticism because it is criticism ... maybe because it's somebody you happen to like? You pop into these threads that you claim not to care about, begging them to stop. Why? It seems really strange unless you simply have nothing better to do ... I haven't checked, but do you do this on other threads?
-
Oh yes, SS, "all due respect' then you say "you've lost your marbles?"
Ok, perhaps I should have said "you've gone overboard". I'm sorry for saying you've lost your marbles.
I have never "attacked" the Traditional clergy in general, whatever that might mean.
You've been railing against Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada ever since the Bishop Pivarunas thread in September. I consider that attacking the Traditional clergy. If you have a problem with them, it would be better to state your case once, then leave it and just pray for them.
Why don't you call for Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino to let the subjects drop? Here is a guy who keeps appearing under different pseudonyms and has a history of getting involved in controversies, yet you give him a pass? Why?
I have no proof that Canute or Cupertino are Rawhide, Sheenan, or any of Cekada's other supporters/friends, so it wouldn't do me much justice to accuse them of being so without proof. They could simply just be SGG supporters/attenders.
From what I've read, basically Eamon was kicked out of the SGG for various reasons and began a campaign against them (Cekada in particular) here in 2009. My guess would be that Fr. Cekada was randomly reading this site one day, saw Eamon criticizing the SGG, and sent some friends of his (Rawhide, Sheenan, and whoever else, and perhaps even posted himself) to refute Eamon's claims. I don't mean to sound like an SGG defender but, so what? That pales in comparison to what Bishop Fellay did in the fall of 2010, when he threatened to sue Ignis Ardens because some members there were posting the truth about the situation between him and Bishop Williamson (I don't know all the details, I'm just using that as an example). Even Matthew doesn't seem to really mind the SGG crowd here anymore as long as they behave. That's why he let skifast come back as "gunfighter". So if some people here defend the SGG, what place do I have to tell them what group they can and can't support? I don't necessarily agree with them, but that's up to them, not me.
Are you supporting Malachi Martin?
I believe the slander campaign against him is rather absurd. No proof that he was a double-agent exists, except for certain biased docuмentaries that provide nothing to back up their claims.
Or merely critical of any criticism because it is criticism ... maybe because it's somebody you happen to like?
I don't know where you got that idea from. I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm not an SGG supporter. My posts also show that I criticize where criticism is due.
You pop into these threads that you claim not to care about, begging them to stop. Why? It seems really strange unless you simply have nothing better to do ... I haven't checked, but do you do this on other threads?
You are changing the subject. This isn't about me, it's about your apparent contempt for the Traditional clergy and your refusal to let go of the SGG subject.
Are you even a sedevacantist, SJB? I believe you've said before that you are, but if so, why do you spend your entire time on this forum slamming sede priests but not Benedict and Vatican II? I mean, what sedevacantist does that? There are many more people who need to be told the truth about Benedict and Vatican II, than people who need to be told the "truth" about a small sede group.
-
SJB,
With all due respect, you have lost your marbles. You insist on incessantly attacking the SGG and Traditional clergy in general in nearly every thread you post on. You completely ignore any and all advice to let the subject drop. You accuse Canute of having his own agenda, yet it is clear from your posts that your agenda is to continually slander not just the SGG, but anyone else you don't like (i.e Malachi Martin).
I am not an SGG supporter, but you must give credit where credit is due. You look at me, I have issues with the FSSP and their theological position, but you don't see me constantly criticizing them. You know why? Because they still do SOME good. They are part of the Traditional clergy, and thus I still respect them, even though I disagree with their position.
You have stated your case against the SGG time and time again ever since the "Bishop Pivarunas Big Blunder" thread. You've been asked by numerous people to stop, but you won't listen because you are consumed by pride. You have an axe to grind and won't rest until you destroy the SGG's reputation. That is precisely why Eamon was the only ally you had here. Now that he has left you have no one on your side, and that isn't because this forum is full of SGG supporters, most people here don't support the SGG. Rather, it is because no one else here wants to spend their entire time slamming Traditional priests.
You seem to hold grudges against people who disagree with you, even if they don't support the SGG, and even hold grudges against those who tell you to stop. Raoul kindly told you last week that you lack humility, to which you gave a smart-aleck answer. You also started your slander campaign against Malachi Martin the other day in an attempt to re-ignite your feud with Elizabeth, and when she didn't respond you made two more posts trying to grab her attention. Your intent is simply to go around the forums picking fights with other users. And when someone tells you that you've gone too far, your only response is "don't read this discussion then".
Your posts have made it blatantly obvious that you do not have much respect for the Traditional clergy. You've whined and ranted about this for months, wasting all of your time and spiritual knowledge railing against the clergy. It's time to give this issue a rest already.
I expect the same response from you that you have given everyone else, but you really need to consider what I've said. If you keep this up, you will develop a resentment towards all priests, which can be very dangerous to the soul. Stop and examine your conscience.
God Bless.
:applause: :applause:
-
You are changing the subject. This isn't about me, it's about your apparent contempt for the Traditional clergy ...
How is that apparent ? I've been critical of specific events of which I have personal knowledge. You make the claim of a general contempt, yet you can't give any examples?
-
An Overview & Plea
Heartfelt thanks to Hobbledehoy, who has done a masterful job in the original thread to expose the perilous agenda of the Toth-Gebel-gαye-Hall group. As usual, people with little or nothing to contribute to the substance of the matter have cluttered things up and/or derailed the topic, so this is an attempt to get back on track.
A brief overview: When Fr. Ramolla was unjustly expelled from St. Gertrude the Great church in November 2009, the above named persons, along with many others, rushed to his defense. More importantly, they worked hard to establish St. Albert the Great church and St. Anthony of Padua chapel, under Fr. Ramolla's pastorship. This was the Catholic response to an absurd calamity brought about by the behavior of Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada.
But this was apparently not enough for the little group, so they felt compelled to launch a campaign to "destroy Dolan, Cekada, and Sanborn." We assume they were motivated by the desire to remove some of the evil that inevitably seeps into God's Church. Tragically, however, they chose shockingly base tactics, more worthy of demons than of Catholics. Their notoriously vile websites (VoVwatch, Pistrina Liturgica, RCcorner, LayPulpit, etc.) seemed to compete with each other on which could spew the most vulgar bashing of their intended victims whose numbers grew to include anyone they perceived as opposing their ultimate agenda. Not content with exposing facts, which evidently failed to "destroy" their targets, they resorted to clever ridicule, hideous mockery, and outright vicious calumny. And despite their feverish efforts, they have still failed to destroy their targets.
As Hobbledehoy explained, it appears that their ultimate goal is to transform the Catholic Church into a non-Catholic institution under the absolute control of the laity. Rather than parishes having lay boards that assist with the financial and material management of the church, their goal is to have the clergy completely subordinate to the lay boards.
When Father Ramolla, whom they first championed, took immediate action and dismissed a member of the clergy whose behavior was a danger to the parishioners and seminarians, he transgressed their fundamental premise by acting as a real Catholic priest rather than as a lowly employee who cannot move without consulting the lay board and obtaining their permission.
As a result, the Toth-gαye-Gebel-Hall troop is feverishly working to destroy Father Ramolla and replace him with other clergy who will compliantly serve as their sacrament-dispensing puppets.
HOW TRAGIC ! At this time more than ever the Catholic Church desperately needs intelligent and energetic soldiers of Christ who pour their hearts and souls into building up the Body of Christ. Yet here we have intelligent and energetic persons claiming to be Catholic while tearing apart the fragile remnant on earth.
Craig: Everyone acknowledges your academic abilities and clever writing. But rather than wasting time on destructive diatribes, which may give you some kind of sadistic pleasure, why not use your gifts to build up the few existing oases of Catholicism?
Jim: Your first letters to SGG parishioners were beautifully written and inspiring. How could you sink to such vulgarity and dishonesty on the Lay Pulpit? That is not the way to persuade people to seek the truth and correct errors. You can do so much more for God by keeping to the high road.
Janet: You are a firebrand eager to defend the Church. In the past, clergy have voraciously devoured your generous resources, and it's understandable that you want to prevent such clerical abuse in the future. But locking the clergy in an iron cage is not the solution. You know from experience that there are no perfect priests, and sooner or later they all have failings. We have to do the best we can to keep them on the path of holiness, by our prayer and gentle reproaches, not by whips and cages.
Father Hall: You have been taken advantage of and suffered terrible mistreatment by other clergy, and it's understandable that you are inclined to go along with the idea of absolute control by lay boards. Yet you surely know that the laity are just as weak and fallible as the clergy, so it is preposterous to hand over to them the rightful role of the clergy. I pray that you will once again turn your efforts to supporting what few chapels we have, even though they may be somewhat flawed.
Readers on the CathInfo forum: Please let's all pray harder than ever during this time of Lent that the Holy Ghost will lavish His Gifts, especially wisdom, piety and fortitude, on His poor bedraggled little army on earth. Amen.
It seems you have made a highly accurate assessment of the situation. When you get betrayed, or feel betrayed (even when in reality you were not betrayed) by those you have looked up to it hurts. You expect more from them than what you witness. And when these heroes of the movement are, at the very least, negligent in the extreme when it comes to the souls of children in their school and systematically ignore your complaints for years and years and years there is a tendency to want to lash out. You get hurt and being tired of all the ignoring of the very real abuses you stand up, valiantly, against them. But when things do not go according to your plan or as quickly as you like you move from taking a courageous stand against clergy that allow abuse to go on and systematically ignore legitimate complaints to wanting to take vengeance or to make them hurt as much as they hurt you.
God has a plan for all. Say your part and then move on and let God deal with it. I wish I followed this advice in the past and recently. For example I recently offered an olive branch to someone who hurt me and was then hurt by me. This was someone who, from afar is thought to be the epitome of what it means to be Catholic, can do no wrong type. This person refused to have anything to do with me and did not take the opportunity I gave this person to show an ounce of humility or to be the slightest bit gracious i.e. Catholic in their response. A good Catholic would let it go. As no one owes me their friendship. But what did I do. I responded in kind so I could have the last word and hurt that person as much as they hurt and disappointed (needlessly in my opinion) me.
One or more of the people above could be doing the same thing. And they have a public forum to do it on. I used this forum to hold Kathleen Plumb accountable after talking with her privately, but my motives were not entirely (or perhaps not even half-way pure). I wanted to force her into answering why she only presented one side of the story while banning another good Priest from even being mentioned in her paper. I believe that motive was good as far as it went. But I also looked up to her and thought VERY highly of her so when she brought the issue up two weeks later after I just let it go I was blatantly honest with her. Even then I do not think my motives where impure and I thought I was doing the right thing even though I had pretty much realized she was not going to grant the valid points I made but rather ignore them as she did.
But then I came here on this site, perhaps with the same motives of Jim and such who did write very well and with the right motives on SGG initially. Perhaps I wanted to "get her back". Perhaps I wanted people to start asking her questions about it. Perhaps, and probably, I wanted to hurt her like she hurt me. But what I am saying is that is not the Catholic way. It is good to apologize as I do but a true Catholic Saint in the making does not put himself in a position to where he has to apologize, he does the right thing and avoids the wrong things from the start.
Lay people using and controlling Priests for their own agendas is nothing new as Tom shows what happened in this country over 100 years ago in the following article:
http://christorchaos.com/BetterLivingThroughVoting.htm
The article is not about secular elections but in the Catholic Church in America before "Vatican '2'".
He does not mention the current circuмstances but I am sure the past sheds light on the present situation with Father Ramolla. Saying the situation is very sad is an understatement. There will be many clergy in Hell but the same goes for us, especially people who act like Jim seems to be acting and people who act as I have acted who think we are true Catholics.
-
Lover of Truth: Thank you for the good illustration of our normal human reaction to having been personally deceived, misunderstood, contradicted, wounded, etc. Even when our primary goal may be to defend the truth and protect others from harm, we often lash out uncharitably against those who have offended. I'm as guilty as anyone, and apologize to those I may have hurt due to my lack of charity. It's hard to fight, even for the glory of God, without getting crazed by the taste of blood.
My object in this thread is to expose the campaign to establish a non-Catholic lay controlled church, and plead with the instigators to redirect their talents and energy to building up the Church instead of tearing it down.
To Cupertino and Canute: You consider (or pretend to consider) the immediate campaign being addressed as an extension of all that occurred prior to the November 2009 blow-up, and you wish to use this thread to continue the unending debate on who-did-what then. Perhaps you can ask Matthew to re-open the "Ode" thread, since everything was already said there. Re-hashing it here serves only to derail this thread.
-
You are changing the subject. This isn't about me, it's about your apparent contempt for the Traditional clergy ...
How is that apparent ? I've been critical of specific events of which I have personal knowledge. You make the claim of a general contempt, yet you can't give any examples?
I think your constant bashing of the SGG is a prime example.
And you didn't address anything else I said.
-
My object in this thread is to expose the campaign to establish a non-Catholic lay controlled church, and plead with the instigators to redirect their talents and energy to building up the Church instead of tearing it down.
I am still trying to understand the concept of a lay-controlled parish/church. Was this a stated goal, or was it tossed around in the heat of the moment?
Also, are you sure this is the goal? It makes sense in a way, but then that would mean that the lay controllers are no longer traditional, wouldn't it? Is there some established precedent for this in the dusty books? Or do you believe this is more of a subconscious urge?
What I'm trying to say is, it just doesn't sound possible. I could see this if these were brand new converts, but these are middle aged souls who have been around the trad movement for years, right?
-
You are changing the subject. This isn't about me, it's about your apparent contempt for the Traditional clergy ...
How is that apparent ? I've been critical of specific events of which I have personal knowledge. You make the claim of a general contempt, yet you can't give any examples?
I think your constant bashing of the SGG is a prime example.
And you didn't address anything else I said.
No, SS, you said the trad clergy in general. There is no evidence of this because I've never done it. Unless you think SGG is the Church, they are just a very, very, very small element in the trad world.
I wasn't addressing everything you said, just this one erroneous statement.
-
I am still trying to understand the concept of a lay-controlled parish/church. Was this a stated goal, or was it tossed around in the heat of the moment?
Also, are you sure this is the goal? It makes sense in a way, but then that would mean that the lay controllers are no longer traditional, wouldn't it? Is there some established precedent for this in the dusty books? Or do you believe this is more of a subconscious urge?
What I'm trying to say is, it just doesn't sound possible. I could see this if these were brand new converts, but these are middle aged souls who have been around the trad movement for years, right?
Elizabeth, in the course of the original "Cloaks and Daggers" thread, Hobbledehoy did explain how the group explicitly explained and promoted the lay-controlled parish/church, especially on RCcorner and Pistrina.
You are absolutely correct that the lay controllers would (at best) be no longer traditional Catholics. Let's pray that the strange zealous activity of T-G-G-H reflects only an abysmal lack of wisdom and understanding, and that they will soon come to their Catholic senses.
-
I am still trying to understand the concept of a lay-controlled parish/church. Was this a stated goal, or was it tossed around in the heat of the moment?
Also, are you sure this is the goal? It makes sense in a way, but then that would mean that the lay controllers are no longer traditional, wouldn't it? Is there some established precedent for this in the dusty books? Or do you believe this is more of a subconscious urge?
What I'm trying to say is, it just doesn't sound possible. I could see this if these were brand new converts, but these are middle aged souls who have been around the trad movement for years, right?
Elizabeth, in the course of the original "Cloaks and Daggers" thread, Hobbledehoy did explain how the group explicitly explained and promoted the lay-controlled parish/church, especially on RCcorner and Pistrina.
You are absolutely correct that the lay controllers would (at best) be no longer traditional Catholics. Let's pray that the strange zealous activity of T-G-G-H reflects only an abysmal lack of wisdom and understanding, and that they will soon come to their Catholic senses.
In order for this to be correct, the assumption must be that we are operating under normal circuмstances, which simply isn't the case. The entire reason for the trad resistance is the crisis in the Church and absent this crisis, there is no possible reason for any traditional group to even exist, be they a lay group or a group of clergy.
The SSPX under Archbishop Lefebvre sought to incorporate many independent chapels controlled in a variety of ways under one SSPX banner. In that case the lay-controlled property was surrendered voluntarily to a real organization with a structure. SSPX isn't the Church, but neither are they a one man band corporation with no structure and no rules.
Perrigrine, the idea that a lay-controlled mass center (and I'm speaking of the property) renders the laity as "no longer traditional Catholics" is the sort of stuff one hears from neo-caths regarding the traditionalist resistance. Catholics do not operate outside their diocese.
-
My object in this thread is to expose the campaign to establish a non-Catholic lay controlled church, and plead with the instigators to redirect their talents and energy to building up the Church instead of tearing it down.
I am still trying to understand the concept of a lay-controlled parish/church. Was this a stated goal, or was it tossed around in the heat of the moment?
Also, are you sure this is the goal? It makes sense in a way, but then that would mean that the lay controllers are no longer traditional, wouldn't it? Is there some established precedent for this in the dusty books? Or do you believe this is more of a subconscious urge?
What I'm trying to say is, it just doesn't sound possible. I could see this if these were brand new converts, but these are middle aged souls who have been around the trad movement for years, right?
Peregrine, Elizabeth and Hobbleldyhoy:
The "lay-board, lay democracy" component is NOT a recent add-on dreamed up by Toth and company, but was an integral part of the Ramolla revolution FROM THE GIT-GO.
When the revolution took off its mask in November 2009, the propagandists told us all that to prevent future clerical "abuses," the LAITY would control the temporal affairs of Fr. Ramolla's work.
Fr. Ramolla himself went along with this idea, probably figuring that he could lure followers to his cause by waving the flag of "power to the people" and then get lay trustees to do his bidding simply by force of his personality.
But guys like me who have been around in the trad movement for a long time have seen what happens in lay-control chapels, and some of us predicted that everything would go south nearly right away, which of course it did. Once you let the lay-control genie out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in.
So what's happening to Father now is (like the Petko abuse mess) just more bitter fruit of seeds he himself was quite happy to sow himself (and have others sow for him) during his 09 revolution. The lay-control people around now pushing their agenda didn't BETRAY the Ramolla revolution; they just took their "Fuhrer" at his word when he started it.
-
But guys like me who have been around in the trad movement for a long time have seen what happens in lay-control chapels, and some of us predicted that everything would go south nearly right away, which of course it did. Once you let the lay-control genie out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in.
Been around a while, Canute? I've seen what happens in chapels controlled by one-off corporations controlled by bad clergy, and things go south for the laity, both in loss of faith (especially in young adults) and loss of property.
-
Parents' Meetings?
One parent mentioned that, in light of the recent difficulties, it had been suggested that a general meeting of all school parents take place immediately.
I am sure that this proposal was made with the best of intentions. However, having weathered various school, seminary, parish, priest, nun, lay trustee and legal crises during my more than thirty years as a traditional Catholic priest, I can assure you that such gatherings generally cause more problems than they resolve.
-
Lover of Truth: Thank you for the good illustration of our normal human reaction to having been personally deceived, misunderstood, contradicted, wounded, etc. Even when our primary goal may be to defend the truth and protect others from harm, we often lash out uncharitably against those who have offended. I'm as guilty as anyone, and apologize to those I may have hurt due to my lack of charity. It's hard to fight, even for the glory of God, without getting crazed by the taste of blood.
My object in this thread is to expose the campaign to establish a non-Catholic lay controlled church, and plead with the instigators to redirect their talents and energy to building up the Church instead of tearing it down.
To Cupertino and Canute: You consider (or pretend to consider) the immediate campaign being addressed as an extension of all that occurred prior to the November 2009 blow-up, and you wish to use this thread to continue the unending debate on who-did-what then. Perhaps you can ask Matthew to re-open the "Ode" thread, since everything was already said there. Re-hashing it here serves only to derail this thread.
Thank you for this kind note which means alot to me. I hope you are not dissappointed if no one complies. It seems hate is an addictive habit and that they will not rest until God puts them to rest. Misery loves company. What helps me when seeing people that no better to continually act in a vicious maner and are are as bad as we think they are is that Justice shall be served and vengeance is the Lord's. We want all to be saved but there is a sense of justice when those who get away with things in this life are punished by the Just and Merciful God in the next.
-
Ahhh, here we are again. This is not meant to pick on any current forum members who I am sure are trying to stick up for "their side" of the experience, BUT.....
we seem always to get back to politics-I'm going with my side because, after all, it's my side. So we read page after page of proselytizing and still don't seem to have anymore in the way of facts than we did two years ago. It's like trying to sort out the current group of Republican candidates in this country: You know you want something like that but can't sort out the truth from artful rhetoric.
I've got to say one thing. SOMEBODY HERE IS LYING, but for heaven's sake, I just can't tell who that is. Too much has been hidden. Too much has been gussied up. The characters are too sparsely drawn and over dramatized.
I'll just list some things I feel merit consideration. If anyone can provide answers that are factual and not just the party doctrine, I'm all ears.
1. IF the "gravest accusations" are true, they are NOT just items to be swept under the rug for purposes of doing business-as-usual. For those closely involved they would be as the current expression goes--deal-breakers.
2. Say what one wants, but the number of people that picked up and moved, leaving investment, acquaintance, and their own small sliver of hope in a putrid world, well, it's scary, odd, and puzzling. A small amount of administrative bumpiness would not seem to be enough to cause this to happen. So what did happen. No, I don't want a party line, I want to know: what did happen?
3. Mr. Shea got this started, and promised evidence and a reckoning, but he seems to be AWOL, and there has been no evidence and no reckoning. That right there would lean one toward kicking the case out of court and declaring a mistrial.
4. The St. Albert group seems to have gone off prematurely like a defective firecracker, seeking land, signing up bishops, spending money. Who IS driving this runaway train?
5. The SGG clerics have been very oddly silent in defending themselves. I know, to reply to lies only gives them credence, but could we at least hear a "That's absolutely ridiculous"?
Is there anyone here that feels confident enough to make a decision between these two? If so, precisely why?
-
LOT:
Justice shall be served and vengeance is the Lord's.
No doubt.
Of course, one always hopes that this means his side wins.
:kick-can:
-
Ahhh, here we are again. This is not meant to pick on any current forum members who I am sure are trying to stick up for "their side" of the experience, BUT.....
we seem always to get back to politics-I'm going with my side because, after all, it's my side. So we read page after page of proselytizing and still don't seem to have anymore in the way of facts than we did two years ago. It's like trying to sort out the current group of Republican candidates in this country: You know you want something like that but can't sort out the truth from artful rhetoric.
I've got to say one thing. SOMEBODY HERE IS LYING, but for heaven's sake, I just can't tell who that is. Too much has been hidden. Too much has been gussied up. The characters are too sparsely drawn and over dramatized.
I'll just list some things I feel merit consideration. If anyone can provide answers that are factual and not just the party doctrine, I'm all ears.
1. IF the "gravest accusations" are true, they are NOT just items to be swept under the rug for purposes of doing business-as-usual. For those closely involved they would be as the current expression goes--deal-breakers.
2. Say what one wants, but the number of people that picked up and moved, leaving investment, acquaintance, and their own small sliver of hope in a putrid world, well, it's scary, odd, and puzzling. A small amount of administrative bumpiness would not seem to be enough to cause this to happen. So what did happen. No, I don't want a party line, I want to know: what did happen?
3. Mr. Shea got this started, and promised evidence and a reckoning, but he seems to be AWOL, and there has been no evidence and no reckoning. That right there would lean one toward kicking the case out of court and declaring a mistrial.
4. The St. Albert group seems to have gone off prematurely like a defective firecracker, seeking land, signing up bishops, spending money. Who IS driving this runaway train?
5. The SGG clerics have been very oddly silent in defending themselves. I know, to reply to lies only gives them credence, but could we at least hear a "That's absolutely ridiculous"?
Is there anyone here that feels confident enough to make a decision between these two? If so, precisely why?
Number 2 is the main point of disagreement ("What did happen?") along with the question of "How to assign blame?" How to answer either of those will never be resolved on this forum.
On number 5, I can just guess. There is next to nothing on the net giving the SGG priests' side, apart from Fr. Cekada's "School Dazed" and a few letters praising the SGG school. There were other posts of Fr. Cekada's from the time of the crisis that SJB linked to in another thread here, and these may have contained more answers from the SGG side, but all the links were dead when I tried to follow them. Why not answer everything? Maybe they figured it wasn't worth it because the Ramolla operation would eventually fall apart on its own after awhile, which it seems to have done.
-
Canute:
Number 2 is the main point of disagreement ("What did happen?") along with the question of "How to assign blame?" How to answer either of those will never be resolved on this forum.
Yes, you are probably right, but I'm not so sure assigning blame is needed as much as making at least one of the organizations whole again. But this is looking more and more like a Humpty-Dumpty ending.
-
Lighthouse said:
1. IF the "gravest accusations" are true, they are NOT just items to be swept under the rug for purposes of doing business-as-usual. For those closely involved they would be as the current expression goes--deal-breakers.
2. Say what one wants, but the number of people that picked up and moved, leaving investment, acquaintance, and their own small sliver of hope in a putrid world, well, it's scary, odd, and puzzling. A small amount of administrative bumpiness would not seem to be enough to cause this to happen. So what did happen. No, I don't want a party line, I want to know: what did happen?
3. Mr. Shea got this started, and promised evidence and a reckoning, but he seems to be AWOL, and there has been no evidence and no reckoning. That right there would lean one toward kicking the case out of court and declaring a mistrial.
4. The St. Albert group seems to have gone off prematurely like a defective firecracker, seeking land, signing up bishops, spending money. Who IS driving this runaway train?
5. The SGG clerics have been very oddly silent in defending themselves. I know, to reply to lies only gives them credence, but could we at least hear a "That's absolutely ridiculous"?
Is there anyone here that feels confident enough to make a decision between these two? If so, precisely why?
Good questions, I ask myself something similar when trying to figure this out.
Question ( 1 ) -- No proof of any kind has been provided.
Question ( 2 ) -- That is easy, Father Cekada has the kind of personality that alienates people.
The Terri Schiavo gaffe threw oil on the fire; then there appears to have been what many consider poor management of their school. Then there is the issue with selling the church, which I know nothing about but I can see how it could create dispute.
Calling Eamon "mentally ill" in a public letter is another example. That is not acceptable for a priest to do. CMRI won't say so since they have ties to Father Cekada but it would be unthinkable for Bp. Pivarunas to call someone a lunatic in public. That kind of trash-talk is not befitting a priest AT ALL.
So all these things were adding up against Father Cekada. He apparently never backs down about his mistakes; and the Terri Schiavo issue is a CLEAR mistake. There is a deafening silence from CMRI and other clergy about that, no one rushed to his defense. While I understand these moral issues are often more complicated than the laity realizes, his idea that the tube could be removed because she was wasting taxpayer money was simply appalling. Nothing about that sounds like authentic moral theology; so his appeal to being educated and trained felt totally unconvincing.
This made him lose credibility as an authority and maybe it's what opened the floodgates. Before that, he had quite a reputation for learning that may have kept people in awe of him. That was all over after Terri Schiavo. It is very possible that, if anyone was holding grudges against him before, the gloves were off at that point.
In retrospect, the one who comes out of this smelling like a rose is Father Martin Stepanich. He acknowledged Father Cekada's error but tried to maintain the peace. Looking back you can see all along he knew what he was doing. But many people no longer trust priests, that is the sad reality. Once their trust is broken in one priest, why should they trust Father Martin? That is how the worm gets in. I have been there myself.
This is why St. Paul puts so much emphasis on giving people the benefit of the doubt; of thinking no evil. Until we have PROOF that someone is not to be trusted, we should trust them totally, having confidence God will either not put us in the hands of our enemies, or will pull us out in time by showing us clearly what they are. But God does not ask us to be suspicious or try to read evil intentions. I have learned this after many painful trials. It all comes down to faith and trust in God.
Not that I'm saying I would have done any better, but nothing about this situation EXCEPT the Terri Schiavo controversy merits a public response. Maybe the situation with the school as well, though I don't know much about that and leave it to the consciences of those involved. All I know is the Terri Schiavo opinion was public, so it needed a public response, but it is really no reason why anyone would have to leave SGG, it's not clear-cut heresy, it's just like one of those grotesque laxist opinions of the Jesuits that were condemned.
Question ( 3 ) -- Eamon and others mixed innuendo with the facts. People were more willing to believe the innuendo when they saw various unsavory things about SGG. But when you really add it all up, it amounts to very little. I remember the outrage that a girl got pregnant at SGG, as if somehow that is Father Cekada's fault. Like Tele is doing now, he was just throwing everything out there to see what stuck, to get back at the object of his obsession.
It is, in fact, remarkable how similar the anti-SGG crowd once sounded like Tele, and how much they all sound like the Prots who rebelled against the church. They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this. Agitators throughout history have picked apart the faults and sins of priests in order to push their various agendas through, and those faults have often been tremendous, priests in the Middle Ages were frequently extremely worldly and sinful to a point that goes far beyond anything that has been proven against SGG clergy. I would hate to see how Eamon would react to them! Part of the problem, of course, is that trads tend to be overly idealistic and want to build heaven on earth, apparently, while the true Church is filled with sinners and people that are more or less imperfect.
Question ( 4 ) -- Father Ramolla has the right to go be an independent sede priest if he wants to. The problem is that, to do this, and maintain yourself -- have money to eat, to live, etc. -- unless you have money yourself, you need a flock. So he may be dependent on certain characters that he would prefer not to be dependent on; just one possible theory.
Question ( 5 ) -- Do you defend yourself against every rumor? It just gives the rumors more life when you do that. I saw a movie about Walter Winchell where he said "When you start defending yourself, you're dead."
-
Why not answer everything? Maybe they figured it wasn't worth it because the Ramolla operation would eventually fall apart on its own after awhile, which it seems to have done.
As the poster Gertrude the Great once pointed out here, Fr. Cekada is no shrinking violet. If he didn't respond it wasn't because he likes to keep his silence as a general rule. Both he and Bp. Dolan responded to many things, with sermons and quidlibet articles. It was either clearly manipulative or some sort of damage control, but it never answered any specific charges with any specificity.
-
Question ( 4 ) -- Father Ramolla has the right to go be an independent sede priest if he wants to. The problem is that, to do this, and maintain yourself -- have money to eat, to live, etc. -- unless you have money yourself, you need a flock. So he may be dependent on certain characters that he would prefer not to be dependent on; just one possible theory.
As a priest, you also need a bishop who will provide you with some necessities for your apostolate. This is where I see politics clearly playing a role it simply shouldn't play. This problem is increased by many of the laymen who assign something more to the traditional bishop, namely the power to rule.
-
To Cupertino and Canute: You consider (or pretend to consider) the immediate campaign being addressed as an extension of all that occurred prior to the November 2009 blow-up, and you wish to use this thread to continue the unending debate on who-did-what then. Perhaps you can ask Matthew to re-open the "Ode" thread, since everything was already said there. Re-hashing it here serves only to derail this thread.
Peregrine, your OP had an "overview", and it was historically inaccurate. Canute and I have corrected it. That is perfectly in accord, and expected, for the functioning of these discussion threads. If you think something I have said was inaccurate, then quote it and say why. That's called "having a discussion".
December 2008 - Eamon Shea's main concern was about teenagers smoking cigarettes at SGG.
Is this true?
-
Question ( 3 ) -- Eamon and others mixed innuendo with the facts. People were more willing to believe the innuendo when they saw various unsavory things about SGG. But when you really add it all up, it amounts to very little. I remember the outrage that a girl got pregnant at SGG, as if somehow that is Father Cekada's fault.
Here's a little reality check and refresher from Oct 20, 2009:
2 youngsters spent time together off school hours (Parties etc)...
They got busted in a classroom at SGG School on a Saturday (in mid to late December) by the mother of the girl. The young man, keep in mind, was on the clock as an employee of sgg.org/cult.
This was part of the incident that caused me to write in December. NOTHING was done about it by those in authority and months later there is a baby on the way.
-
Here's a little reality check and refresher from Oct 20, 2009:
:alcohol:
-
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.
-
God Bless all who post on or read Cath Info.
Let us pray that God gives us all many Graces in Lent.
Yours, in Jesus and Mary and Joseph,
Sede Catholic
-
To get back to the topic:
It is curious that for the latest posting on Pristina, Toth cited the Prophecy of Jeremias for the epigraph, for which he did not provide the exact citation, which is curious because he is too quick to criticize sloppiness in scholarship.
Here is the verse in its entirety (Jer. ch. xvii., 5):
Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
It's funny (though "funny" is a funny word for it) that he avails himself of this grand verse (or, rather, the greater portion thereof) as an epigraph to an article that has no reference to the supernatural (grace, prayer, the mystery of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the necessity of devotion to Our Lady, &c.), but only discourses upon what he regards as solutions to the present-day predicament of the Church, all of which are at the human, natural level:
You can start by taking back your chapels.
But you must act together -- as a community -- if you want the peace you've been searching for.
[...] in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin.
"Community"? "Democracy"?
Really!? Why the sudden change into some sort of positivist Populist?
Several weeks ago, Toth wasn't such a Populist:
We're not talking about the indolent acquiescence of the gullible and invincibly ignorant-- the witless wonderment of wan and sad-eyed Traddie women shrouded in their impossibly long, dirt-gathering calico skirts; or the surly aggressiveness of their pot-bellied and grim-lipped menfolk straitened by their seam-bursting, unlaundered polyester slacks three 0r four sizes too small. On the contrary, the Readers mean the educated and affluent Traddie minority, who would see the sham were they to awake from their inertia.[emphases mine]
Another change can be seen in these words:
When at last the Restoration gives us a sovereign Roman pontiff, Catholicism can return to a monarchy, but in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin. [emphasis mine]
The appeal to naive, optimist sedevacantists greatly contrasts with what he has written before:
It all goes to prove the Readers' point that the Restoration will have to come from the conservative Novus Ordites, because Traddieland has surrendered.
STAY HOME ALONE -- YOU'LL BE IN BETTER COMPANY.
One week he writes the whole "sede movement" off and tells everyone to "stay home alone," and a week later he explicitly makes reference to the "Restoration" as resulting in the reign of a Supreme Pontiff?
Why the change? Could it be that he is trying to appeal to certain people in a certain lay-board at a certain Chapel in Ohio?
Toth is basically like Obama: both have adopted the tactics of the Communists in the propagation and implementation of their agendas, yet both will fail pathetically in appealing to the "community," because they are not a part thereof; rather, in their superciliousness they think themselves above it in attempting to manipulate it.
Toth is condemned by the epigraph he cites.
It is baffling that anyone would try to defend this man and his agenda. References to the present-day predicament of the Church on the part of those who attempt such a defense makes it look all the worse: the ultimate conclusion of that line of argument is that Toth and his buddies are basically parasites who endeavor to engorge themselves with power at the expense of Holy Mother Church, abusing Canon Law for their own benefit.[/size][/font]
-
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anybody ever said Bp. Dolan had a drinking problem. The reference was probably to related to expensive wines, which in and of themselves are not a problem at all except in appearances possibly.
This is why I say some here never cease to comment even when they haven't sufficient grasp of the facts.
-
It is baffling that anyone would try to defend this man and his agenda. References to the present-day predicament of the Church on the part of those who attempt such a defense makes it look all the worse: the ultimate conclusion of that line of argument is that Toth and his buddies are basically parasites who endeavor to engorge themselves with power at the expense of Holy Mother Church, abusing Canon Law for their own benefit.
Hobbles, I was thinking the old boy may create his essays in collaboration with fellow artists, which would account for the sudden mood swings.
Encouraging people to stay home from Mass is a very, very dangerous thing to do.
-
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anybody ever said Bp. Dolan had a drinking problem. The reference was probably to related to expensive wines, which in and of themselves are not a problem at all except in appearances possibly.
This is why I say some here never cease to comment even when they haven't sufficient grasp of the facts.
Raoul said that Eamon and the anti-SGG crowd said Bishop Dolan drank, I was only responding to his comment.
-
To get back to the topic:
It is curious that for the latest posting on Pristina, Toth cited the Prophecy of Jeremias for the epigraph, for which he did not provide the exact citation, which is curious because he is too quick to criticize sloppiness in scholarship.
Here is the verse in its entirety (Jer. ch. xvii., 5):
Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
It's funny (though "funny" is a funny word for it) that he avails himself of this grand verse (or, rather, the greater portion thereof) as an epigraph to an article that has no reference to the supernatural (grace, prayer, the mystery of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, the necessity of devotion to Our Lady, &c.), but only discourses upon what he regards as solutions to the present-day predicament of the Church, all of which are at the human, natural level:
You can start by taking back your chapels.
But you must act together -- as a community -- if you want the peace you've been searching for.
[...] in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin.
"Community"? "Democracy"?
Really!? Why the sudden change into some sort of positivist Populist?
Several weeks ago, Toth wasn't such a Populist:
We're not talking about the indolent acquiescence of the gullible and invincibly ignorant-- the witless wonderment of wan and sad-eyed Traddie women shrouded in their impossibly long, dirt-gathering calico skirts; or the surly aggressiveness of their pot-bellied and grim-lipped menfolk straitened by their seam-bursting, unlaundered polyester slacks three 0r four sizes too small. On the contrary, the Readers mean the educated and affluent Traddie minority, who would see the sham were they to awake from their inertia.[emphases mine]
Another change can be seen in these words:
When at last the Restoration gives us a sovereign Roman pontiff, Catholicism can return to a monarchy, but in the Sede Vacante, we must have a democracy to protect us from men grievously ailing from the effects of original sin. [emphasis mine]
The appeal to naive, optimist sedevacantists greatly contrasts with what he has written before:
It all goes to prove the Readers' point that the Restoration will have to come from the conservative Novus Ordites, because Traddieland has surrendered.
STAY HOME ALONE -- YOU'LL BE IN BETTER COMPANY.
One week he writes the whole "sede movement" off and tells everyone to "stay home alone," and a week later he explicitly makes reference to the "Restoration" as resulting in the reign of a Supreme Pontiff?
Why the change? Could it be that he is trying to appeal to certain people in a certain lay-board at a certain Chapel in Ohio?
Toth is basically like Obama: both have adopted the tactics of the Communists in the propagation and implementation of their agendas, yet both will fail pathetically in appealing to the "community," because they are not a part thereof; rather, in their superciliousness they think themselves above it in attempting to manipulate it.
Toth is condemned by the epigraph he cites.
It is baffling that anyone would try to defend this man and his agenda. References to the present-day predicament of the Church on the part of those who attempt such a defense makes it look all the worse: the ultimate conclusion of that line of argument is that Toth and his buddies are basically parasites who endeavor to engorge themselves with power at the expense of Holy Mother Church, abusing Canon Law for their own benefit.[/size][/font]
I think, Hobbledyhoy, that the lay control plank was ALWAYS part of the Ramolla party's revolutionary platform, right from the beginning, and I know that Fr. Ramolla encouraged it.
But it was just ONE plank, along with calumny-spreading and acting out really old grudges, which the prime movers (Fr. Ramolla, Hall, etc.) used to lure other unsuspecting souls into the revolutionary mob. When, one by one, lay people like this finally cooled down, realized they'd been taken for a ride, and headed off elsewhere, this left lay control types like Toth and friends.
This is why lay-controllers seem so prominent now — people who joined the "revolutionary coalition" for other reasons became disaffected (or just plain came to their senses) and left.
-
This is why lay-controllers seem so prominent now — people who joined the "revolutionary coalition" for other reasons became disaffected (or just plain came to their senses) and left.
Maybe it's not the best to compare some dude in Ohio with Obama-it may fuel the delusions of grandeur. We need to pray that more people come to their senses, pray that they take to heart the words of the priest as he placed the ashes on their foreheads a few days ago.
-
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anybody ever said Bp. Dolan had a drinking problem. The reference was probably to related to expensive wines, which in and of themselves are not a problem at all except in appearances possibly.
This is why I say some here never cease to comment even when they haven't sufficient grasp of the facts.
Raoul said that Eamon and the anti-SGG crowd said Bishop Dolan drank, I was only responding to his comment.
Did he really say that? Or did you just assume that's what he meant?
-
This is why lay-controllers seem so prominent now — people who joined the "revolutionary coalition" for other reasons became disaffected (or just plain came to their senses) and left.
Maybe it's not the best to compare some dude in Ohio with Obama-it may fuel the delusions of grandeur.
I wouldn't worry too much about any of us "fueling" Toth's delusions of grandeur, Elizabeth. From his writing, it sounds like he's been fueling those himself, for a long, long time!
:wink:
-
Hi Hobbledehoy,
I would like to communicate with you privately but I seem unable to do so using the P.M.
I can give my e-mail addresses here if you like.
God bless and Mary keep,
John
-
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anybody ever said Bp. Dolan had a drinking problem. The reference was probably to related to expensive wines, which in and of themselves are not a problem at all except in appearances possibly.
This is why I say some here never cease to comment even when they haven't sufficient grasp of the facts.
Raoul said that Eamon and the anti-SGG crowd said Bishop Dolan drank, I was only responding to his comment.
Did he really say that? Or did you just assume that's what he meant?
Raoul said that's what Eamon said, not me. I'm not assuming anything.
-
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
I will concede that Fr. Cekada's stance on the Schiavo case is troubling, no doubt, and that is just stating it nicely. Does anyone know what Bishop Dolan's stance on the issue was, or did he even say? He doesn't seem like the sort of priest who would defend such an act.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anybody ever said Bp. Dolan had a drinking problem. The reference was probably to related to expensive wines, which in and of themselves are not a problem at all except in appearances possibly.
This is why I say some here never cease to comment even when they haven't sufficient grasp of the facts.
Raoul said that Eamon and the anti-SGG crowd said Bishop Dolan drank, I was only responding to his comment.
Did he really say that? Or did you just assume that's what he meant?
Raoul said that's what Eamon said, not me. I'm not assuming anything.
No, Raoul76 said this, and you responded:
They would gripe about Bp. Dolan drinking wine, things like this.
Except Eamon himself has a drinking problem, so he has little room to speak!
There was no mention of a "problem" as in a "drinking problem." Raoul76 was vague and you assumed it was a drinking problem.
-
It was Jim Gebel who was upset about the Schiavo affair 7 years ago.
The Schiavo case was only used later to add to the weak arguments. She died in 2005.
-
First you must have a fire! No, there was no fire in 2005.
There have been many "fires" prior to (and after) 2005. The move to West Chester lost a large number of "parishioners," the Walton, KY scandal also lost some. Then came the big and very public Schiavo gaffe and then continued defense of the gaffe.
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
-
You attempt to pin the "09 revolution" mostly on the Schiavo thing a few years before , but really what drove people nuts was the gutter accusation from the Ode of July 09. That was the real killer....Where just a few days before all the people were singing Hosannas as Christ came into Jerusalem on a donkey, the switch that flipped the peoples' allegiance was presenting Christ as a fool and criminal, all bloodied, beaten, bound, looking suddenly helpless and powerless. The authorities played on the feelings - that the people were deceived...and they cried for His death. The gutter accusation against Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada had the similar effect on the people...and they went nuts! And because it was a baseless suspicion, they kept that more quiet while they tried to gather other public things together to give the revolution a semblance of having a proportionate cause. It didn't; they couldn't.
Schiavo was huge and far-reaching as Fr. Cekada published his comments twice in The Remnant or CFN, I believe.
As far as your analogy goes, it is offensive.
-
It was Jim Gebel who was upset about the Schiavo affair 7 years ago.
The Schiavo case was only used later to add to the weak arguments. She died in 2005.
And you also "got upset," to put it mildly, over Schiavo in 2005. Was there a "gutter accusation" driving your indignation?
-
You attempt to pin the "09 revolution" mostly on the Schiavo thing a few years before , but really what drove people nuts was the gutter accusation from the Ode of July 09. That was the real killer....Where just a few days before all the people were singing Hosannas as Christ came into Jerusalem on a donkey, the switch that flipped the peoples' allegiance was presenting Christ as a fool and criminal, all bloodied, beaten, bound, looking suddenly helpless and powerless. The authorities played on the feelings - that the people were deceived...and they cried for His death. The gutter accusation against Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada had the similar effect on the people...and they went nuts! And because it was a baseless suspicion, they kept that more quiet while they tried to gather other public things together to give the revolution a semblance of having a proportionate cause. It didn't; they couldn't.
Schiavo was huge and far-reaching as Fr. Cekada published his comments twice in The Remnant or CFN, I believe.
As far as your analogy goes, it is offensive.
Elizabeth and Cupertino,
You have committed yet ANOTHER violation of the "SJB Rules of Evidence"!
On the first Cloaks and Daggers thread, remember, SJB rebuked us for daring to offer evidence, observations or opinions about St. Clare's because HE was in Columbus and we weren't, HE had first-hand knowledge and we didn't, etc. etc.
But now in this thread, even though he wasn't IN Cincinnati at the time or even a MEMBER of SGG, SJB himself is free to offer evidence, observations or opinions about everything that went on at St. Gertrude's in 09, or at any point at all in its history — and to call Cupertino's analogy "offensive." ("Sputter, sputter ... the NERVE of Cupertino objecting to someone sliming a priest!!!")
One standard for SJB, and another for the rest of us, I guess. We'll have to offer it up!
-
There was no mention of a "problem" as in a "drinking problem." Raoul76 was vague and you assumed it was a drinking problem.
I said Eamon had a drinking problem, so he had no room to speak about Bishop Dolan drinking wine.
-
There was no mention of a "problem" as in a "drinking problem." Raoul76 was vague and you assumed it was a drinking problem.
I said Eamon had a drinking problem, so he had no room to speak about Bishop Dolan drinking wine.
Well, that makes perfect sense.
-
On the first Cloaks and Daggers thread, remember, SJB rebuked us for daring to offer evidence, observations or opinions about St. Clare's because HE was in Columbus and we weren't, HE had first-hand knowledge and we didn't, etc. etc.
No, you offered no evidence and your opinion was contradicted by the facts. Nobody stopped you from offering your opinion, I merely pointed out why it wasn't worthy of any weight.
-
It was Jim Gebel who was upset about the Schiavo affair 7 years ago.
The Schiavo case was only used later to add to the weak arguments. She died in 2005.
And you also "got upset," to put it mildly, over Schiavo in 2005. Was there a "gutter accusation" driving your indignation?
Of course not. Been to Confession lately?
-
First you must have a fire! No, there was no fire in 2005.
There have been many "fires" prior to (and after) 2005. The move to West Chester lost a large number of "parishioners," the Walton, KY scandal also lost some. Then came the big and very public Schiavo gaffe and then continued defense of the gaffe.
We know; you were one of the defenders until you decided that the Schiavo affair worked in the interest of the Cabal.
-
First you must have a fire! No, there was no fire in 2005.
There have been many "fires" prior to (and after) 2005. The move to West Chester lost a large number of "parishioners," the Walton, KY scandal also lost some. Then came the big and very public Schiavo gaffe and then continued defense of the gaffe.
We know; you were one of the defenders until you decided that the Schiavo affair worked in the interest of the Cabal.
Well, I wasn't a defender. I actually respectfully confronted Fr. Cekada in public. We've been through all of this before.
-
It was Jim Gebel who was upset about the Schiavo affair 7 years ago.
The Schiavo case was only used later to add to the weak arguments. She died in 2005.
And you also "got upset," to put it mildly, over Schiavo in 2005. Was there a "gutter accusation" driving your indignation?
Of course not. Been to Confession lately?
Exactly. Your indignation was because of Fr. Cekada's very public actions, not because of "gutter accusations."
-
On the first Cloaks and Daggers thread, remember, SJB rebuked us for daring to offer evidence, observations or opinions about St. Clare's because HE was in Columbus and we weren't, HE had first-hand knowledge and we didn't, etc. etc.
No, you offered no evidence and your opinion was contradicted by the facts. Nobody stopped you from offering your opinion, I merely pointed out why it wasn't worthy of any weight.
Since by your own admission you regularly went to a church 100 miles away from SGG, how can you offer any "evidence" or "facts" at all about SGG "fires," losing members, the "Walton KY scandal" (?), attitudes over the Schiavo case, or anything else there? All you've got is gossip to go on.
That being the case, can I merely point out that any opinion you offer about doings at SGG will therefore not be "worthy of any weight"?
-
On the first Cloaks and Daggers thread, remember, SJB rebuked us for daring to offer evidence, observations or opinions about St. Clare's because HE was in Columbus and we weren't, HE had first-hand knowledge and we didn't, etc. etc.
No, you offered no evidence and your opinion was contradicted by the facts. Nobody stopped you from offering your opinion, I merely pointed out why it wasn't worthy of any weight.
Since by your own admission you regularly went to a church 100 miles away from SGG, how can you offer any "evidence" or "facts" at all about SGG "fires," losing members, the "Walton KY scandal" (?), attitudes over the Schiavo case, or anything else there? All you've got is gossip to go on.
That being the case, can I merely point out that any opinion you offer about doings at SGG will therefore not be "worthy of any weight"?
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism (The Walton KY Scandal) and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
Bold text inserted by me.
The move to West Chester also lost many. How do I know that? Bp. Dolan told me.
You really are lame Ceknute. I said your opinion was contradicted by the facts, which is key.
-
First you must have a fire! No, there was no fire in 2005.
There have been many "fires" prior to (and after) 2005. The move to West Chester lost a large number of "parishioners," the Walton, KY scandal also lost some. Then came the big and very public Schiavo gaffe and then continued defense of the gaffe.
We know; you were one of the defenders until you decided that the Schiavo affair worked in the interest of the Cabal.
Well, I wasn't a defender. I actually respectfully confronted Fr. Cekada in public. We've been through all of this before.
It is indeed a pity that your public confrontations regarding Fr. Cekada have not remained in the respectful category all these many past months, isn't it?
-
First you must have a fire! No, there was no fire in 2005.
There have been many "fires" prior to (and after) 2005. The move to West Chester lost a large number of "parishioners," the Walton, KY scandal also lost some. Then came the big and very public Schiavo gaffe and then continued defense of the gaffe.
We know; you were one of the defenders until you decided that the Schiavo affair worked in the interest of the Cabal.
Well, I wasn't a defender. I actually respectfully confronted Fr. Cekada in public. We've been through all of this before.
It is indeed a pity that your public confrontations regarding Fr. Cekada have not remained in the respectful category all these many past months, isn't it?
What is truly unfortunate is the fact that Fr. Cekada won't honestly address any issue one-on-one and instead resorts to dishonest quidlibet articles or uses Simple Catholic laymen to fight his battles.
I've said this before, but I don't believe Fr. Cekada is a man of good will.
-
SJB did you ever consider going to the sspx. Their churches are not owned by the "priest in charge" and the people there are regular folks. Not as many clicks. Don't let some theologian box you in their little world. Anyways the sspx seem to always grow anytime the west chester/Florida crowd makes any personal or management decisions. Dale Carnegie anyone!
-
On the first Cloaks and Daggers thread, remember, SJB rebuked us for daring to offer evidence, observations or opinions about St. Clare's because HE was in Columbus and we weren't, HE had first-hand knowledge and we didn't, etc. etc.
No, you offered no evidence and your opinion was contradicted by the facts. Nobody stopped you from offering your opinion, I merely pointed out why it wasn't worthy of any weight.
Since by your own admission you regularly went to a church 100 miles away from SGG, how can you offer any "evidence" or "facts" at all about SGG "fires," losing members, the "Walton KY scandal" (?), attitudes over the Schiavo case, or anything else there? All you've got is gossip to go on.
That being the case, can I merely point out that any opinion you offer about doings at SGG will therefore not be "worthy of any weight"?
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism (The Walton KY Scandal) and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
Bold text inserted by me.
The move to West Chester also lost many. How do I know that? Bp. Dolan told me.
You really are lame Ceknute. I said your opinion was contradicted by the facts, which is key.
But why should we believe what you claim Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada "told" you or "meant" because you dismiss anything they say (you called Fr. Cekada a liar in one of your earlier statements, remember?) that undermines your attacks against them?
But that's just a rhetorical question.
The real question is for Inside Baseball: Can we somehow sign up SJB for a gift membership in an SSPX chapel? Walton would be fine, but Timbkuktu would be better. A lot of people here might be willing to chip in on his shipping costs, too!
:cheers:
-
Canute that was funny! :roll-laugh2:
-
:cheers:
-
End of the line
The opening post of this and the original thread explained and focused on the PRESENT problem of a group trying to establish an unCatholic lay controlled church.
Cup & Can persist in pouring in their prattle on PAST events of 2008-2009, with their erroneous "facts" and preposterous postulations.
Rather than waste everyone's time with further fruitless fighting, I am asking Matthew to lock this thread, and I am asking everyone to please pray that we Catholics stop attacking each other and instead put our energies into building up Christ's Mystical Body. Thank you!
-
SJB did you ever consider going to the sspx. Their churches are not owned by the "priest in charge" and the people there are regular folks. Not as many clicks. Don't let some theologian box you in their little world. Anyways the sspx seem to always grow anytime the west chester/Florida crowd makes any personal or management decisions. Dale Carnegie anyone!
There isn't an SSPX mass here so that's not an issue.
-
But why should we believe what you claim Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada "told" you or "meant" because you dismiss anything they say (you called Fr. Cekada a liar in one of your earlier statements, remember?) that undermines your attacks against them?
You don't have to believe me. I know what Bp. Dolan told me and it was known by many anyway. The fact was they lost people when they sold Sharonville and moved to West Chester, no matter what reason one assigns to it.
See, Ceknute, one needn't believe one who tells one lie therefore lies about everything. That only occurs in your overly simplistic black and white world, which is likely why you are a dogmatic sedevacantist.
-
But why should we believe what you claim Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada "told" you or "meant" because you dismiss anything they say (you called Fr. Cekada a liar in one of your earlier statements, remember?) that undermines your attacks against them?
You don't have to believe me. I know what Bp. Dolan told me and it was known by many anyway. The fact was they lost people when they sold Sharonville and moved to West Chester, no matter what reason one assigns to it.
See, Ceknute, one needn't believe one who tells one lie therefore lies about everything. That only occurs in your overly simplistic black and white world, which is likely why you are a dogmatic sedevacantist.
And from this we deduce the next SJB Rule of Evidence: :judge:
If one of your targets makes a statement that can be twisted for use against him, it's true. If it can be used to defend him or explain his actions as reasonable, it's false!
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me!
-
End of the line
The opening post of this and the original thread explained and focused on the PRESENT problem of a group trying to establish an unCatholic lay controlled church.
Cup & Can persist in pouring in their prattle on PAST events of 2008-2009, with their erroneous "facts" and preposterous postulations.
Rather than waste everyone's time with further fruitless fighting, I am asking Matthew to lock this thread, and I am asking everyone to please pray that we Catholics stop attacking each other and instead put our energies into building up Christ's Mystical Body. Thank you!
Peregrine, I still don't think it's a true "derailing." To discuss intelligently the lay-controlled church of the PRESENT, you have to talk about the PAST to explain how it got here.
-
But why should we believe what you claim Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada "told" you or "meant" because you dismiss anything they say (you called Fr. Cekada a liar in one of your earlier statements, remember?) that undermines your attacks against them?
You don't have to believe me. I know what Bp. Dolan told me and it was known by many anyway. The fact was they lost people when they sold Sharonville and moved to West Chester, no matter what reason one assigns to it.
See, Ceknute, one needn't believe one who tells one lie therefore lies about everything. That only occurs in your overly simplistic black and white world, which is likely why you are a dogmatic sedevacantist.
And from this we deduce the next SJB Rule of Evidence: :judge:
If one of your targets makes a statement that can be twisted for use against him, it's true. If it can be used to defend him or explain his actions as reasonable, it's false!
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me!
The statement needn't be "twisted" because it is simply a statement of fact. A significant number of people left SGG when they moved to West Chester. Fr. Cekada freely admits people left over "feeneyism" and the "Fr. Ramolla business." On Fisheater's Forum, he failed to mention Schiavo, but the facts are that SGG lost even more people.
Ceknute, are you denying these facts?
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
Hey Ceknute, I guess when you kick somebody out and change the locks yet another trad group is formed in SW Ohio.
-
End of the line
The opening post of this and the original thread explained and focused on the PRESENT problem of a group trying to establish an unCatholic lay controlled church.
Cup & Can persist in pouring in their prattle on PAST events of 2008-2009, with their erroneous "facts" and preposterous postulations.
Rather than waste everyone's time with further fruitless fighting, I am asking Matthew to lock this thread, and I am asking everyone to please pray that we Catholics stop attacking each other and instead put our energies into building up Christ's Mystical Body. Thank you!
Peregrine, I still don't think it's a true "derailing." To discuss intelligently the lay-controlled church of the PRESENT, you have to talk about the PAST to explain how it got here.
Since you brought it up, you'll also need to define a "lay-controlled church" vs. a "clergy-controlled church" and then explain it within the context of The Catholic Church and the current crisis.
-
But why should we believe what you claim Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada "told" you or "meant" because you dismiss anything they say (you called Fr. Cekada a liar in one of your earlier statements, remember?) that undermines your attacks against them?
You don't have to believe me. I know what Bp. Dolan told me and it was known by many anyway. The fact was they lost people when they sold Sharonville and moved to West Chester, no matter what reason one assigns to it.
See, Ceknute, one needn't believe one who tells one lie therefore lies about everything. That only occurs in your overly simplistic black and white world, which is likely why you are a dogmatic sedevacantist.
And from this we deduce the next SJB Rule of Evidence: :judge:
If one of your targets makes a statement that can be twisted for use against him, it's true. If it can be used to defend him or explain his actions as reasonable, it's false!
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me!
The statement needn't be "twisted" because it is simply a statement of fact. A significant number of people left SGG when they moved to West Chester. Fr. Cekada freely admits people left over "feeneyism" and the "Fr. Ramolla business." On Fisheater's Forum, he failed to mention Schiavo, but the facts are that SGG lost even more people.
Ceknute, are you denying these facts?
And by presenting them here, the verdict you want readers to render on your clerical targets is which of the following?
1. SGG clergy = good! :dancing:
2. SGG clergy = bad! :devil2:
I kinda doubt it's the little smiling guy...
-
But why should we believe what you claim Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada "told" you or "meant" because you dismiss anything they say (you called Fr. Cekada a liar in one of your earlier statements, remember?) that undermines your attacks against them?
You don't have to believe me. I know what Bp. Dolan told me and it was known by many anyway. The fact was they lost people when they sold Sharonville and moved to West Chester, no matter what reason one assigns to it.
See, Ceknute, one needn't believe one who tells one lie therefore lies about everything. That only occurs in your overly simplistic black and white world, which is likely why you are a dogmatic sedevacantist.
And from this we deduce the next SJB Rule of Evidence: :judge:
If one of your targets makes a statement that can be twisted for use against him, it's true. If it can be used to defend him or explain his actions as reasonable, it's false!
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me!
The statement needn't be "twisted" because it is simply a statement of fact. A significant number of people left SGG when they moved to West Chester. Fr. Cekada freely admits people left over "feeneyism" and the "Fr. Ramolla business." On Fisheater's Forum, he failed to mention Schiavo, but the facts are that SGG lost even more people.
Ceknute, are you denying these facts?
And by presenting them here, the verdict you want readers to render on your clerical targets is which of the following?
1. SGG clergy = good! :dancing:
2. SGG clergy = bad! :devil2:
I kinda doubt it's the little smiling guy...
You're simply not a serious person ... or you're just in over your head.
-
Food for thought. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...device=android I don't know how to add a link so please forgive me.
-
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
-
Sorry try this. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Secret-Life-of-Bees.html
-
Thanks for reading this Cupertino. You can draw many ideas from this when it comes to problem solving. Think of how people would get a sence of belonging in some of the private chapels. We could view each other as human beings again and not adversaries.
-
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
So by quoting this, you want readers here to render what verdict on SGG/Fr. Cekada?
1. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Good
2. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Bad
-
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
So by quoting this, you want readers here to render what verdict on SGG/Fr. Cekada?
1. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Good
2. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Bad
Maybe Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino can tell us again about how he believes the bad defines a man.
-
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
So by quoting this, you want readers here to render what verdict on SGG/Fr. Cekada?
1. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Good
2. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Bad
Maybe Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino can tell us again about how he believes the bad defines a man.
So, after all your effort presenting little factoids like the above, we're NOT supposed to use them to render a verdict against the SGG clergy?
:confused1:
Really, SJB! "The mountain labors and brings forth a mouse"!
-
We lost quite a few people about five years ago over Feeneyism and again about two years ago over the Fr. Ramolla business, but we're back up to a solid 300 per Sunday now, with more on major feasts.
All of the trad groups in the greater Cincinnati area originated with us in one way or another. If we'd originally set up parish membership like multi-level marketing, I'd be spending my time these days looking at brochures for million-dollar pipe organs.
So by quoting this, you want readers here to render what verdict on SGG/Fr. Cekada?
1. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Good
2. SGG/Fr. Cekada = Bad
Maybe Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino can tell us again about how he believes the bad defines a man.
So, after all your effort presenting little factoids like the above, we're NOT supposed to use them to render a verdict against the SGG clergy?
:confused1:
Really, SJB! "The mountain labors and brings forth a mouse"!
See Ceknute, you don't need to look at facts to support a pre-determined opinion, but quite possibly the facts will detemine your opinion. Why do you want to avoid the facts, and those from the mouse's own mouth?
-
As soon as Hall was fired, he and Janet gαye invited Fr. Jenkins over to their house to meet SGG parishioners that Hall was trying to disaffect -- Fr. Jenkins, who didn't even consider Fr. Ramolla a PRIEST and would have refused the sacraments to Hall two weeks early! Like Arabs, the revolutionaries believed "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
So, Peregrine, the Ramolla revolution wasn't just "a good idea" that went bad in 2010, as you seem to say, because those who fomented it had been doing their evil work for a very long time. It was bad from the beginning, and its leaders hurt a lot of good people, some of whom will not even go to Mass now as a result.
A supposedly religiously-motivated undertaking that began so badly, by being fired by hate, grudges and gossip, was bound to end badly. The leaders and cheerleaders of the revolution (Fr. Ramolla, Hall, gαye, Gebel, Shea, Toth, Droleskey, etc.) ended up turning against each other, just like the revolutionaries in France did, and after two and a half years, there's now no bishop (apart from the tainted Slupski) or priest who will have anything to do with Fr. Ramolla. Meanwhile, many Catholics he initially lured away from SGG have figured out they were sold a bill of goods and have left St. Albert's.
Once you stir up hate and unleash it, it blinds you and there's no telling where it will end up.
The damage to souls has been horrendous. May Christ have mercy on us sinners.
-
As soon as Hall was fired, he and Janet gαye invited Fr. Jenkins over to their house to meet SGG parishioners that Hall was trying to disaffect -- Fr. Jenkins, who didn't even consider Fr. Ramolla a PRIEST and would have refused the sacraments to Hall two weeks early! Like Arabs, the revolutionaries believed "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
More and more characters shift effortlessly behind the cloaks and filmy stage curtains. Hurry, you'll just catch a glimpse if you're lucky. Most truths are treated as proprietary information by BOTH sides of this confrontation.
For example, who is this Fr. Jenkins and from whom did he receive his orders? If he didn't consider Father Ramolla a priest why did he end up on the staff at SAG. And where has he disappeared to now? And why?
Plenty of cloaks, plenty of daggers. Plenty of pain.
-
As soon as Hall was fired, he and Janet gαye invited Fr. Jenkins over to their house to meet SGG parishioners that Hall was trying to disaffect -- Fr. Jenkins, who didn't even consider Fr. Ramolla a PRIEST and would have refused the sacraments to Hall two weeks early! Like Arabs, the revolutionaries believed "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
More and more characters shift effortlessly behind the cloaks and filmy stage curtains. Hurry, you'll just catch a glimpse if you're lucky. Most truths are treated as proprietary information by BOTH sides of this confrontation.
For example, who is this Fr. Jenkins and from whom did he receive his orders? If he didn't consider Father Ramolla a priest why did he end up on the staff at SAG. And where has he disappeared to now? And why?
Plenty of cloaks, plenty of daggers. Plenty of pain.
And plenty of factual errors and supposition.
I was unaware Fr. Jenkins was a member of the SAG staff. You may want to ask him and verify this.
Let's not forget the quote above is from Canute. I believe many SGG people know and are friendly with Fr. Jenkins, who was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. His was one of the "spin-off" trad groups formed when Fr. Cekada changes the locks on the building.
The pissing match between Fr. Cekada and Fr. Jenkins doesn't always extend to the laity.
-
As soon as Hall was fired, he and Janet gαye invited Fr. Jenkins over to their house to meet SGG parishioners that Hall was trying to disaffect -- Fr. Jenkins, who didn't even consider Fr. Ramolla a PRIEST and would have refused the sacraments to Hall two weeks early! Like Arabs, the revolutionaries believed "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
More and more characters shift effortlessly behind the cloaks and filmy stage curtains. Hurry, you'll just catch a glimpse if you're lucky. Most truths are treated as proprietary information by BOTH sides of this confrontation.
For example, who is this Fr. Jenkins and from whom did he receive his orders? If he didn't consider Father Ramolla a priest why did he end up on the staff at SAG. And where has he disappeared to now? And why?
Plenty of cloaks, plenty of daggers. Plenty of pain.
And plenty of factual errors and supposition.
I was unaware Fr. Jenkins was a member of the SAG staff. You may want to ask him and verify this.
Let's not forget the quote above is from Canute. I believe many SGG people know and are friendly with Fr. Jenkins, who was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. His was one of the "spin-off" trad groups formed when Fr. Cekada changes the locks on the building.
The pissing match between Fr. Cekada and Fr. Jenkins doesn't always extend to the laity.
Thanks for the vulgar priestly imagery, SJB.
Let's not forget that Janet gαye, NOT Canute informed the world of the meeting with Hall, Jenkins, etc.
gαye described in writing the meeting of Fr. Jenkins and Greenwell at her house. Her dramatic account is posted at Vipers of Vaudeville Watch. SJB is trying to imply that "Ceknute" is unreliable, at best. Of course he is still doing his Saul Alinsky name-calling routine(among other routines right out of the pages of Rules for Radicals. Get a copy of this evil book and see for yourself, if your priest agrees you should read it for the purposes of understanding what SJB and the Cabal are doing.
If you read Rules for Radicals, you will see fewer cloaks and daggers and more....Saul Alinsky.
I spoke to one of the priests who was locked out of his rectory by Fr. Jenkins. Maybe SJB's habitual dishonesty is destroying his mind?
Who knows if SJB is telling the truth about the priest he calumniates?
Who benefits from souls leaving SGG? Fr. Jenkins and and the Cabal. Who benefits from Fr. Ramolla's problems leading to people with no place to go? Again, Fr. Jenkins' chapel.
Was Fr. Jenkins really counseling Fr. Ramolla as stated by the Cabal members? Who knows? The lies and half-truths and feigned ignorance never stop, do they?
:popcorn:
-
Elizabeth, why do you keep stiring the pot. You have ironically become the biggest source of advertising for the silly websites. Pray for your enemies to receive the outcome you desire.
-
I most humbly beg all of your pardons. The name I was trying to pull out of my aging memory system was Fr. Thielen--NOT Fr. Jenkins.
It's very confusing. Please excuse my making it worse. I am aware that Fr. Jenkins was not on the staff at SAG! But Fr. Thielen was for a short period of time.
I still do have the same questions regarding Fr. Thielen's role in this.
-
Thanks for the vulgar priestly imagery, SJB
I know, Elizabeth, you are being sarcastic about SJB's comment.
I will put it more bluntly: DIS-GUST-ING, and impious.
Apparently insidebaseball has no objection. So sorry for him.
It is a term for "a confrontational debate; a contest of wills or egos"
You should be asking why this has been going on for decades now. The fact that two priests are involved is the scandal, not a term that describes the situation.
-
I thought this tread was dead. Forgive me.
-
C'mon, insidebaseball! You mean you have no problem talking to your wife, mother-in-law, daughters about a traditional priest having a "pissing match"? C'mon, you know you would be horrified to do so. Why no objection here on this forum? Do you know the moral teaching about being complicit in another's sin by silence?
The fighting between SGG and IC has scandalized many for decades now, and in typical Bazz fashion, you focus on a few words that accurately describe the situation.
-
Thanks for the vulgar priestly imagery, SJB
I know, Elizabeth, you are being sarcastic about SJB's comment.
I will put it more bluntly: DIS-GUST-ING, and impious.
Apparently insidebaseball has no objection. So sorry for him.
Yes, I meant that it is completely unnecessary to describe the SSPV's denial of Communion to people they don't like as a xxxxing contest
It is disgusting, but it trivialises something very grave. Like Alinsky, he uses shocking words to distract from the point. He has spent years accusing Fr. Cekada of serious offenses, but when someone points out what Cekada's enemy does, he uses a shocking phrase to turn the focus away from the facts.
And Insidebaseball, why do you give your pal SJB a pass for his constant name-calling? Isn't that stirring the pot?
-
Yes, I meant that it is completely unnecessary to describe the SSPV's denial of Communion to people they don't like as a xxxxing contes
Yes, I think it's wrong to refuse communion to those Catholics who attend a "Thuc-line" Mass. I have always said that and you know it, Eliz. When you were a IC cheerleader you were critical of me because I held that opinion.
You make the accusation that the "Thuc" issued is only used against those the IC clergy doesn't like. Is this true?
Anyway, I do also believe much of the animosity between SGG and IC is due to "a contest of wills or egos."
-
Yes, I think it's wrong to refuse communion to those Catholics who attend a "Thuc-line" Mass. I have always said that and you know it, Eliz. When you were a IC cheerleader you were critical of me because I held that opinion.
You make the accusation that the "Thuc" issued is only used against those the IC clergy doesn't like. Is this true?
Sorry SJB-I stated that I needed to study the Thuc issue. As it turned out, asking innocent questions proved to be a terrible idea :laugh1: but who could have imagined? I'm from DC, where asking questions is socially acceptable.
Before moving to Ohio it never entered my mind that traditional clergy would issue a prohibition against taking sacraments from another chapel, lest one's children be expelled from their school, without a perfectly HONEST reason. Our experience with traditional clergy before that time had been always edifying and pure.
We loved our priests and trusted them...we had no inkling of the Catholic subculture extant in the SW Ohio region.
But please be accurate in what you describe as my accusation. You slipped in the word only, which is dishonest.
Bernie Brueggemann, a major Thuc line supporter had his funeral at SSPV. So, that is one example of the random enforcement of the [man-made] rules. I know first-hand other families at the school who received at SGG without expulsion.
Mario Derksen has done a very professional job of debunking the SSPV anti- Thuc business.
-
But please be accurate in what you describe as my accusation. You slipped in the word only, which is dishonest.
Sorry, I should have said ALSO use the Thuc issue against those they don't like. If this is true, then it's not a principled stance at all.
-
Anyway, I do also believe much of the animosity between SGG and IC is due to "a contest of wills or egos."
Eliz, I notice you didn't comment on this statement. Do you agree with it or not?
-
Anyway, I do also believe much of the animosity between SGG and IC is due to "a contest of wills or egos."
Eliz, I notice you didn't comment on this statement. Do you agree with it or not?
There is likely truth in your assessment, but it is an over-simplification. We are not talking about high school football coach rivals.
-
E:
Bernie Brueggemann, a major Thuc line supporter had his funeral at SSPV. So, that is one example of the random enforcement of the [man-made] rules. I know first-hand other families at the school who received at SGG without expulsion.
Did you mean to say contributor, a somewhat stronger word than supporter? It would seem that this would show that even more so than hate, it is money that feeds the brutal metaphysics of SW Ohio traditionalism
-
Anyway, I do also believe much of the animosity between SGG and IC is due to "a contest of wills or egos."
Eliz, I notice you didn't comment on this statement. Do you agree with it or not?
There is likely truth in your assessment, but it is an over-simplification. We are not talking about high school football coach rivals.
I didn't say it was like football rivals, which are not scandalous at all. I'm saying it is scandalous in a general sense, without over-complicating it with details. It shouldn't be difficult to see that the situation is unhealthy and it is perpetuated by some of the clergy in SW Ohio.
-
Anyway, I do also believe much of the animosity between SGG and IC is due to "a contest of wills or egos."
Eliz, I notice you didn't comment on this statement. Do you agree with it or not?
There is likely truth in your assessment, but it is an over-simplification. We are not talking about high school football coach rivals.
I didn't say it was like football rivals, which are not scandalous at all. I'm saying it is scandalous in a general sense, without over-complicating it with details. It shouldn't be difficult to see that the situation is unhealthy and it is perpetuated by some of the clergy in SW Ohio.
Without "overcomplicating it with details," Elizabeth, SJB's purpose in mentioning ANY of this is, as usual, to drag the discussion around to denigrating his favorite boogeyman, Fr. Cekada.
-
Anyway, I do also believe much of the animosity between SGG and IC is due to "a contest of wills or egos."
Eliz, I notice you didn't comment on this statement. Do you agree with it or not?
There is likely truth in your assessment, but it is an over-simplification. We are not talking about high school football coach rivals.
I didn't say it was like football rivals, which are not scandalous at all. I'm saying it is scandalous in a general sense, without over-complicating it with details. It shouldn't be difficult to see that the situation is unhealthy and it is perpetuated by some of the clergy in SW Ohio.
Without "overcomplicating it with details," Elizabeth, SJB's purpose in mentioning ANY of this is, as usual, to drag the discussion around to denigrating his favorite boogeyman, Fr. Cekada.
The details will point to your clergyman friend. How could they not?
Canute, what was your purpose in actually using his name here, when I clearly did not?
-
E:
Bernie Brueggemann, a major Thuc line supporter had his funeral at SSPV. So, that is one example of the random enforcement of the [man-made] rules. I know first-hand other families at the school who received at SGG without expulsion.
Did you mean to say contributor, a somewhat stronger word than supporter? It would seem that this would show that even more so than hate, it is money that feeds the brutal metaphysics of SW Ohio traditionalism
I guess when I said supporter I did mean contributer --actually, benefactor is the word I think we want.
And I notice another error in my above quote- I did not SEE first-hand reception of sacraments at SGG by ICA families---I was told about it from those who said they did. Not that I'm ever going to rat anybody out, BTW.
-
E:
Bernie Brueggemann, a major Thuc line supporter had his funeral at SSPV. So, that is one example of the random enforcement of the [man-made] rules. I know first-hand other families at the school who received at SGG without expulsion.
Did you mean to say contributor, a somewhat stronger word than supporter? It would seem that this would show that even more so than hate, it is money that feeds the brutal metaphysics of SW Ohio traditionalism
I guess when I said supporter I did mean contributer --actually, benefactor is the word I think we want.
And I notice another error in my above quote- I did not SEE first-hand reception of sacraments at SGG by ICA families---I was told about it from those who said they did. Not that I'm ever going to rat anybody out, BTW.
As far as I know, SGG didn't deny the sacraments to IC families until just a few years ago (I know of one case). That's about the time they started making noise with the "una cuм" issue. None of this appears to be a clear application of principle, and that's why I called it a "contest of wills or egos."