Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: John GraceQuote from: s2sreaQuote from: John GraceWhat campaign? JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread. PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond. You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward. JG- I am sorry that I insulted you, however I will clarify that my comment was objective in nature. If it was a time zone and lack of time issue, than my response would be different. However no clarification had been done, and actually none has been done. So, for the fact that no clarification has been made, and that you still have not responded to Caminus' question, makes it difficult to think that you are not avoiding something. He was very clear. You seem to be looking clinging to the negative side of semantics when posting anything and everything to do with +Felay in order to point out the evil he must be bringing upon people. Why? If this is not true, then you should clarify your position with a clear, verifiable, non calumnious response sir. Just because we do not agree 100% with a given Bishop's position, doesn't mean they are evil because they do not think like us.
Quote from: s2sreaQuote from: John GraceWhat campaign? JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread. PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond. You seem to have forgotten many participants on this forum live in different Nations hence different time zones. I would ask that you apologise and withdraw your remark about me being a coward.
Quote from: John GraceWhat campaign? JG- you are acting very arrogant. Caminus is being very straight forward, yet you are being a coward and not engaging for obvious reasons. I would expect that though from someone who posted the OP of this thread. PS- To avoid anymore of your "avoiding", "obvious reasons" would be that you are unable to justify the claims being made against you, so you cower by attempting not to respond.
What campaign?
There has been no calumny and I'm not aware anybody has suggested that Bishop Fellay is evil. Let's get back to the discussion. :cheers:
Quote from: SpiritusSanctusYou should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.I haven't taken shots at the SSPX and I support the Society. You seem to have misunderstood matters. :cheers:
You should apologize for taking shots at the SSPX on an SSPX forum.
It's clear there is a difference between the mission of the SSPX and the mission of Bishop Fellay. It can be concluded that at least three of the four SSPX Bishops and majority of clerics are faithful to mission of the Archbishop.
ELEISON COMMENTS CCV (June 18, 2011) : DISCUSSIONS' AFTERMATH As the doctrinal Discussions which were held from the autumn of 2009 to the spring of this year between the Society of St Pius X and Rome drop back into the past, the question naturally arises of future relations between the two. Among Catholics on both sides there is a wish for contacts to continue, but since such pious wishes for union easily give rise to illusions, it is necessary to keep one's grip on reality if one is not to join the whole modern world in its anti-God fantasy. Originally the Discussions were wanted not by the Society but by Rome, as it hoped to dissolve the Society's notorious resistance to the Neo-modernism of Vatican II. The great obstacle was doctrine, because the Society is well protected inside the fortress of the Church's age-old and unchanging doctrine. It had to be lured out of that fortress. Now for Neo-modernists, just as for Communists, any contact or dialogue with an adversary in a secure position was - and remains - better than none, because he can only lose by it while they can only gain. So Rome agreed even to doctrinal Discussions. Alas for Rome, the Society's four representatives believe clearly and held firm. As one of the four Roman theologians taking part in the Discussions was overheard to say afterwards, "We do not understand them and they do not understand us." Of course. Unless the Romans abandoned their Neo-modernism or the Society priests betrayed the Truth, it was bound to be a relatively fruitless dialogue. But Rome cannot stand its own betrayal of the Truth being shown up by the paltry Society, so it is not likely to give up. That is why we already hear of an Ecclesia Dei spokesman telling that Rome will very soon offer an "Apostolic Ordinariat" to the Society. Of course such a quote may be merely a trial balloon to test reactions, but it is also a tempting idea. Unlike a Personal Prelature, an Apostolic Ordinariat is independent of the local bishops, and unlike an Apostolic Administration, such as Campos in Brazil, it is not confined to just one diocese. What more could the Society ask for? It asks that Rome should come back to the Truth, because it knows, as do Communists and Neo-modernists, that any practical co-operation which would skirt around doctrinal disagreement leads eventually, for all kinds of human reasons, to absorbing the false doctrine of the enemies of the Faith, in other words to betraying the Truth. Here is why the Society's Superior General has in public more than once repudiated any canonical agreement with Rome that would precede a doctrinal agreement. But the Discussions have served at least to demonstrate the depth of the doctrinal disagreement between the Society and Neo-modernist Rome. That is why Catholics should be prepared for the Society to refuse even the offer of an Apostolic Ordinariat, however well-intentioned the Roman authorities may be. But why is doctrine so important ? Because the Catholic Faith is a doctrine. But why is Faith so important ? Because without it we cannot please God (Heb.XI,6). But why must it be the Catholic Faith? Will no other faith in God do ? No, because God himself underwent the horror of the Cross to reveal to us the one true Faith. All other "faiths" contradict, more or less, that true Faith, with lies. Four future numbers of "Eleison Comments" will show, with all due respect, how disoriented in this respect is the way of believing of the present Pope, however well-intentioned he may also be. Kyrie eleison.