Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Dulcamara on September 14, 2008, 09:33:50 PM
-
It's always heartening to hear stories like this, which you rarely do amidst all the attacks on the Pope for the things he may be doing wrong. So here's one for the people who recognize that the glass is half full, too...
Some tradition is in there somewhere (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0915/1221257219387.html)
-
Just a bit of advice:
Learn to phrase things accurately.
ALL sedevacantists "recognize the Pope"; they do not recognize Benedict's claim to be such. So, it would be better to say, "...to all who recognize Benedict XVI/Ratzinger as Pope..."
God speed, my lady. :cowboy:
-
good point, Gladius. And after reading the article, I don't know what to think of it. As a sedevacantist, I am inclined to reject everything he does as bad, but these things are good (dare I say, hopeful?) things.
-
I do not know if anyone here has actually read Pascendi, but therein you will learn that St. Pius X teaches that Modernists are not wholly evil, their doctrines are not wholly false, etc. The Modernist says MANY Catholic things, amongst which he inserts many insidious errors; all the better to disguise them.
I DO NOT CARE if Benedict et alii put forth an almost-entirely traditional front. It is BOGUS if it is not COMPLETELY traditional and Catholic. It may happen that they begin to be actual Catholics; this is a strange world. Until it does, I shall treat them as they deserve - as the Modernists par excellence that they are. God speed; be good, be safe.
-
I read the story. If that makes a man "take heart", he must be truly desperate. Grasp at all the straws you can find, folks. That article shows NOTHING about him that we did not already know.
-
As a sedevacantist, I am inclined to reject everything he does as bad...
I do not reject everything he does as bad. No one is so bad that they do not do some good, however occasionally. That is not the point or the measuring stick.
-
okay Simon...
-
You clearly have failed to understand my meaning, my practice, and my point.
Answer this question: Is everything he does evil, in se?
Answer this question: Is the fact that some of the things he does are 'good' change the fact that his claim to the See of Peter is nonsense?
As for Simon, you know not of where you speak. God speed.
-
The practice of mixing truth with lies is known as Cabala or Ying-Yang. In other words the heretical oriental concept that God is 1/2 good and 1/2 bad
-
The practice of mixing truth with lies is known as Cabala or Ying-Yang.
Yes, it is, and the V2 Modernists are masters. However, this evil practice does not somehow alter the truth that is mixed with error, making it (truth), in and of itself, somehow false.
Evil men are under Satan's dominion. That does not mean everything they do is evil or a sin. The reality is that evil men do some good, even if only unmeritorious, natural good; good men do some evil, even if only evil of a 'lesser' sort that does not deprive them of the life of grace.
In eternity, all shall be purely good or evil. Here below, it is not so.
-
Just a bit of advice:
Learn to phrase things accurately.
ALL sedevacantists "recognize the Pope"; they do not recognize Benedict's claim to be such. So, it would be better to say, "...to all who recognize Benedict XVI/Ratzinger as Pope..."
God speed, my lady. :cowboy:
If I say anything other than "the pope" then I myself would be denying him, in however a roundabout way. But since I don't deny him, I won't.
I would also like to point out that between night and dawn, there is about a half hour of "in between". In order for the pope to quit thinking and acting like a complete liberal... or "convert" if you prefer to put it like that... it's not going to be an overnight process. It's like recovering from poison or something... it doesn't leave your system all at once and immediately. There will be a 'detox' period.
Whoever wants to admit it or no, this man can... if he gets the contents of his head set aright... change for the better. If freemasons can convert to Catholicism, then there is yet hope for the Pope. (No, I don't mean to say he's a freemason.) But it may not be with all the speed and immediate change that everyone would like. It may be... like most natural processes are... a gradual growth in the right direction.
Or to put it another way... there are probably dozens of men around the Pope, who would not, even under the pain of torture say some of the things he said in that article. The fact that he HAS said them is a good sign, even if it doesn't mean an overnight change.
-
If I say anything other than "the pope" then I myself would be denying him, in however a roundabout way.
Nonsense. I have neither the time nor desire to provide the necessary clarification. God speed, all the same. :cowboy:
-
I agree with Dulcamara about 'the pope." I wouldn't expect someone writing on a mainstream Traditional message board to have to call the present so-called pope the so-called pope. Or words to that effect.
Of course, I don't agree about the "pope."
The basic idea of the papacy is that the pope keeps the Catholic Faith and maintains all Godly traditions WHOLE AND ENTIRE.
Half-way doesn't cut it. Two out of three IS bad.
I don't care if Charles Manson is very strong on every Commandment besides Thou Shalt Not Kill. The weakness he shows on that one is enough to put him in prison.
The ways in which Josef Ratzinger nullifies and deconstructs Christian faith are so devastatingly radical that it's an injustice to the likes of Nestorius and Timothy the Cat and Jansen to speak of him as a mere "heretic."
He offers NOTHING that is good. Because he offers nothing real. It's all empty words. EVERYTHING with a post-Modernist pseudo-orthodox doubletalker like that is false and pernicious.
St Athanasius asked, "What do I care if Arius believes in the Resurrection if he rejects the Godhood?" But he believed that Arius believed in the Resurrection. With these neo-orthodox double agents you can't be sure they believe anything. Not that that matters when the question is whether or not they are popes. All it takes for them not to be popes is the holding of one heresy.
I have the funny feeling sometimes that I am the only one in the Traditional world who has actually read any of his books. The truth is that Josef Ratzinger has a dismissive attitude towards Jesus Christ and kind of rolls his eyes at the primitive naivete of the whole "Savior of Mankind" proposition as applied to the historical figure of the Galilean Jesus. He holds that Christians have made too much of Christ throughout the ages. He condemns this as "Christological triumphalism."
Actual Christians know, of course, that only his neo-orthodox penchant for mealy-mouthed obfuscation makes him refrain from saying what his little bud Hans Kung does say: that the Jesus of the Gospels made too much of Himself.
And after this we care that he pretends to want more Latin Masses in the world?
-
To Gladius: Don't you think that you are being a little pedantic or nit-picky in your thorough objection to what I said? I suppose for your sake we should all be speaking the precise latin of the Church. However, since it bothered you so much that I said "as a sedevacantist I tend to think of everything he does as bad," I will retract and correct myself. Because I am traditional Catholic and sedevacantist I tend to be extremely suspect of what Ratzinger does and am more inclined to think that apparent good things are only done with some more evil ulterior motive in mind. This is not to say that he is incapable of goodness. I cannot know that all these apparently good things are done with a true intention, but I can certainly hope so for the sake (at least) of his eternal salvation and the future of the Church.
-
As a sedevacantist, I am inclined to reject everything he does as bad...
I do not reject everything he does as bad. No one is so bad that they do not do some good, however occasionally. That is not the point or the measuring stick.
Everything he says and does as a "pope" is bad. He has no business pretending to be pope. If he writes an encyclical in which he says that all must be kind to their mothers it is bad. It is bad that he dares to write "encyclicals." It is bad that he dares to say anything to anyone as though he were a pope and not just some snazzily if oddly clad Bavarian Mozart fan who once acted as a priest.
Of course, the proposition "Be nice to Mom" would not be bad.
If he visits a hospital as "pope" it is bad.
If he gives bread to the hungry as "pope" it is bad. "Ah, such a good Christian can't be a heretic! He must be pope!" That's one reason why it's bad.
I suppose that I would argue that if he kindly said, "That's okay" if the papal steward spilled hot soup in his lap, that would be good. Even though he has no business being served soup by a papal steward to begin with.
-
"How can you, being evil, speak to good effect?"
- Christ to the Pharisees
-
"In the mouth of a fool, even a proverb is folly."
- Proverbs
-
Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad--Meat Loaf
Chas Manson has never been convicted of killing anyone. The poor guy is a poster child for Multiple Personality
Disorder and legally speaking he is not guilty.
Ratzinger shows up in Mrs Martinez book.
-
No undue disrespect meant to Mr Manson.
I was just using his name as a byword. That much I think he has coming.
-
And I do believe that Mr Manson was found guilty of seven counts of first degree murder.
No one ever said that he personally cut up anyone.
-
I actually can't remember specifically what Manson has been convicted of but it's not murder.
-
Because I am traditional Catholic and sedevacantist I tend to be extremely suspect of what Ratzinger does and am more inclined to think that apparent good things are only done with some more evil ulterior motive in mind. This is not to say that he is incapable of goodness...
Very well said. As for potentially excessive thoroughness, "everything", sans qualification, is a very thorough word. As clarified in your words above, I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps I was in some strange, nit-picking mood. We all have our days, eh? God speed.
Cletus, I concur with your points as well. Cheers.
-
:argue:
:sign-surrender:
-
Acc to wiki, Manson was found guitly of conspiracy to commit murder and under the joint responsiblity rule of Conspiracy was therefore convicted of the murders themselves.
-
To Dulcamara: I mean no offence to you but everytime I see that little picture of the "pope" on your thingy it makes me angry! (Not angry at you - angry at him.)
-
Let's assume that the mainstream Traditionalist view is correct.
Ratzinger is the pope. He's arsenic, but he's only one bum pill in the Catholic bottle, and the antidote to him is one's own hold on Tradition.
I don't get the point of showing special honor to a pope who teaches only some of the Faith and denies the rest. Who destroys the True Mass and disowns Christ before the Jews and supports the Revolution and all the rest of it.
It is very wrong to use the blessed words of the Teacher of Truth as soundbites in an insincere party line campaign ad. What EVERYONE here agrees on is that Benedict XVI cannot be trusted to teach Catholic Truth all across the board. Everyone here has not "heard" this, that, and the other thing coming from this man's mouth.
If you insist on upholding Ratzinger as Christ's Vicar, knowing that he is dangerously in error on many points, you should at least apply to the words, "He who hears you hears Me" with an asterisk and then the caveat "But only when you're not contradicting Tradition and destroying the True Mass and saying that I, Personally, am not such Hot Stuff after all."
Ratzinger holds that Christ is not all that, to use some late 90s vernacular.
Funny how some mainline Traditionalists, in order to stick it to the Seddies, stoop to the same in-your-face pope-on-the-brain gambits of the Novus Ordo conservatives whom they despise.
No one who writes on this board can honestly start shilling for this Benedict character. Everyone who posts here frequently has written of him in one way or another as a false teacher and a menace to souls and at least a potential murderer of souls.
Why posit Uncreated Wisdom as Ratzinger's unqualified cheerleader when you in your own wisdom have called him a confused Modernist with a diseased mind and an antichrist?
-
Why posit Uncreated Wisdom as Ratzinger's unqualified cheerleader when you in your own wisdom have called him a confused Modernist with a diseased mind and an antichrist?
I have never called him an antichrist, nor would I. Moreover errors accepted on good faith do not carry the same guilt as those maliciously accepted and touted. Those who have actually been rubbing elbows with the men in Rome have more or less strongly hinted that the pope is virtually hog-tied by those men around him. In fact, someone went so far as to say of the former pope, "the pope is no longer in control," and that he didn't know the reasons for decisions he supposedly made himself. So... it's easy to condemn from the outside, but... we're not the one sitting in the chair surrounded by "the enemies within".
But anyhow, I leave God to judge the pope and the pope's sins. My duty is to listen to and obey him in whatever he does adhere to God's true Faith. I should hope that were I ever in error and gravely mistaken, God would show me as much mercy as to spare me for my ignorance if I were in good will. So I would show the same kindness to the pope.
-
We're also not the ones who are slapping Jesus in the Holy Face by quaffing nice cold brewskies with the blaspheming apostate likes of Hans Kung.
Hog-tied? Please.
"Someone said..."
That is hardly convincing.
We should never resort to sacristy gossip when we attempt to justify our ecclesiological positions. Josef Ratzinger seems very strong-willed and domineering to me. He was a neo-Modernist bully in the 1960s. He hasn't changed.
"Errors touted in good faith..."
Why would anyone say that the monsters who created and now sustain the Satanic Vatican II sect are in good faith?
How often does Josef Ratzinger adhere to "God's true Faith"? Half the time? Once a decade?
It is horribly dishonest and unjust to demand that others hear and obey a Vatican II cult leader as God's Vicar when you generally do not do so yourself and you are unwilling (or unable) to give even a ballpark figure as to how often you do so. Once a year? Once a decade? Once a New Pentecost?
Traditionalists who adhere to the SSPX are in a CHRONIC state of not hearing and not obeying the Vatican II popes and their faithful henchmen.
It is not our place to deign to "show kindness" to a Roman Pontiff whom we have accused of having a diseased error-addled mind.
You ARE gravely mistaken.
Just don't say you're the pope and all will be well.
-
That someone, actually, was "someone" right up at the top in Rome... not a parish priest or some lay busybody. Unfortunately, I have not got a very good memory when it comes to names and all those modern, ten mile long new tags pasted on the various positions in the church today.
And either the same "someone" or a very similar one who was right up there at the top, who definitely should have known what was going on at the very top of the chain, said, pointing to the pope's apartments, "Even I do not know what is going on up there."
But I prefer to leave it at "someone" and "near the top" than say, "cardinal so and so" and turn out to be totally wrong. I only remember that it was someone WAY at the top, who should have known everything going on, and who would certainly have known the atmosphere there because he was actually IN it.
Oh, and it was a bishop who related this, who among his other remarks before that said, (words to the effect of) "There are lots of interesting things going on... I will tell you SOME of them, but not ALL..." because he wanted only to tell the things he was absolutely, positively certain of the truth of. In fact, he wouldn't even tell one fact because he was only 99% certain of it's accuracy.
Of course I shouldn't be too surprised. If you're not willing to give the pope the benefit of the doubt, I should hardly expect you to give it to a mere puny lay person.
-
There is no "doubt" about the Antichristian nature of Vatican II Rome and its top bananas.
-
The notion that the Vatican II cult leaders have been "hog-tied" by others and therefore are to be presumed perfectly orthodox in their own beliefs and intentions is a myth-making bugaboo and a counsel of both despair and presumption.
It is one of folk Catholicism's tallest tall tales. It shows a lack of culture and critical thinking. It is a lie told by those who see those villains in an ideal (unreal) light as The Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ.
Who are unfamiliar with the sordid reality of their careers as enthusiastic progressive operatives who have been incapable of keeping their heretical jaws from flapping for nigh on fifty years now.
Who don't read their rotten books.
When I, who have read their rotten books and interviews with "lay busybodies" such as Jean Guitton, rattle off the "papal" words that prove how solidly and how gladly on board they are with the Modernist agenda of universal soul destruction, I am greeted with angel-on-a-pinpoint objections from Traditional theologiasters such as, "None of that stuff is infallible," or "The faithful are not obliged to know that the Holy Father writes those bad books and speaks that way in interviews with journalists."
These same theologiasters, ignoring the plain reality of the so-called pope's dopey-grin approval of Lucifer's best efforts in this world, paint foolishly fantastical holy pictures of him weeping over Excesses of Needed Renewal in the papal apartments.
Now it's hog-tied.
Right. And St Margaret's presence in the belly of the purple dragon tickled said purple dragon beyond all endurance and ultimately caused said purple dragon to EXPLODE!
Well, these foolishly fantastical holy pictures of put-upon popes, so perfectly medieval (and therefore Catholic?) in their lack of perspective and lack of intelligence, are not infallible. The faithful are not obliged to pay them any mind or reverence. They do not pertain to "charity" or "the obligation to give others the benefit of the doubt." They obviously fall under the heading of that abominable "making of lies" against which Scripture warns us.
The Vatican II sect's top leaders have been the evil geniuses behind the Vatican II Satanic Revolt. No one pushes them around. THEY have pushed for evil in every department. Paul VI, for example, practically demanded that theologians err ever more gravely in their Modernistic opinions and wreak more havoc among the faithful and that Church authorities be even more permissive towards them. Later he had some misgivings about his personal assault on the flock of Christs. We don't need to rely on sacristy gossip to know this. He did his hypocritical and self-serving blubbering and confessing in public.
The Vatican II "popes" are the real bad guys. It is they who push OTHERS around. Look at how they treated a man by the name of Marcel Lefebvre.
We shouldn't care what someone says what some unnamed priest said some unnamed bishop or maybe cardinal said. We don't need these sacristy gossips to fill us in with little clues on what's happening over there is Rome.
The person known as Pope Benedict XVI is like the person known as Pope Paul VI in that he can't sneeze without telling the world all about it. We know all about his Christless mind and his cold black heart. We know that the Benedict character is a proud Modernist and that he has encouraged persecution of the truly orthodox.
-
It is characteristic of heretics that the more you point out their apostacy, the more obstinate they become-- you are wasting your time Cletus.
-
I disagree. I'm not arguing with just one person in a corner. Lots of folks are monitoring this forum. I play to the unseen and unheard crowd. Every now and then I get assurances that I have not been wasting my time.
-
I should have been specific; wasting your time with Dulcamera-- I appreciate your posts.
-
I see. I try not to get too personal about these things. I wasn't thinking in terms of trying to convince any individual.
-
As much as i agree with you, Cletus, and I absolutely do, what you say comes across a bit harsh, personal or defensive. It's extremely sad that there are traditional Catholics on all sides of the fence that passionately believe what they believe, in good conscience, even though you may not conceive how those who give tacit authority to the "pope" by the use of his title do so.
What mystifies me a little is that in regards to something so incredibly particular as the theology involved in coming to the sedevacantist conclusion (or the SSPX conclusion - although I do have to say it seems to me that many who adhere to that conclusion haven't really, really researched it) one wouldn't be more analytical in attempting to explain it to someone who won't be convinced by a (albeit passionate and well-intentioned) tirade. What is the cliche? It's easier to draw flys with honey than with vinegar?
I don't mean to attack you, especially as i agree with your points so thoroughly, and I hope you don't take it so, but I personally think that one of the best things, one of the greatest advantages about discussing things of the faith when all of us are trying to be true traditional Catholics, is that we can do so without letting our emotions color what we discuss.
Of course we are all dismayed at the situation in the Church, and rightfully so, but it's hard to pay attention to what someone is saying when they are yelling it at you so to speak. A friend of mine once said that he always has a hard time converting people because his inclination is to hit them on the head with the hammer of truth, and, unfortunately, like a mule, too often times people dig in and don't even care to listen to what is being said because of it.
I don't think that dulcamara disagrees with you more obstinately because you are pointing out her "heresy" more (in quotations b/c even though I am sedevacantist I cannot blame them for what they do - there has been no valid pope to say which side is right and which is wrong) but because no one likes to be attacked on what they really and truly believe. It is one thing to hold a discussion, another to rant at someone and then discharge them as a heretic and going to hell because they didn't listen to you.
-
While some of the posts of Cletus have at times been slightly confusing, I would not characterise them as harsh, personal or defensive-- the truth is just plain ugly.
-
the truth is ugly, I agree with you there. But on the other I have to disagree - as I was reading it I was thinking, "ouch!" and I agreed with what he wrote. But hey maybe I'm too sensitive - it is purely an opinion.
-
The theology of the various sedevacantisms is not "incredibly particular." It's Theology 401. Bellarmine. De Lugo. Van Noort.
The basic Godly Philosophy behind rejection of the Vatican II top leadership as true spiritual authorities is as common as the reasoning that goes into believing in God and Natural Law.
"The Holy Father may be the Antichrist, but he is still our Holy Father and he may come around to the fullness of Tradition some day. And after all, the papal glass is only HALF filled with Modernist poison."
Now THAT is what I call an "incredibly particular" theology. Peculiar. Aberrant. Ungodly.
Harsh? Let's say bluntly, boldly, and blithely apodictic. Or let's not. Little chats like these about our precious little selves are boring and silly.
-
...one of the greatest advantages about discussing things of the faith when all of us are trying to be true traditional Catholics, is that we can do so without letting our emotions color what we discuss...
If I may interject...
I have been on these boards for a little while now, and I have also seen Cletus' posts for a while. I have run across all kinds of thin-skinned individuals who take whatever is said personally, even when there is absolutely no reason to do so. There is a widespread inability to keep the person and the idea separate, on the part of writers as well as (and perhaps more so) on the part of readers. Over-sensitive moderns can keep out of the fray, hiding in their shells, if they cannot discuss things like men. I have dealt with many who try to trip up the flow and successful argumentation of a thread with specious claims of getting too personal, inserting nonsense in order to derail things, calling me (or others) names, etc. They may play their games all they want. The hour is too late and too dark to worry excessively about hyper-sensitive moderns (yes, I know that such people will read that as an 'insensitive' comment). Rome is bur---already toast.
-
And after all, the papal glass is only HALF filled with Modernist poison."
Rome is bur---already toast.
LOL I know you weren't trying to be funny, but it was a little.
Cletus: I'm not a theologian, I am young, and there are many things that I do not know. I do know that trying to sort out why one should be sedevacantist is not easy by any means. If it weren't so complex there wouldn't be extremely learned priests, priests who have every intention and hope of leading their faithful to heaven, on both sides of the "papal fence" arguing for or against sedevacantism.
-
The theology of sedevacantism is complex.
There is nothing at all complex about our duty to flee from unspeakable evil and abominate those who are guilty of proposing it as the latest in Holy Ghost revival.
There is nothing complex about thinking of Josef Ratzinger, "He cannot be the Representative of Jesus Christ on earth."
Extreme learning is so much dung and dross if you're not willing to seek the Kingdom without turning back to moon over the glories of Rome and the comforts of Being a Catholic in pre-Abomination days.
"If the Fathers of Vatican II had attempted to teach anything INFALLIBLY rather than PASTORALLY God would have made an Atom Bomb fall on St Peter's for all I know..."
"One deeply regrets that His Eminence should have inflicted on children depictions of Our Lord engaged in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity, but the simple layman must not use that as an excuse to take a high-handed attitude with the Princes of the Church of Christ..."
So much for extremely learned priests when they're on the wrong side.
The extremely learned priestly class is now and always has been the true Christkilling class.
-
The extremely learned priestly class is now and always has been the true Christkilling class
As I was referring mostly to SSPX priests, are you saying that the majority of priests (in the SSPX) are knowingly adhering to a false religion- that they are worse than a Novus Ordo priest because they know the truth and deny it by not being sedevacantist? I cannot believe that these priests (by and large) are going against their conscience in holding the SSPX's position. I agree that it is our duty to flee from evil and error, but for many how one does it is not so clear, is disputed, in this situation.
Extreme learning is so much dung and dross if you're not willing to seek the Kingdom without turning back to moon over the glories of Rome and the comforts of Being a Catholic in pre-Abomination days.
This reminds me of those my friends and I term "Nostalgia Catholics" and while what you say is true, I have never come across a priest (and I've known quite a few) in the SSPX who is there for nostalgia sake - parishioners, yes, and priests in the indult, yes, but not any priests in the SSPX. Also, they use their learning for the greater glory of God, not to give themselves a pat on the back for being so learned. Most of them (I know that there a few closet sedevacantists) honestly believe what they are doing is right.
-
I can't know what anyone else is referring to when he uses the phrase "extremely learned priests" without further qualification.
Someone else speaks of "extremely learned priests." I come back with an extremely negative aphorism about "extremely learned priests" in general. Why on earth would anyone think that I was speaking exclusively of SSPX priests when he himself was thinking only 'mostly" of them?
We mustn't project to others our own fixations and orientations. We have to say what we mean the FIRST time.
I don't get this priest-happy attitude on the part of Traditionalists. It seems phony. Traditionalist men especially (but hardly ever on this board) seem never to listen to what their priests say when they would do well to do so: all the time I find Traditionalist men proposing a debased form of Christianity in which one may lie and promote blasphemous British comedies and be Impure in Speech according to one's whims.
What am I saying about SSPX priests? I am saying nothing about SSPX priests in particular. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of the existence of any SSPX priest who is learned at all.
But now that they have been brought up, I will say that some of the most horrifying examples of malicious untruthfulness I have ever encountered in this world have been uttered by SSPX priests. I don't think I need to write what their topic was when they uttered them.
And then there's the silliness of so many SSPX priests. That silliness about sacred persons and themes which is so degrading and so harmful to their hapless thralls.
"Peter confessed Christ as God and then said He was only a Man (Whom he didn't even know) and still later repented. Well, I don't know about you, but if God can forgive that sort of defection from Faith on the part of a Pope without declaring him unpoped, I think that we can, trusting in Our Lady whose blessed hands the briney flow from the Pontifical eyes did moisten..."
Instead of getting all sore and hot-headed against me, Traditionalists should examine their consciences as to how well they listen to their SSPX priests when they preach the way of true Catholic righteousness.
-
I can't know what anyone else is referring to when he uses the phrase "extremely learned priests" without further qualification.
Someone else speaks of "extremely learned priests." I come back with an extremely negative aphorism about "extremely learned priests" in general. Why on earth would anyone think that I was speaking exclusively of SSPX priests when he himself was thinking only 'mostly" of them?
We mustn't project to others our own fixations and orientations. We have to say what we mean the FIRST time.
I thought that you would say something like that, and when I was speaking of learned priests who are not sedevacantists but are very much againt the Novus Ordo, the greatest quantity of them falls into the SSPX - hence, I asked, if you were referring to them as I was. I realize that I was not specific about them before so I tried to clarify.
Be that as it may, I know that certain...priests in the SSPX who are more thoroughly exposed to public limelight are often seen at least as ridiculous and at worst virulently damaging from the eyes of sedevacantists. I find it really hard to believe though that anyone could think them (and those priests who are taking care of regular parishes) to be "maliciously untruthful." You obviously believe that they are in extreme error, in heresy, but maliciously untruthful? that is more demonic than the Novus Ordo - and maybe we have to agree to disagree, but you couldn't convince me of it -not from my personal knowledge and experience with them.
I don't get this priest-happy attitude on the part of Traditionalists. It seems phony
What do you mean by priest-happy? I don't really know what you are referring to.
-
Now we're really "snowballing" on this thread. We're going zig-zag all over the place. That has always been alright with me. But I can see why those whom I call "thread beadles" would be annoyed.
"Priest-happy" is my own term of derision. It means "preoccupied with priests to an abnormal degree." It's a kind of linguistic back formation from words such as "gun-happy."
I usually am content to use the dry and colorless term "clericalistic."
There is no reason to bring in priests all the time when the subject is keeping the Faith in our day. A day in which the world's main problem is the assault on Christ and common decency by the priestly class of the church of Rome. We need priests to provide certain Sacraments. We don't need them to keep the Faith.
Priests are the last thing we need when they get into priest-happy mode themselves. When they start pontificating on priestly prestige at the expense of the Manly Honor of the holy son of the just Joseph. Or of of the souls of little children exposed to the Filth Education of which learned priests from LA to Rome approve. Traditional priests go demonic all the time, denouncing the "sin" of lay disrespectfulness towards the worst corruption crusaders among Novus Ordo prelates.
-
Why don't you write my posts for me? There's a Zane Grey novel that I've been dying to read. Haven't had the time for it somehow...
-
Well, my attempt at "fisking" was not a roaring success.
TRENT: "I knew you would say something like that..."
CLETUS: Why don't you write my posts for me? ... Zane Grey... etc...
-
Aaah..I see and agree overall. I don't think that I have ever been told to not be disrespectful to the Novus Ordo hierarchy (in fact it was more often compounded by SSPX priests - which serves to make no sense as well since they acknowledge them as the true hierarchy).
So sorry! I haven't read Zane Grey so unfortunately I can't post for you! and um, what is "fisking?"
-
"Fisking" is line-by-line analysis (and, usually, negative criticism) of a text on-line.
I was using the term in a looser sense, since I was subjecting only one line in a text to negative criticism.
The term "fisking" is not obscure. I'm surprised that any young person who seems intelligent and uses the internet would not have heard of it.
We can't limit our knowledge of, say, SSPX priests to our own little lives and then speak of them generally. In order to do the latter with any degree of credibility we have to put in a lot of time reading many articles in THE ANGELUS and listening to many SSPX priest sermons by many different SSPX priests.
Above all we have to be familiar with the words and career of Archbishop Lefebvre, who many times denounced those with "schismatic" attitudes towards the New Pentecostal hierarchy and even said on one priest-happy occasion that Catholics are better off in the "Novus Ordo" than out there on their own. (or at "home alone".) He thought that Catholics would be likely to become atheists at home alone. (Even though the vast majority of sinful and heretical and infidel mankind remains solidly theistic. So much for the knowledge and and the judgment of "learned clerics.")
The point was not that YOU should read Zane Grey novels.
The point was that you wrote, "I thought you would say something like that..."
If what is in YOUR mind has a tendency then to appear in MY posts you may as well post for me. So I can listen to Mozart instead. So I can go hiking in the mountains. So I can read Zane Grey. Whatever.
-
What has happened to the format of this page?
-
At first I was thinking that I created a gremlin with my inept attempt at using the quote function.
Now I suspect that someone is trying to tell us that this sort of personal back-and-forth belongs in a margin.
-
LOL Well, at least I fimd your postings humorous! And i'm sure you introduced the gremlin!
I'm surprised that any young person who seems intelligent and uses the internet would not have heard of it.
I actually don't spend that much time on the internet and the computer or the cellphone or any of this "new-fangled technology." But I don't think that means I am unintelligent - plus the fact it has always bugged me when people are into the latest gadgets.
"In order to do the latter with any degree of credibility we have to put in a lot of time reading many articles in THE ANGELUS and listening to many SSPX priest sermons by many different SSPX priests."
I do and have - not to an extreme degree though- I do admit that other things claim my attention.
The point was not that YOU should read Zane Grey novels.
The point was that you wrote, "I thought you would say something like that..."
If what is in YOUR mind has a tendency then to appear in MY posts you may as well post for me. So I can listen to Mozart instead. So I can go hiking in the mountains. So I can read Zane Grey. Whatever.
Yes, I did not miss your point - I realized it. And as you mentioned that this verbal sparring should be relegated to a margin I desist - I refuse to be marginalized! HAHAHA! This is fisking isn't it? Okay, seriously I'm not even going to check this post anymore...
-
While the cat's away the mice will play.
As a poster above noted, internet message boards are no place for the thin-skinned. On the other hand, I think that it's wrong not to protest when a fellow poster seems to be set on misrepresenting what you've said. Or on playing weird little "mind games."
I used to wonder why people think that they can get away with such tricks on message boards. I mean, the record is THERE in black and white for all to see in perpetuity. Which is not the case when lawyers play these tricks in courts of law.
But now I reckon that there is a simple explanation. Even though the record is THERE, some people shrewdly twig to the probability that people just don't reread old posts. Any more than they read old newspapers. That's how we get people writing as though they wrote things that they did not write and piously taking others to task for not having read those unwritten things.
-
But now that they have been brought up, I will say that some of the most horrifying examples of malicious untruthfulness I have ever encountered in this world have been uttered by SSPX priests.