Madness Writ Large
by Thomas A. Droleskey

Catholicism can never be mixed with even the slightest taint of error. It is important to bear this in mind when reviewing the insanity that emanates from the conciliar Vatican. Although the Society of Saint Pius X has done tremendous harm to a true understanding of the charism of infallibility that protects the teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted  exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, contending, among other things, that there is an "authentic magisterium" of "all time" that cannot err and a "governing magisterium" than can make mistakes (which is why there is a "need" for the Society to serve as "super-magisterium" to sift the teaching of true popes and their bishops, a proposition condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794), is always important to remember what the Catholic Church teaches about her being immune from even a "light tarnish of error:"

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Drolesky is in way above his head, as is are you fine sir.

Another meaningless comment.  

Droleskey is a nice man, but he's no theologian.  If you'll note, he continually misrepresents things and then merely quotes long texts.  This is because he doesn't understand.  He's in over his head and he's angry.  

Wow! That's rather vague and meaningless. Maybe you need to get some fresh air yourself, Caminus.

Well, when the real doctors get killed in a horrible accident, and laymen are "forced" to be doctors, don't be surprised when you see some real messed-up doctorin' goin' on!  And quite a few lost patients.

Of course, that analogy only applies to the results -- I am not implying that there's a necessity for the Faithful to step up and be theologians. In an emergency, ordinary people WOULD have to try to treat wounded and sick people.

There is a certain aspect in this crisis where Catholics are forced to do "that which seemed right to himself." (Judges 17:6) Which causes quite a bit of chaos.

Read Judges chapter 17. Doesn't it sound just like many corners of Traddieland today? Totally messed up, but could be blamed on ignorance and the Crisis:

The history of the idol of Michas, and the young Levite.

1 There was at that time a man of mount Ephraim whose name was Michas, 2 Who said to his mother: The eleven hundred pieces of silver, which thou hadst put aside for thyself, and concerning which thou didst swear in my hearing, behold I have, and they are with me. And she said to him: Blessed be my son by the Lord. 3 So he restored them to his mother, who said to him: I have consecrated and vowed this silver to the Lord, that my son may receive it at my hand, and make a graven and a molten god, so now I deliver it to thee. 4 And he restored them to his mother: and she took two hundred pieces of silver and gave them to the silversmith, to make of them a graven and a molten god, which was in the house of Michas. 5 And he separated also therein a little temple for the god, and made an ephod, and theraphim, that is to say, a priestly garment, and idols: and he filled the hand of one of his sons, and he became his priest.

5 "Filled the hand"... That is, appointed and consecrated him to the priestly office.

6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself. 7 There was also another young man of Bethlehem Juda, of the kindred thereof: and he was a Levite, and dwelt there. 8 Now he went out from the city of Bethlehem, and desired to sojourn wheresoever he should find it convenient for him. And when he was come to mount Ephraim, as he was on his journey, and had turned aside a little into the house of Michas, 9 He was asked by him whence he came. And he answered: I am a Levite of Bethlehem Juda, and I am going to dwell where I can, and where I shall find a place to my advantage. 10 And Michas said: Stay with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee every year ten pieces of silver, and a double suit of apparel, and thy victuals.

11 He was content, and abode with the man, and was unto him as one of his sons. 12 And Michas filled his hand, and had the young man with him, for his priest, saying: 13 Now I know God will do me good, since I have a priest of the race of the Levites.

Droleskey is a nice man, but he's no theologian.  If you'll note, he continually misrepresents things and then merely quotes long texts.  This is because he doesn't understand.  He's in over his head and he's angry.  

angry is true, he has been for some time....when one has habit of invoking 20-30 saints and long passages, it is filler for lacking of thoughts of writer and understanding...it is meant to look smart and be psychologically over-whealming...

He still links to SGG and articles I think are still at his site about how great, holy and Catholic Cekeda/Dolan are.....speaking of super magisterium and all....

Quote from: Caminus

Droleskey is a nice man, but he's no theologian.  If you'll note, he continually misrepresents things and then merely quotes long texts.  This is because he doesn't understand.  He's in over his head and he's angry.  

Wow! That's rather vague and meaningless. Maybe you need to get some fresh air yourself, Caminus.

He does misrepresent the authors he is criticizing.  If you can't get their meaning correct in context, then what's his rage and conclusions founded upon?  

Are you serious?  You want me to go back and wade through all of his material?