Author Topic: Lullabye (Read 3826 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** October 25, 2007, 11:39:53 AM »

Oh, Trinity, they are just confused (but solidly traditional) men who have been surrounded by evil advisors. They would put everything right instantly if they could, but those darn bad guys in the Curia will not cooperate. :wink:

Can anyone say, "Wake up!"?

Dawn · « **Reply #2 on:** October 25, 2007, 12:09:46 PM »

Gladius correct me if I am wrong, but, the subtle destruction of the Mass was first with Vatican II, followed by an agenda set by certain cardianals to make communism acceptable by the Vatican no longer chastising Communists and their evil agenda for the world.
And, like all children who decide to leave the path of Christ and follow the evil one they had a mother over their shoulders telling them what to do to stop this plague of communism and they shut her out. And, even went so far as to lessen the deviotion to the Blessed Virgin by insinuating that it was just ignorant old women who prayed the beads.
I even had one Novus Ordo priest who "converted from Judaism" (not really, he was a blend like Ross and David Moss) tell me that straight out. That part of the teaching they received to bring the Church fully into the Sprintime was to sweep the Churches clean of the devotions of pious old ladies.
And, if I am not mistaken,Carl Bernstein in one of his books tells of a meeting between John XXIII and the ambassador of Russia, (Sovie Union in those days, that was before the Fall of Communism

) Upon meeting the pontiff said hello to my communist friend, the ambassador said hello to my communist pope.
Yes, Trinity you are correct like the Wizard of Oz we have all been dusted with the poison poppies of naturalism, modernism and the result is that the current leaders of the church are not leaders in the True Church but in the Church of Man which had its satanic inauguration during the French Revolution when a harlot was worshipped as the Godess of Enlightenment.

Trinity · « **Reply #3 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:59:35 PM »

Quote

Oh, Trinity, they are just confused (but solidly traditional) men who have been surrounded by evil advisors. They would put everything right instantly if they could, but those darn bad guys in the Curia will not cooperate.

"They dream. They but dream." Which is my point, here. The "spell" has given different people different dreams, but they are ALL asleep and dreaming. If they weren't, they would have left that dead head alone and come together to raise the cry and mount a defense against the communists. This would not have happened.

Quote

And, even went so far as to lessen the devotion to the Blessed Virgin by insinuating that it was just ignorant old women who prayed the beads.

I knew about that deliberate attempt to separate us from Our Lady, too, and I'm glad you brought it up. John XXIII couldn't stand the mention of her or her warnings, which stood so contrary to what he wanted. But even spite doesn't explain the all out attack upon her cult, so it had to have been a deliberate and diabolical work in the sense that they wanted us without Divine help. This is especially true because God had placed things in Mary's hands, so by the simple expedient of removing Mary, we were shut off from heaven.

Quote

When we rot and decompose, we no longer
react.
Quote

There hasn't been much reaction to this thread, has there??? :scratchchin:

Trinity · « **Reply #4 on:** October 25, 2007, 05:22:11 PM »

Regarding the differences among us (SSPX, CMRI, etc) it occurs to me that we don't differ about the facts. The Vatican II Vatican has sown and reaped and it is a matter of record. We don't dispute that. What we do dispute is our conclusions as to the position those people hold. We dispute our conclusions, no more, no less.

As a survivor who has studied the phenomenon of abuse as well as lived it, I can say with some authority that it is a known fact that children will deny parental abuse so long as they feel they need their parents. Some people never get over needing their parents, or at least their parents' approval. So they go through life without ever healing, because the first step in healing is admitting the abuse, and the second step is forgiving it.

It is probably a whole lot easier for me to say, "The Vatican II popes abused us," than it is for others, because I've been down this road before. I think it would be positively wonderful to have a Vicar of Christ again, but I don't need one so desparately that I am willing to overlook the facts and bury myself in a dream. And it is just a whole lot healthier to get on with my life than it is to wait for them to come around. The chances just aren't very good.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:17:11 AM »

"Regarding the differences among us (SSPX, CMRI, etc) it occurs to me that we don't differ about the facts. The Vatican II Vatican has sown and reaped and it is a matter of record. We don't dispute that. What we do dispute is our conclusions as to the position those people hold. We dispute our conclusions, no more, no less."

I disagree. The differences go far beyond the validity and the impact of Vatican II: they range from such a simple, basic practice such as whether or not women should cut their hair short and wear pants, to the larger, more complex issues such as whether or not the Novus Ordo Mass is valid or whether or not we indeed have a Pope. Mr. X says we do, Mr. Y says we dont. Both think they're right.

"It is probably a whole lot easier for me to say, "The Vatican II popes abused us," than it is for others, because I've been down this road before. I think it would be positively wonderful to have a Vicar of Christ again, but I don't need one so desparately that I am willing to overlook the facts and bury myself in a dream. And it is just a whole lot healthier to get on with my life than it is to wait for them to come around. The chances just aren't very good."

Here is a perfect example. When you say "...it would be positively wonderful to have a Vicar of Christ again", you are stating or strongly implying that we DONT have a Pope right now. How is someone who does believe in fact we have a Pope, albeit not a very good one, supposed to "set our differences aside" where such a fundamental matter is concerned?

Trinity · « **Reply #6 on:** October 26, 2007, 03:11:31 PM »

Because fundamentally we don't have a "pope". Call the man what you will, he isn't getting the job done and that is one thing we all know. Even those who believe he is indeed the pope are without a leader the same as the rest of us. The only ones who have a leader in him are the NO.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #7 on:** October 26, 2007, 10:43:30 PM »

No, fundamentally we DO have a pope, albeit a bad one, which is precisely why he needs our prayers. I tend towards the opinion of Bp Williamson when he says that the Pope might be well intended, but has a sick mind and is surrounded by very bad men.

Yet, he did "restore" the tridentine Mass (despite it never having been abrogated in the first place) and perhaps some good will come of that, although it will probably take a few generations for a sense of normalcy to return to the Church if indeed it ever will.

In the meantime, we must do what we can to preserve the Faith where we can. I believe that there are a few of us equal to the task.

Trinity · « **Reply #8 on:** October 27, 2007, 03:37:48 AM »

OK, you have a pope in the same sense that I have a car which is broken down and of no earthly use to me. Lacking the wherewithall to fix the pope/car we are still walking, my friend, not riding. Both of us. I say I have no car because I have nothing which functions as a car should, i.e. gets me from point A to point B. You say I have a car because there is this hunk of car shaped, immobile metal in my yard.

You have a leader you can't follow and I don't have a leader. Are we not in the same boat? The reality is the same for both of us. No use in arguing our conclusions and leaving the real problem unsolved. Forget the pope/car which we can't rely on and can't fix and figure out how to meet our goals.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #9 on:** October 27, 2007, 10:50:46 AM »

"You have a leader you can't follow and I don't have a leader. Are we not in the same boat?"

Frankly, no.

To continue the nautical analogy: we admit that there is a captain (the pope) on the bridge (the Vatican). He might be off his rocker in some areas, but he's still the captain.

You (sedevacantists), on the other hand, pretend as if we DONT have a captain.

That is not the same thing at all.

"The reality is the same for both of us."

No, the reality is NOT the same for both of us, because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of Pope Benedict XVI. If you deny that, what else do you deny?

"No use in arguing our conclusions and leaving the real problem unsolved."

If we are to make common cause as traditional Catholics, we cannot simply "set aside" the very significant matter of the fact that we have a pope. We're starting from two completely different premises and leading to two completely different conclusions.

Dawn · « **Reply #10 on:** October 27, 2007, 01:58:38 PM »

A pope that teaches heresy is no Pope. A person who teaches heresy is sitting in the Chair of Peter. We pray that he repent and convert or that very soon we should have a Catholic Pontiff leading the Church.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #11 on:** October 27, 2007, 02:24:45 PM »

"A pope that teaches heresy is no Pope."

Not according to history or Tradition. Besides, it is not for us to decide whether or not the Pope is a heretic. That would be for a future pope or possibly a council to decide.

In the meantime, Catholics pray for Pope Benedict XVI.

Vandaler · « **Reply #12 on:** October 27, 2007, 03:25:54 PM »

Quote from: gilbertgea

Not according to history or Tradition. Besides, it is not for us to decide whether or not the Pope is a heretic. That would be for a future pope or possibly a council to decide.

Nice to agree with you when it occurs.

May it help a little after some of our recent stressed discussions that we can agree on some, and perhaps many subjects.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #13 on:** October 27, 2007, 04:33:13 PM »

You will find, Vandaler, that if you're truly a traditional Catholic, we will agree on most if not all things.

God bless you.

Dawn · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2007, 03:48:29 PM »