Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
:furtive:
Exactly who is "the Church" then?
"It was those bad men over there who did it" .................. :facepalm:
2
It looks like there were two EC's on this:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-cdxxxvii-(437)-nov-29-2015-a-d/msg480099/#msg480099
Dear God! To read this baloney yet again, the second time around is very unsettling. This is not advancing the Truth, it is making excuse for what is missing,(by design) and going on the hunt for some shred of truth that might be present in a false
ritual. Of course it can be found, as just enough was left intact to fool the weak minded. Let us all go and nourish our Faith...............
3
It was the people's fault, the bishops, even the Popes, but officially not the Church's.
:furtive:
Exactly who is "the Church" then? 
4
How do you know it is not the authority of the Church when the authorities insist it is? How can you ignore what you are not sure of? Dividing comes from arguing, posting videos, promoting articles that are disparaging and otherwise getting snarky about what the Church does (that is legit). We have an opportunity to humble ourselves before God and request unity, tradition and every other good thing by personally eliminating sin in our own lives, praying the rosary for the Consecration, and otherwise accepting the peace God offers at all times, WITHOUT accepting modernism.  We can still come out against false ideas, ideologies and nonsense. This is a balancing act of epic proportions but it can be done!  
Happenby, do you believe that all of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are legitimate Catholic authority?  
6
Novus Odo mole Poche is seriously discrediting himself (and the N.O. handlers to whom I and other C.I. members assume he is subject) by defending his position by making ridiculous claims that he himself must know are not true, that is to say: deliberate lies.


No, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph broke immigration law when they fled into Egypt.

Really?   What "immigration law", exactly?

•  One of the most important features of (the) Pax Romana was the freedom of travel it allowed within the Roman Empire.
•  Both Judæa and Egypt qualified for that freedom, because they were unquestionably within the Roman Empire at the time of the Christ.
•  Syria (loosely defined back then as the land around Antioch) was conquered by General Pompey "the Great" (Gnaeus Pompēius) during 66--62 B.C.
•  Jerusalem was captured by Pompey, as crucial to Roman control of Judæa, in 64 B.C.
•  The government of Syria and those of other Roman-controlled lands in S.W. Asia were reorganized by Pompey, also during 66--62 B.C.
•  That reorganization included 5 lands being placed into the hands of local rulers as client kingdoms: Cappadocia, Galatia, Lycia, eastern Pontus (all 4 being in Anatolia), and Judæa (in Syria).
•  The client ruler of Judæa remained subject to the Roman governor (lit. "praeside") of Syria, e.g., Cyrinus for the census of Lk. 2:1--2.
•  Egypt came under control of Rome after Cleopatra, the last of Egypt's Ptolemaic line of rulers, committed suicide in 30 B.C. (that year included the suicide of Marc Anthony and the arrival of Octavian, whose victory at Actium had stimulated those suicides).


They didn't ask permission.

More nonsense!

"Permission" from whom and for what, exactly?  See "Pax Romana" (above).


They were wanted 'criminals'.

And still more nonsense!

The Gospels make no claim that anyone was declared "criminal" nor "wanted".  What, exactly, would the Holy Family's "criminal" offense have been?

•  The Gospels provide very little information for this episode: The Holy Family's flight to, and return from, Egypt, appears only as a single chapter by Matthew; none of the other Evangelists even hint at it.
•  Herod could not identify "he who is born king of the Jews" (Mt. 2:2), altho' he was eager to discover the infant--or maybe toddler.
•  Luke, with his report instead of travel to Jerusalem for circumcision and purification, at best complicates the traditional chronology.

Your unsupported claims above deserve to be dismissed by readers as a really blatant deliberate fabrication with no basis in the Gospels nor tradition.  It's so blatant that readers should feel freed to speculate unflatteringly on your motives for posting.
8
How do you know it is the Authority of the Church? How can you ignore what you are not sure of?  We the laity, have no means to further divide or put together the Church's Authority, we respect it and obey it when we can find it.
How do you know it is not the authority of the Church when the authorities insist it is? How can you ignore what you are not sure of? Dividing comes from arguing, posting videos, promoting articles that are disparaging and otherwise getting snarky about what the Church does (that is legit). We have an opportunity to humble ourselves before God and request unity, tradition and every other good thing by personally eliminating sin in our own lives, praying the rosary for the Consecration, and otherwise accepting the peace God offers at all times, WITHOUT accepting modernism.  We can still come out against false ideas, ideologies and nonsense. This is a balancing act of epic proportions but it can be done!   
9
Yea, I don't remember what +Williamson said, all I remember is hearing about Fr. Pfeiffer's meltdown calling it phony.  It seemed at the time that FP was right, which was an odd possibility.  Guess its easier for the NO to bring the Real Presence than for FP to be right.  ;D
Here is the Bishop Williamson's EC thread that discusses this matter:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-cdxxxvi-(436)-nov-22-2015-a-d/msg478707/#msg478707
10
No, but I think that quote references the attempt to draw support away from them, by feigning the appearance of a turning away from the ralliement which the SSPX hoped to convey by sticking Fr. de Jorna back in as French District Superior.
Thank you. I have been praying for those Dominicans that they would remain firm.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10