Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Excellent job and articulated extremely well JoeZ! Seems that should do it, but I doubt it.

For me, (and this is only a personal request), I would love to see you add an additional heading, call it: "Concerning Divine Providence", which would likely take you in other directions away from Trent, but this is just a personal request for myself, not necessarily asking you to add to your post above - and that's just because of how well you explained the other points!

Aside from the sacrament itself, the other thing "intrinsic to the doctrine of a BOD", is the necessity to eliminate God providing the minister and the water.

Good job!

General Discussion / Re: 5G
« Last post by Maria Regina on Today at 02:42:13 AM »

Deborah Tavares of warns about
Earthquakes, EMP, 5G Attack Plans, etc.
Ok. Now you are actually referring to something. Thank you.

So what's your problem with Bishop Fellay's preamble? And did you compare it with the Archbishop's protocol of agreement? Just click the box up in the righthand corner.

How is Bishop Fellay a "Judas Goat" and the Archbishop with his protocol not?

Because the Archbishop correctly realized that it would be an absolutely wrong move on the part of the Society to reconcile with Rome in 1988. That's why he took back his initials on the May 5, 1988 Protocol and went ahead with the consecrations on June 30, 1988 - not even waiting until the date given to him by Rome: August 15, 1988. From then on, the Archbishop vowed never again communicate with Rome unless they first returned to Tradition. This has been verified countless times over the years by people who had been very close the Archbishop during these final years of his life.  

With that being said, why would + Fellay even think about reconciling with this Rome? Does anyone honestly believe that Rome is more Traditional in 2018 than it was in 1988? Quite the contrary! That's why, IMO, if + Fellay reconciles the SSPX with Rome (and gets his little Personal Prelature which he is so desperately seeking) then the SSPX will be recognized by that same Rome which still considers excommunicated the man who had made + Fellay a bishop in the first place! That alone is stabbing your mentor in the back! Also, if the Archbishop adamantly refused to reconcile with Rome when he was given the chance to do so 30 years ago because of its horrible modernism, what in the world would possess + Fellay to want to reconcile with a Rome that is 1000 times more modernist today? Maybe it's because of his own ego...maybe he wants to be always remembered in Church history as "the one who finally brought the Society into full communion with Rome."

But at what cost??

For years, the SSPX constantly told their faithful that they should not attend FSSP Masses (one main reason being because they were in full communion with the Holy See). If and when the SSPX becomes in full communion with the Holy See, not only will they be no different from the FSSP in validity and practice (despite what the SSPX PR tells their members so they don't leave the Society) but they will have also gone against absolutely everything the Society has stood for since their inception nearly 50 years ago.

Archbishop Lefebvre could've easily brought the Society into full communion with Rome on August 15, 1988 but he chose not to do so. Do you need to still ask yourself "why" he decided not to reconcile with Rome all those years ago?? How can anyone NOT SEE that joining in full communion with Rome today will be a definitive admittance that everything the Archbishop had done from 1988 until his death was "all for naught??"  

Do you really think the SSPX will get more members once they are in full communion with Rome? Don't you think many people will say things such as: "I'll stick with the FSSP, at least they've always been in full communion with Rome" or "I prefer the FSSP because they've been in the Church for 30 years while those SSPX misfits just joined up."??

If you think the answer is "no," and that more and more people are going to come pouring into the SSPX now that it's finally in full communion, then you are sadly mistaken. Judging by your inquiry into my opinions of Bishop Fellay, it's most likely that you either support the SSPX or are a member. If so, I can only recommend that you get a new Superior General this July who will not make any deals with Rome and therefore will save the Society from the embarrassment and ridicule it will receive the minute Rome fully accepts them. On that day, every member of every SSPX chapel should be downright ashamed to hang on their walls a photograph of Achbishop Marcel Lefebvre: the man whose actions kept the SSPX free from Roman Modernism (and the man who suffered a painful excommunication because of doing so) will, on that day, all have been for nothing.

And the SSPX will have only themselves to blame for it.
Politics and World Leaders / Re: Ayn Rand was a bad "Republican"
« Last post by rum on Today at 02:12:17 AM »
I don't think it's coincidence that Karajan is handsome and Levin is hideous;  I think it's a pattern.  Alan Greenspan looks a lot like some of the dogs I've seen at the pound, Donald Trump, not so much

You're picking and choosing. As I said earlier, in any gene pool you'll find that the majority is unremarkable looking, a minority ugly, and a minority good-looking. I don't need to think Jews are uglier than gentiles, on average, to think they're children of the devil. Here's a couple good-looking Jews, Cary Grant (Archie Leach) and Gal Gadot:

General Discussion / Re: TRUELIESQNN
« Last post by rum on Today at 01:37:01 AM »
They're discussing prepperism and emp attacks at the moment.

How about uploading your Beatles stuff?
Crisis in the Church / Re: another sign of sspx death
« Last post by Marlelar on Today at 01:11:35 AM »
 :really-mad2: :really-mad2: :really-mad2:
General Discussion / Re: President Trump
« Last post by Marlelar on Today at 01:08:20 AM »
I don't have quite the same positive opinion of our president as you do but I must say he is far and away better than the alternative.

I do think that the globalists/media and probably others are out to sabotage his presidency.  If half the shenanigans that have been pulled on Trump had been tried w/Obama there would have been such massive demonstrations as to cripple the country.

I think the Trump presidency is a bump in the road for the globalists, but they look and plan beyond the (possible) 8 years of Trump being in office, and will eventually drag this country down to the level of a gulag.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

To condemn as heretics those who believe the Pope would cease to be Pope if befallen into obstinate heresy is not only to condemn St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion on this (something the Church has never done), but also to condemn both Archbishop Lefebvre's opinion that it is possible and Bishop Fellay's opinion that it is possible. Would those who condemn most vehemently those who believe that the sede vacante is a possibility, also openly condemn St. Robert Bellarmine, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay? This is where deceit comes into play demonstrating that they hold to the spirit of division.

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“If he (Pope Francis) continues as he does now, maybe we will be obliged to say ‘he cannot be pope!’ I say ‘maybe’ I don’t know. (Bishop Fellay, Oct 13, 2013 St. Vincent Church, KC,MO)
“If someone says that the pope is an apostate, a heretic, a schismatic, according to the probable opinion of the theologians (if it were true), the pope would no longer be pope and, consequently, we would be in the “Sede Vacante” situation. “ Ab Lefebvre 1977
Anonymous Posts Allowed / Re: hypothetical question
« Last post by Anonymous on Yesterday at 10:55:04 PM »
God is the Author of life and death. Time does not ‘run out on Him’ to save souls. 
He is Merciful and Just, and not one soul dies without His permission. Scraping by at the last minute should never enter our minds for even a moment, it is us who have no time
Crisis in the Church / Re: another sign of sspx death
« Last post by Centroamerica on Yesterday at 10:39:06 PM »

There are SSPX priests who will argue that the supplied jurisdiction was never an argument for validity of marriages but only confessions. If any have come to the point of getting married by an SSPX priest, there is a form which one signs. The form explains that the milieu of the Novus Ordo etc, but does not specifically mention supplied jurisdiction. Newer SSPX priests do argue that the supplied jurisdiction was only in regards to confession. I had a long conversation with a priest about this just recently.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10