Author Topic: "Pope Michael" on the SSPX (Read 25686 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2014, 01:24:54 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: cantatedomino

Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?

Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.

Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.

I wouldn't complain if I was in a fox hole with a solider who swore a lot because the enemy is trying to kill us both.

But I agree more introspection would be a good thing, in an ideal world.

Have you noticed, that were are in the virtual foxhole with them ?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2014, 01:40:17 PM »

Trads should remain true to all pre-Vatican II doctrines and practices and avoid going beyond that to predict any outcomes. It's not for us to say what the future holds.

Stand Fast. Those are two words that trads should adhere to.

A good four word combination is as follows: Do Not Follow Them. These four words are applicable to the novus ordo structure.

This advice is for Trad Catholics as devout souls. It's good advice for all the trad communities out there too. :wink:

Matthew · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2014, 01:54:14 PM »

Quote from: obscurus

Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.

Took the words out of my mouth.

Besides shock value, what is the man's claim to fame?

hollingsworth · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2014, 02:29:31 PM »

Anyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!

Matto · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2014, 02:37:10 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Anyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut.

I agree but at least he is a true bishop now, which is more than I can say (for sure) about Francis. And a billion people follow him.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2014, 02:37:27 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Anyone who thinks that "Pope Michael" is the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth is a nut. I say it without hesitation. If anyone on this forum thinks Pope Michael is really and truly the pope, that person is a nut! He is deluded. He is not in possession of his faculties. He is, spiritually speaking, a moron!

In that case, it would be a case of mental illness and not malice nor ignorance.

I don't think anyone who posts on CathInfo thinks "Pope" Michael is actually the Vicar of Christ.

Columba · « **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2014, 02:54:43 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: cantatedomino

Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?

Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.

Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.

Anti-social types are, by definition, those most resistant to the undertow of social change. When a society veers toward insanity, the anti-social will by default remain among those closest to sanity and therefore will disproportionately gravitate toward sanctuaries of sanity like the traditionalist movement.

The anti-social personality "package" that includes benefits such as ability to resist to mass insanity may also include negatives such as an inability to practice self-criticism.

Again, the "pope" Michael video serves as an illustrative example of common trad behavior. He fails to apply the critical faculties used against somebody else's (ABL's) position toward his own.

Columba · « **Reply #22 on:** January 29, 2014, 02:56:48 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I think it's actually introspection and questioning the status quo that convinced us trads to become trads.

Menzingen and its followers have not proven adept at introspection.

Columba · « **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2014, 03:12:01 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: Wessex
These opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.

ABL wanted to keep some connection with Rome while avoiding a surrender to Modernist control. Certainly many formerly trad societies have been captured by the Modernists, as if drawn in by some mysterious deathstar tractor beam. According to such an analogy, maintaining discrete distance from the newRoman deathstar is necessary to remain properly traditionalist.

Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance? If so, then Rome and the Vatican would appear irreplaceable as the seat of the authority included in that inheritance. Therefore, maintaining the claim to Apostolic inheritance requires a serious preparation for the eventual reconquest of Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre was dancing on a tightrope with an end to the modernist piper's tune nowhere in sight. It was a frightful and fruitless effort as the carnal melody still resounds louder than ever in Rome, having never ceased the siren of Gehenna.

Traditionalists don't really know what heritage they claim if any. There is black and there is white. That is orthodoxy according to what the Church has always said, and according to what She has always taught, believed and practiced. And there is heterodoxy which exists in rebellion to the former in direct parallel of its dark author.
But most traditionalists in general are happy living in an in between no man's land believing that Catholics can exist with a bit of grey over here and a bit over there as long as they can stand in the white circle on Sunday.

You cannot be saying there is only black and white and no grey issues for modern trads to consider. R&R, SV'ism, and the literally infinite variations thereof most certainly constitute grey areas. Black and white is limited to a pre-Vatican II orthodoxy that excludes the grey paradox of the modern papacy.

R&R is paradoxical in its very name and SV'ism has no mechanism to refill the supposed empty seat.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #24 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:57:34 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: ggreg
Quote from: cantatedomino

Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?

Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.

Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.

Anti-social types are, by definition, those most resistant to the undertow of social change. When a society veers toward insanity, the anti-social will by default remain among those closest to sanity and therefore will disproportionately gravitate toward sanctuaries of sanity like the traditionalist movement.

The anti-social personality "package" that includes benefits such as ability to resist to mass insanity may also include negatives such as an inability to practice self-criticism.

Again, the "pope" Michael video serves as an illustrative example of common trad behavior. He fails to apply the critical faculties used against somebody else's (ABL's) position toward his own.

I have a question: When you refer to the "anti-social personality package," do you exclude sociopathology?

I presume you do, but want to make sure.

And if, indeed, you do exclude psychopaths from this personality profile, then anything else you might be able to add by way of definitions or qualifying terminology would be most welcome.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2014, 05:02:48 PM »

A guy who has no evidence of ever having been ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, claims to occupy the Seat of Peter, because his parents and relatives held a papal election. That same man, proceeds to celebrate or pretend to celebrate the Holy Mass, and then points the finger at ABL for never declaring the new rite of ordination to be invalid. Is "pope" Michael's ordination valid? Who performed it? How about his consecration? Furthermore, even as a layman, his argument against ABL is ludicrous, because how could ABL have made a declaration of something about which he was not certain? Is "pope" Michael suggesting the the archbishop should have lied??? And his reasoning for why ABL should have made the declaration is for political/pragmatic reasons. Does the Holy Church make theological declarations based on politics, pragmatics, and convenience??? So let me reiterate what others have said already, who cares what "pope" Michael thinks?

JPaul · « **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2014, 07:23:05 PM »

Columba,

Quote

You cannot be saying there is only black and white and no grey issues for modern trads to consider. R&R, SV'ism, and the literally infinite variations thereof most certainly constitute grey areas. Black and white is limited to a pre-Vatican II orthodoxy that excludes the grey paradox of the modern papacy.

R&R is paradoxical in its very name and SV'ism has no mechanism to refill the supposed empty seat.

Orthodoxy being the light of the Kingdom and heterodoxy being the darkness of Satan, black and white are laid out clearly enough. One resides in one or in the other. The "grey" appears by one unlike substance washing into the other. Imbibing this greyness excludes a soul from being in one or the other, leaving such people in a flux of adulteration thereby making I difficult or impossible to identify those who have left the light for darkness.
The modern papacies are not grey paradoxes. They have been stunningly heterodox, they have left the light and reside firmly in the Kingdom of Satan.

Mixing that reality with one's purity of Faith is the gravest danger to the soul, and all of the arguments for the greyness are no more than carnal excuses for the faithlessness of the Conciliarists of the parishes, in the Chanceries, and upon the Roman throne.

Trads need only consider what is orthodox and judge and act accordingly, rejecting all that in not of it.

Columba · « **Reply #27 on:** January 29, 2014, 07:34:34 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: ggreg
Quote from: cantatedomino

Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?

Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too. They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.

Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.

Anti-social types are, by definition, those most resistant to the undertow of social change. When a society veers toward insanity, the anti-social will by default remain among those closest to sanity and therefore will disproportionately gravitate toward sanctuaries of sanity like the traditionalist movement.

The anti-social personality "package" that includes benefits such as ability to resist to mass insanity may also include negatives such as an inability to practice self-criticism.

Again, the "pope" Michael video serves as an illustrative example of common trad behavior. He fails to apply the critical faculties used against somebody else's (ABL's) position toward his own.

I have a question: When you refer to the "anti-social personality package," do you exclude sociopathology?

I presume you do, but want to make sure.

And if, indeed, you do exclude psychopaths from this personality profile, then anything else you might be able to add by way of definitions or qualifying terminology would be most welcome.

I am not sure what to think of sociopathology, except that it is probably the rightmost position on some bell curve. It could be the result of sin, mental illness, possession, bad genes, or any combination thereof. The mind is largely mysterious to both religion and science.

My experience is that some trads can appear unwelcoming or standoffish to those they do not know very well. This can be due to a suspicious nature, shyness, or an aspergy deficiency in social perception such that they are not consciously aware of being standoffish. I seems logical and is consistent with my observation that possessing such qualities makes one more likely to end up traditionalist.

So when I feel like I am getting the cold shoulder in a trad environment, I chuckle to myself, persevere, and offer it up as a small price to pay for the privilege of attending the true mass in these difficult times. Ofttimes, a trad who seems standoffish at first will turn out to be supremely warmhearted and generous after getting to know them. Patience and non-needy demeanor is the key.

Columba · « **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2014, 08:09:37 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Columba,
Quote
You cannot be saying there is only black and white and no grey issues for modern trads to consider. R&R, SV'ism, and the literally infinite variations thereof most certainly constitute grey areas. Black and white is limited to a pre-Vatican II orthodoxy that excludes the grey paradox of the modern papacy.

R&R is paradoxical in its very name and SV'ism has no mechanism to refill the supposed empty seat.

Orthodoxy being the light of the Kingdom and heterodoxy being the darkness of Satan, black and white are laid out clearly enough. One resides in one or in the other. The "grey" appears by one unlike substance washing into the other. Imbibing this greyness excludes a soul from being in one or the other, leaving such people in a flux of adulteration thereby making I difficult or impossible to identify those who have left the light for darkness.
The modern papacies are not grey paradoxes. They have been stunningly heterodox, they have left the light and reside firmly in the Kingdom of Satan.

Mixing that reality with one's purity of Faith is the gravest danger to the soul, and all of the arguments for the greyness are no more than carnal excuses for the faithlessness of the Conciliarists of the parishes, in the Chanceries, and upon the Roman throne.

Trads need only consider what is orthodox and judge and act accordingly, rejecting all that in not of it.

Sojourning in this veil of tears, one encounters problems where there is no clear or clean solution. One chooses the lessor of apparent evils with confidence that God will judge our decision on subjective motive rather than objective outcome.

You apparently ascribe to a version of Sedevacantism despite arguments put forth that such a position is erroneous. I do not begrudge you this position, except to say that dogmatizing it into an issue of black and white is mistaken. Pre-Vatican II orthodoxy is dogmatic, but one's personal post-Vatican II position cannot be.

I dare say that if your position were fully fleshed out and dogmatized, it would divide you from practically every other professed traditionalist Catholic alive today. If this is not true of you, it is certainly true of me and virtually everyone else among the wide variety of trads with whom I've spoken on these matters. In practice, most trads dogmatize their positions up to some arbitrary level, and then reluctantly put up with the remaining difference with their priest and parish mates. I submit that one should dogmatize no further than pre-Vatican II orthodoxy and permit liberty elsewhere. That seems the most logical and clean traditionalist cut-off point.

Every thoughtful trad posses his own unique and continually evolving ad hoc post-Vatican II position. This is natural and unavoidable given the situation, but it should be obvious that dogmatizing an ad hoc position, never officially approved in the present context, is mistaken.

Sigismund · « **Reply #29 on:** January 29, 2014, 09:01:41 PM »

Oh come on. It is always nice to hear from "His Holiness". :wink:

I am pretty sure that no pope has ever used the phrase, "Dag gum".