Author Topic: A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.  (Read 7471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JMacQ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 325
  • Reputation: +615/-3
  • Gender: Male
A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2012, 06:52:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fair enough.

    However the point on tradition ending with St. John is not an idiosyncratic expression but an error which should be corrected. This really bothers me.

    And I would like to know to whose illegal dismissal the response is written. After all it is the title of the document.

    Just asking!

      :confused1:
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
    Praised be Jesus ad Mary!

    "Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta"

    Offline John McFarland

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 100
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #16 on: September 12, 2012, 06:53:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Voigt says:


    "Yet we know that Our Lady has told us time and time again that Rome would go under the red flag and that apostasy would reach the very pinnacle of power everywhere. Humbly bowing to the wisdom and words of our dear Mother we respectfully refrain from any connection with the poison of Rome..."

    Time and time again?  Where?  Medjugorje?

    And what about this talk of conscientious objection?  Since when can one conscientiously object to the orders of one's superior?  

    What is the disobedience of the SSPX leadership to which the SSPX members of the August 10 signers are being disobedient?  On the face of it, those SSPX members didn't like what was happening, and so starting doing what their consciences told them.  

    For not the first time, I'm reminded not of Archbishop Lefebvre, but of Martin Luther.  Here I stand, I can do no other, and so on....





    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #17 on: September 12, 2012, 07:01:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JMacQ
    Fair enough.

    However the point on tradition ending with St. John is not an idiosyncratic expression but an error which should be corrected.

    And I would like to know to whose illegal dismissal the response is written. After all it is the title of the document.

    Just asking!

      :confused1:


    I cannot answer your questions because I cannot speak for Fr. Voigt. I can understand your confusion, however. In any case, I would continue to give Father the benefit of the doubt, as he is on God's side, and as he is now suffering for his defense of Catholic principles. And I'm certain that the dismissal he speaks of is that of Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal.


    Offline JMacQ

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 325
    • Reputation: +615/-3
    • Gender: Male
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #18 on: September 12, 2012, 07:05:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for your reply. I hope things will be clarified soon and I pray for Reverend Father Voigt.
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
    Praised be Jesus ad Mary!

    "Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta"

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7007
    • Reputation: +7090/-664
    • Gender: Male
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #19 on: September 12, 2012, 07:23:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: John McFarland
    Fr. Voigt says:


    "Yet we know that Our Lady has told us time and time again that Rome would go under the red flag and that apostasy would reach the very pinnacle of power everywhere. Humbly bowing to the wisdom and words of our dear Mother we respectfully refrain from any connection with the poison of Rome..."

    Time and time again?  Where?  Medjugorje?

    And what about this talk of conscientious objection?  Since when can one conscientiously object to the orders of one's superior?  

    What is the disobedience of the SSPX leadership to which the SSPX members of the August 10 signers are being disobedient?  On the face of it, those SSPX members didn't like what was happening, and so starting doing what their consciences told them.  

    For not the first time, I'm reminded not of Archbishop Lefebvre, but of Martin Luther.  Here I stand, I can do no other, and so on....





    Aye Johnny Mcfarland,

      You never replied to me previous responses to you about Dr. Max Krah
    and of late, about Msgr. Fellay's glossing-over of VII doctrinal issues.


    1. John,

    In reference to my comment about Msgr. Fellay's coy statement,
    I take it you watched the CNS video, but you still disagree with me.

    Excerpt From Bp. Fellay's interview:[/

    “Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding.  And we have authorities in Rome who say it.  We may say in the discussions (SSPX/Rome discussions) we see many things which we would have condemned, as being from the Council, are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”

    In straight English... please tell us what this means?


    2. Forgot this one:


    Bp. Fellay's CNS interview:

    “We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”

    What sayest thou John ?



    What be the problem with ye man?  
    You're appearin to be highly selective when it comes to discussin the truth?

    Give me regards, to your mentor, Fr. Rostand,
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #20 on: September 12, 2012, 07:45:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FR. VOIGT:  . . . as long as Rome was disobedient to tradition (which ended with the death of the apostle St. John for everyone's edification) . . .

    CANTATE: When I read this I understood it to signify the closing of the Apostolic Age and the term of the deposit of Divine Revelation. The death of the Last Apostle signifies the end or conclusion of the Public Revelation. It is not the end of Tradition, but of Public Revelation, meaning that nothing will ever be added to Sacred Writ.  

    Furthermore, it is true to say the rome's disobedience is disobedience, not only to God, but to the Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul, and all of the others.          

    Offline JMacQ

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 325
    • Reputation: +615/-3
    • Gender: Male
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #21 on: September 12, 2012, 08:08:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Divine Revelation, which is the object of our Catholic Faith, ended with the death of St. John.

    Sacred Tradition is the faithful transmission of this Revelation until the end of times, and it started with the death of St. John.

    It is an error to say that Tradition ended with the death of the last apostle.

    The terms and concepts are extremely precise. I cannot see how this can have been a mere mistake, since it would make no sense to write "as long as Rome was disobedient to revelation".
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
    Praised be Jesus ad Mary!

    "Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta"

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #22 on: September 13, 2012, 06:00:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JMacQ
    I cannot see how this can have been a mere mistake, since it would make no sense to write "as long as Rome was disobedient to revelation".


    Rather, I would give the benefit of the doubt.


    Offline JMacQ

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 325
    • Reputation: +615/-3
    • Gender: Male
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #23 on: September 13, 2012, 07:02:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat


    We're all spoiled with Dinoscopus because you NEVER have to do any tweaking  
    on its content. Oh, that life could be so simple!


     :applause:
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
    Praised be Jesus ad Mary!

    "Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta"

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8262/-638
    • Gender: Male
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #24 on: September 13, 2012, 08:16:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Dear JMacQ,

    "So you liked that, eh? How do you like this, then?" (St. Padre Pio)




    Quote from: Incredulous
    Quote from: John McFarland
    Fr. Voigt says:


    "Yet we know that Our Lady has told us time and time again that Rome would go under the red flag and that apostasy would reach the very pinnacle of power everywhere. Humbly bowing to the wisdom and words of our dear Mother we respectfully refrain from any connection with the poison of Rome..."

    Time and time again?  Where?  Medjugorje?

    And what about this talk of conscientious objection?  Since when can one conscientiously object to the orders of one's superior?  

    What is the disobedience of the SSPX leadership to which the SSPX members of the August 10 signers are being disobedient?  On the face of it, those SSPX members didn't like what was happening, and so starting doing what their consciences told them.  

    For not the first time, I'm reminded not of Archbishop Lefebvre, but of Martin Luther.  Here I stand, I can do no other, and so on....





    Aye Johnny Mcfarland,

      You never replied to me previous responses to you about Dr. Max Krah
    and of late, about Msgr. Fellay's glossing-over of VII doctrinal issues.


    1. John,

    In reference to my comment about Msgr. Fellay's coy statement,
    I take it you watched the CNS video, but you still disagree with me.

    Excerpt From Bp. Fellay's interview:


    “Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding.  And we have authorities in Rome who say it.  We may say in the discussions (SSPX/Rome discussions) we see many things which we would have condemned, as being from the Council, are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”

    In straight English... please tell us what this means?

    2. Forgot this one:


    Bp. Fellay's CNS interview:


    “We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”

    What sayest thou John ?


    What be the problem with ye man?  
    You're appearin to be highly selective when it comes to discussin the truth?

    Give me regards, to your mentor, Fr. Rostand,


    Hey, Incredulous, I'll answer ye question!

    Something comes to light in this quote. (See bold, above)

    It seems to me that B16 and NewRome, during the "negotiations," may have
    put the bee on +Fellay to backpedal on this theme: that traditional Catholics
    have developed a common thread of blaming certain "things" on Vatican II by
    way of claiming that these "things" were due to the "motives" (read: intentions
    that were hidden and perhaps even untruthfully denied) behind the documents
    of Vat.II. And that it would be +Fellay's assignment (part of his secret
    negotiations with NewRome that possibly nobody else is privy to) to go forth
    and extinguish this bothersome nuance in the hearts and minds of traditional
    Catholics, and that if he succeeds, he would be rewarded with regularization,
    but if he fails, he will be denied regularization.



    This is merely speculation, mind you,
    but the strong possibility seems to emerge with those words:




    Bp. Fellay's CNS interview:

    “We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”



    In other words, he would have been instructed that it was not the "real
    motives" of the Council to "promulgate" condemnable "things" (what things?),
    and he would have apparently accepted the challenge of making traditional
    Catholics change their minds about this, to view the Council through rose-
    colored glasses
    , so to speak. And upon his success resides the consequence
    of whether B16 would grant regularization, "no strings" or whatever. Because
    the presence or absence of "strings" would be a moot point.

    If so, it would explain a lot of the punitive measures that +Fellay has
    perpetrated on good and holy priests in the Society, priests who have only
    been doing what +ABL did long ago, while he "kept the faith" and "handed
    down that which he had received."

    If so, it would explain all the secrecy, in not making the negotiations public,
    and not sharing the Doctrinal Preamble with the faithful (even if, perhaps,
    another reason could be to be able to later on say that the Preamble had
    a different content, one that he could edit based on the success of his efforts
    at fulfilling his "assignment" from NewRome).

    If so, it would explain why he allowed I Accuse the Council! to run out
    of stock, and to not reprint it, while hoarding the copyright so nobody else can
    reprint it either.

    If so, NewRome's goal is to render "popular traditional Catholic lore" to the
    dustbin of "conspiracy theories" and "rumors of truther fanatics," and thereby
    win over the hold-outs, the "hard-liners" and (if it were possible) even the elect.
    (Cf. Matt. xxiv. 24)

    If so, this would very simply explain why B16 reneged on approving the
    proposed terms offered by +Fellay this spring, not because of anything that we
    would find in the terms themselves (and we would therefore be chasing a
    chimera, a fαℓѕє fℓαg, a decoy, by hunting through the terms), but simply
    because +Fellay failed to accomplish his "in pectore" assignment, which see.

    If so, it would explain why he let these words slip by in this now-infamous CNS
    interview, which seems to have been his nadir of circumspection, the moment
    when the veil that separates his subjective reality from objective truth was
    the thinnest (kind of like Halloween for "certain people").

    If so, it would explain why J. McF. has not answered your question, Incred.
    He doesn't want to draw attention to the thing they're trying to cover up. The
    thing they want everyone to "jus-fuuggetabout-it."

    If so, what this means to me is, that B16 and NewRome are terrified of the
    term, the unclean spirit of Vatican II, and they are groping literally at
    straws to suppress it from becoming popular vocabulary.



    Why? Because when this bothersome phrase, unclean spirit of Vatican II,
    becomes part of the awareness of traditional Catholics, this goal of having
    everyone forget about the possibility of any ulterior motives behind Vat.II
    will be a lost cause. (And don't worry if they're concerned whether we think
    the devil had anything to do with it, because they don't really believe in the
    devil, anyway!)



    And then, when +Fellay or any other spokesman in defense of NewChurch
    could not utter these words without a tsunami of derision and ridicule:

    “We condemned things from the Council, which the Council was not guilty of promulgating in the first place. We misunderstood the real motives of the Council, and that misunderstanding has become a part of popular traditional Catholic lore.”
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1200/-4686
    • Gender: Male
    A Response to an Illegal Dismissal.
    « Reply #25 on: September 27, 2012, 05:31:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What this needs is a prayer
     :pray: :pray: :pray:


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16