Quote from: Zeitun

Quote from: Machabees

32.   Bishop Williamson, as being a weak instrument, needs our prayers to give him the strength to do what he needs to do before the Majesty of God and His Altar–for the Salvation of souls.

THIS is it???  You are asking for prayers from people who are already praying for him?  Kinda a let down after all that build up.  I thought there was going to be some plan to be implemented.

Machabees doesn't have a plan, Zeitun.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Quote

I posted a thread a few weeks ago about Catholic Action to strengthen and build the Resistance--no takers.  But I got a few rotten tomatoes.

I guess the Resistance means "resistance to taking action to achieve a goal."

+W has touched on this aspect in his conferences.  In fact, it's a
recurring theme for him.  He has regards for the anxiety among
Resistance members, and he is trying to expose the source of the
problem, but we are largely not able to grasp it in its essence, and
that's not surprising because in order to grasp the essence of the
problem it requires some deep reflection.  

Most people cannot reflect deeply. So expecting them to be able to
'go there' when they cannot 'go there' is expecting too much.  

Machabees is a microcosm of modern man who cannot 'go there.'

If the "action plan" that we come up with is one that aims to
restore the Catholic Church to what it was in the 1950's, it's a
losing idea.  


The Church of the '50s is gone forever.  

You cannot bring it back.


That is never going to happen.  +W has said this again and again.  
Now, there is a certain element among us who does not agree,
and will fight to their dying day against this proposition.


Therefore, when you say,

Quote

I posted a thread a few weeks ago about Catholic Action to strengthen and build the Resistance--no takers.  But I got a few rotten tomatoes.

I guess the Resistance means "resistance to taking action to achieve a goal."

It seems to me that there is a problem in "the goal" - if the goal
that an activist like Zeitun comes up with is directed at restoring
the Church of the 1950's, it's not going to get any significant
support, because the goal is impossible to reach.  How can you
expect others to get on board with a project that has as its
objective something that cannot ever happen?  



I have one small example. Maybe it's not very good, but I'll give it
a shot:

You probably don't eat meat on Friday, correct?  I don't either,
and I'd suspect that nearly all the members of CI are of the same
practice.  The reason is, this is something the SSPX teaches, and
it is what the Church of the 1950's taught;  and, it is what all
traditional Catholic priests still teach today, even while the
conciliar NovusOrdo Newchurch has practically dropped the ball
on this penitential practice rooted in Apostolic times.  

Now, according to Fr. Themann's "prudential truths" principle, the
practice of Friday abstinence would be up for grabs.  He might not
be willing to say that, but it is a reasonable conclusion of the
principle he proposes with his "prudential truth" nonsense.

I took some literature from a pro-life activist group in 1998, that
asked for Catholics to petition their local bishop (that means
diocese bishop) to restore Friday abstinence in order to make
reparation for the national sin of legalized abortion, and I tried to
distribute it at Our Lady of Lourdes parish in Northridge, CA,
among other parishes in the area.  There were very few people
who were willing to consider it.  Most would not accept the
sheet, and some were actually belligerent. One woman who was
in her 60's at the time (which means she would have been in her
30's during Vatican II) scowled at me and asked, "What are you
trying to do?  TURN BACK THE CLOCK?!"


There is a Great Wall of pride now that separates us from the
mindset of the Faithful in the 1950's.  It is the same manner of
thinking that separated the protestants in the 16th century.
Now, I'm not saying that restoring Friday abstinence would be
impossible, for perhaps it could be done if the pope would make
it publicly known by his strong action, but there would be a lot
of opposition, of that you can be sure.  The reason there would
be opposition is, that we cannot suddenly make the conciliar
age disappear.  There is no magic wand that can 'disappear' the
fact that Vat.II happened.  

Now, perhaps with God's grace, something of an abandonment
of the conciliar errors can be propagated.  But even then, there
will be a residual effect from the post-conciliar age that remains
in our collective memory, and that is something that will not be
taken away as if by magic.  

People like Machabees might like to think it can be taken away,
but that won't make it happen.  

Authority has been crippled, and the scars will always remain.
Even if some manner of miraculous cure is given to us, the fact
that authority had been crippled for a time in this postconciliar
age is something that will never be wiped clean from the history
of the world and of the Church.

And the Church of the 1950's that was yet innocent of this
great scandal of being in the wake of Vat.II and the unclean
spirit thereof, will never be restored.  And for us to work toward
that as "a goal" is a losing proposition from the start.

Neil,

You presented a good example on how to be a Protestant...

If God had created an order in His Church, and maintained that order for centuries, and it was sinful man that tries each time to defunct that order, is it God's fault?

Is it the fault of God's order?

Or, is it the fault of sinful man in not following God's order?

Quote from: resistanceman

60 years to the antichrist?

From where do you derive this figure?

Bishop Williamson thinks we're sixty years out.

That's right.  He spoke of this in the London conferences.  Didn't he say he thought the Age of Mary would begin in less than 5 years?

Until you people come to realize that it is the Bride of Christ that is suffering in this battle, with souls perishing in Hell for no one to help them, She is beckoning to her baptized children to come to Her aid.  Put away all of this "independent" thinking, with its injection of dissension and confusion; it only ends in chaos.

Haven't you figured it out yet?

If Bishop Williamson, as a Bishop of the Catholic Church, was acting like a True leader, and put away these charades of "Authority Crippled 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., etc", there would be no discussion on this topic; and this "crisis" of bickering will go away.  Unity would prevail and strength would solidify.

There is no stopping a Catholic Resistance when its time has come.  

While Bishop Williamson parties and celebrates his 25-Anniversary today, some of you people also kill it with your tepidity and mediocrity.  He needs encouragement to be a Bishop and lead the fight.  Only a Bishop can do it.

As Militia Jesu had pointed out:
“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope St. Pius V

“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.” Pope St. Pius X

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Letter-of-Appeal-to-the-unfaithful-to-Resistance

Because some of you wish to have a "cushy" Catholicism without the cross, you want to toss out the answers given in the Catechism and put it in the waste bin.  Long rein the crisis...then becomes your attitude.

This overall crisis is one of not knowing the Catechism; of not knowing the Faith; like the beginnings of Vatican II all over again.

We need valiant men and woman to stand-up in this fight; stop cowering behind your liberal idealism of not having a Bishop to lead; and only want a priest to lead.  That is NOT catholic and never will be.

That is like telling God that we do not want His order for Him to lead; you would rather have a human king. (First Book Of Kings 10:19).

Where is our battle cry...Viva Cristo Rey!

Then put away the "toys", put on the Helmet of Faith and fight until your blood spills for the Honor of God!

Viva Cristo Rey...!

I give up.  This last post spoke volumes and I’m convinced you don’t know what it is you want to have happen.  And rather than take time to articulate it, you take the low road because it’s easier, it fits with your demeanor.  You’re last post - it’s just a continuation of what I said would happen: links (check) and admonishments bordering on personal insults (check), written with the usual passive/aggressive ambiguity.  I had no idea I’d be so prescient on what I thought would occur and what actually did occur.  Maybe I should set up shop on IA as a self-appointed visionary…  
 
Yeah, I give up on this thread.  This isn’t the same as a concession or anything resembling a defeat.  Far from it.  No, it’s an acknowledgement that some people are completely self-absorbed and deliberately obtuse.  You strike me like one of these types that either went to a seminary and left, or who was an alpha student majoring in Theology or Philosophy in college.  A few kind words from the instructor written in the margins of a paper and then there’s this wild leap of self-instilled belief that “I-exceed-that-of-my-teacher” or in the case of this thread, “I-know-more-of-what-needs-to-be-done-than-Bishop-Williamson.”

But it was all there.  For those who actually have a life, I will share what I had to endure, albeit in a Readers Digest Condensed version.  Every single link that was sent was a link to his own opinion.  Never was an example given of what that ‘leading’ should look like or what it should encapsulate, never was an example given of an action to be taken other than the repetitious mantra(s) of “Bishop Williamson needs to do this…,” “…needs to lead…,” “…should be doing this…,” “…ought to be doing that…” .  And that was the foundation/premise of the question I posed.  I gave you credit where I shouldn’t have, thought you were able to distinguish between the literal and the figurative.  No, it was as if you projected yourself to know better than +Williamson of what it is that has to be done.  “…Needs to read his Catechism so he understands the role of a Bishop…”  was another gem of anti-wisdom that was dispensed.  
 
I have to wonder if you believe that Bishop Williamson is not aware of his duties.  Are you a secret Bishop also, thus privy to insider info regarding the position?  Hmm, perhaps +W has a different catechism than you do.  Maybe his has a typo and, like a compass or sextant that’s off by a few indiscernible degrees, that’s why +W’s direction is so wildly divergent from yours.  You ought to send him an email or a letter about it, reminding him that he’s off course and that you’d make a better navigator, or a better captain.  I’m sure you will share with everyone here the correspondence that you send that outlines everything that is being done wrong or not being done fast enough or not being done according to what your opinion dictates.  We wait with bated breath.

Then there’s this post, which is probably one of the most jaw-dropping things I’ve read coming from a Trad.

While Bishop Williamson parties and celebrates his 25-Anniversary today, some of you people also kill it with your tepidity and mediocrity.  He needs encouragement to be a Bishop and lead the fight.

“Parties and celebrates”?  Unbelievable.  Sounds like someone is upset they didn't get an invitation.  FYI, Bishop Williamson did not set up his own self-congratulatory fete.  If you watch his video from yesterday again – or for the first time – he acknowledges the ones who actually set it up.  And he gets encouragement – it comes from many many people, it comes from many many prayers.  Your words are merely code: your definition of encouragement means either direction or obedience.  He knows his job; you need to know your place.  If you feel like you’re not getting a return on your Catholic investment, maybe you need to go elsewhere. Riddle us this: What’s it like to talk out of both sides of your mouth?  Or is this a poor choice of words on your part?  If so, it puts everything you’ve ever said into question.
 

“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope St. Pius V

“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.” Pope St. Pius X

Yes, lukewarm and weakness, tepidity and mediocrity. That includes half-baked or elusive, ambiguous statements expounded as strengths, knowledge, or direction.

We need valiant men and woman to stand-up in this fight; stop cowering behind your liberal idealism of not having a Bishop to lead; and only want a priest to lead.  That is NOT catholic and never will be.

Hold on there, Tex.  Not having a Bishop to lead?  Hasn’t that been your continuous gripe?  Have you not been perpetually moaning about how +Williamson is not leading?  Or in your own words,

Can you explain this?

Perhaps I can.  In case you were blissfully ignorant, Bishop W can delegate leadership to priests.  They do it all the time; there's a long Catholic history of it and it's not at all a liberal idea.  In this case, the responsibility of the Resistance has been given to Father Pfeiffer.  Ever hear of him?  To rebel against Fr Pfeiffer is to rebel against +Williamson.
 
Sure, we need valiant men and women; they’re called ‘doers.’  There are a lot of them out there.  Unfortunately, they have to wait for the talkers to implement a realistic and cohesive idea, a plan, and the doers set out to see it to fruition.  If a talker just rambles or submits vague, half-baked, or inarticulate “ideas for action” (that does not actually layout or explain any kind of action) or mere opinion, then the doers are of course going to dismiss it.  Most people probably know which camp you've pitched your tent.
 

Where is our battle cry...Viva Cristo Rey!

This sums it all up.  Everything is clear.  We get it now.  You want to be Bishop Williamson’s Pablo.

Are you as WILLFULLY STUPID, as you are WILLFULLY BLIND, as you are WILLFULLY INSINCERE, as you are WILLFULLY LAZY, resulting in that you are WILLFULLY PATHETIC?  Or are these attributes of your Novus Weirdo-ness?

How many times do I have to answer your question?  Are your eyes of sight a hindrance to you?

Let me make your answer BIGGER for you; though I doubt that will even help.
 
In those past threads I have proved to you that I have answered your questions to your SAME bantering.  You choose to be willfully ignorant.  Again, on Page 6 on this thread I have answered your questions to your SAME bantering.  You choose to be willfully ignorant.  And again anew on page 26 on this thread, addressed to you in our name, I have answered your questions to your SAME bantering.  You still choose to be willfully ignorant.  Do you have any comprehension?

I notice that you like to “quote” things.  You missed one that had your name on it (page 26 of this thread):

Novus Weirdo,

(…)
...
Far cry from not "articulating" it.

You prove to us you are a person who wishes to walk around in life KICKING and SCRATCHING everything you trip over and then DENY you tripped over it –it is not there- it never happened; it does not exist.  Show me proof.  Show me where it is.  Show me…show me…  I am not satisfied until YOU SHOW ME…..whaaaa.

Please grow up and mature!

Your posts are a testament to you being truly a –werido.  Along with being digressive and not worth reading, as is, your ill-attitude on Cathinfo is a detriment to the Resistance.  And frankly, and a waste of time.

Novus weirdo, look at the Crucifix, and please find a life worth being motivated, rather than to banter all day long.

I am happy to say I am done with you; though sad, because you need help.  Please find it...before you lose [total] perspective in life.

God bless.

I am more and more convinced you are of bad will. If not, I can see that you are at least arrogant and prideful and are not fit to be trusted or even 'listened' to.  I assume others see the same. Thank you for this post.