Fuzzy grammar and less-than-stellar reasoning notwithstanding, it is helpful
that this 'resource' touches on some facts of recent history, i.e., things you
won't hear at your local SSPX Mass center - during a sermon or even in the
vestibule for that matter! (But perhaps in the parking lot!) – For example,
regarding the so-called unity touted by +Fellay, loudly, as he stood on the
Grave of the Founder where it is carved in stone, "TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI"
– "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received" (I Cor. xv. 3),
what kind of 'unity' is it, in fact? Is it not merely an
appearance of unity?
But to a Modernist, appearances are everything, for 'reality is in the mind,' and
therefore, following blindly where the false principle leads us like Fr. Laisney
follows his superior-of-the-moment blindly (which see), we are led to believe
that there is 'unity,' even if it only
seems to be 'unity' because the leader-
of-the-moment says so......................
From 'page 10':
26. We should consider what the devil's strategy might be in the year 2012. It seems to me that the powers of darkness would be seeking to cause dissension and disunity and would be seeking to introduce error into the Society or the Society into error. It seems to me that if we acknowledge that the Conciliar Church is modern and liberal and infected with error then we would have to acknowledge that the enemy's purpose would appear to be furthered if the Society can be made part of that Conciliar Church.
27. The idea that the Conciliar Church or Rome would or could take and keep the society "as we are" is a dream or a fairy tale (tragic fairy tale). If Rome does not convert to tradition then Rome continues its liberal modernist religion and traditional Catholicism is unacceptable to that Rome. I note that the possibility that a traditional Catholic may criticise Rome does not mean that traditional Catholicism is acceptable to Rome. It only means that criticism may be acceptable to Rome, noting that Martin Luther is "acceptable" and noting that other religions or even atheism is "acceptable" to Rome -8. If the Society cannot convert Rome when it is outside and not subject to Rome's bishops how possibly can the Society convert Rome after an "agreement" is signed and the Society is subject to modern Rome? The only "side" that should want an agreement is the side of the Conciliar Church, the side of liberalism. Rome's only purpose (and it has admitted it) in entering into any agreement is to convert the Society to the ways of the Conciliar Church.
28. In the book "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican" Father Laisney adds the following commentary after a copy of the Archbishop's declaration in 1974 (refer page 11):
…When the Pope returns to the spirit of St. Paul, there will be no need of a "Protocol" nor even the lifting of any penalty. He will see that all these were but a persecution waged by the worshippers of "man making himself God," against the adorers of "God Who made Himself man."…
__________________________________________
8 In September 23, 2011, Pope Benedict praised Martin Luther and in October 2011, the Pope participated in a gathering at Assisi where not only were all sorts of religions gathered together, but also atheists who were able to express, not their faith of course, but their point of view regarding the faith.
The author states that his purpose is not to draw conclusions or to judge the
intentions of those whom he quotes. However, it appears inescapable that this
quote of Fr. Laisney compared to his more recent writings shows Fr. Laisney up
for the image he makes of himself: eager to scamper up to the service of
whomever it currently happens to be who is leading him - IOW a most extreme
exponent of false obedience.
To carry this lesson one step further, how would one then expect Fr. Laisney
(or for that matter, any of the other liberal clerics like him in the SSPX!) to act
once a 'deal' is agreed upon and he (or they!) become subject to the local
Ordinary, who will NO DOUBT issue most startling demands upon him (or them!)
such that their 'obedience' requires that they mirror any of the other Novordien
wackos currently afoot? He (they!) are most eager to perform unthinking and
even ideologically inconsistent acts under false obedience, so why would they
not do any of the things that you see going on at your local Novordien
parishes? – Things like liturgical dancers, Baptism by immersion, First-
Holy-Communion-in-the-hand, standing during the Consecration,
'concelebration,' or, perhaps even turning around at the moment before he starts
Mass and asking the congregation to pray for the Acolyte present to serve him,
because it's his anniversary today (as he physically pats with his right hand the
visibly uneasy Acolyte on his right shoulder as a gesture of his 'pastoral care' like
any good Freemason! would do!)?
Why not? What would be holding him (them!) back? After all, there has been
a 'regularization,' and we must be 'obedient.'
Coming soon, to a theater near you!
Topic: Awesome resource - someone has done it! (Read 17350 times)