Author Topic: Caminus has been banned again (Read 2767 times)

Matthew · « **on:** August 20, 2014, 09:08:08 AM »

Read my official policy on Accordistas on CathInfo to see why:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/What-Anti-Resistance-positions-are-allowed-on-CathInfo

He clearly fits into the second category -- those with an emotional axe to grind, who impute evil motives to 100% of Resistance supporters. Also known as "the willfully blind" or Fellay Fanboys.

We don't need their type here. Not even for a "contrary viewpoint" or "to keep it interesting".

If that's what it takes for interesting discussion, I'd rather be bored!

Again, I encourage you to click through the link above -- you'll see just how laid back I am in allowing dissenters and those who disagree with me on my forum.

ggreg · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2014, 09:21:13 AM »

Matthew, you said on a locked thread.

"However, denying that 2+2=4, or that Bishop Fellay is pursuing an agreement with Rome -- that's not opinion. That's lunacy."

I've not been following it THAT closely, but where is the hard evidence that Bishop Fellay is TODAY "pursuing an agreement" with Rome?

As I understand it, his last statement on the matter was that the deal collapsed.

Is Bishop Fellay today, actively pursuing, soliciting, negotiating any kind of agreement with Rome? If he is I don't know about it and I would be most curious to read about anything that was not conjecture or suspicion or conspiracy theory.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2014, 09:26:53 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Matthew, you said on a locked thread.

"However, denying that 2+2=4, or that Bishop Fellay is pursuing an agreement with Rome -- that's not opinion. That's lunacy."

I've not been following it THAT closely, but where is the hard evidence that Bishop Fellay is TODAY "pursuing an agreement" with Rome?

As I understand it, his last statement on the matter was that the deal collapsed.

Is Bishop Fellay today, actively pursuing, soliciting, negotiating any kind of agreement with Rome? If he is I don't know about it and I would be most curious to read about anything that was not conjecture or suspicion or conspiracy theory.

If you want the "today" update, it's that "Bishop Fellay actively negotiating a deal with Rome" isn't required anymore. In the beginning it was. But once it was established that yes, +Fellay has an intense, illogical desire to make a practical agreement, then smaller ancillary evidence is sufficient to "maintain" the justification for the Resistance.

Today, the main issue is the ongoing transformation of the SSPX into something more edible by Rome.

It sounds like I'm moving the goalposts, but hear me out -- Originally, we DID need some concrete evidence along these lines. And we got it! It was all over the news in 2012 that +Fellay DID initiate this and that he wanted this deal. So now, as long as we have any ongoing evidence that points in the direction of a more Rome-friendly SSPX, etc. that is sufficient evidence that "a deal is still desired".

We obviously can't just take his word for it!

A Rome deal wasn't built in a day.

P.S. While +Fellay wanting a practical/compromise deal with Rome is certainly a CENTRAL issue here, it is only ONE of the many reasons the Resistance was almost forced to be started and maintained. The illegal and unjust ouster of +Williamson and several other good priests, the use of slander, bullying and propaganda by the new SSPX, etc. are all very good reasons to resist.

ggreg · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2014, 09:58:11 AM »

That sounds to me like an opinion.

It's certainly possible he is pursuing a deal but there is no hard evidence that he is at this time, or since the collapse of talks. No official statements, no leaked pre-ambles, no new Resistance joining priests speaking of new draft agendas or midnight cold calls.

I therefore don't see that it is "lunacy" to hold the opinion that the SSPX-ROME deal is dead and not being pursued in any meaningful way. On the face of it, that would seem to me to be a sober opinion.

A "practical agreement" could mean anything and not encompass any kind of "deal". It could simply be to maintain the status quo, swap Christmas cards, allow SSPX pilgrimages to Fatima and other Catholic shrines. It could be that the Church agrees to recognise the validity of SSPX marriages for practical reasons (i.e. avoid scandalous situations of people playing the SSPX marriage card to get an annulment).

"transformation of the SSPX into something more edible by Rome."

I don't see Rome laying the table or putting a bib on. Do you?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2014, 05:56:55 AM »

.

This one's a keeper, Matthew:

A ROME DEAL WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY.

Quote from: ggreg

That sounds to me like an opinion.

It's certainly possible he is pursuing a deal but there is no hard evidence that he is at this time, or since the collapse of talks. No official statements, no leaked pre-ambles, no new Resistance joining priests speaking of new draft agendas or midnight cold calls.

I therefore don't see that it is "lunacy" to hold the opinion that the SSPX-ROME deal is dead and not being pursued in any meaningful way. On the face of it, that would seem to me to be a sober opinion.

A "practical agreement" could mean anything and not encompass any kind of "deal". It could simply be to maintain the status quo, swap Christmas cards, allow SSPX pilgrimages to Fatima and other Catholic shrines. It could be that the Church agrees to recognise the validity of SSPX marriages for practical reasons (i.e. avoid scandalous situations of people playing the SSPX marriage card to get an annulment).

"transformation of the SSPX into something more edible by Rome."

I don't see Rome laying the table or putting a bib on. Do you?

I think it's great that Matthew doesn't delete old posts from say two or three years back, because posts like this one, above, will be great to read once the news erupts that the SSPX will be hosting a NovusOrdo Newmass or concelebration, or the Confirmations this year will be using the New-rite, or a lecture series on the CCC and/or "Centering Prayer" will be hosted in the Widow's Mite Hall downstairs, or whatever.

But sadly, I'm a bit unhappy to imagine what we'll be able to say about it, then.

We'll have to resort to things like this:

Hey, ggreg!
So, do you still think that it's just "like an opinion?"

Hey, ggreg!
Do you still think there's "no hard evidence" of +F pursuing a deal?

Hey, ggreg!
Are you still waiting for "official statements, leaked pre-ambles and new draft agendas or midnight cold calls?"

It might look like gloating now for me to bring this up, but just imagine how gloating it will look when it actually HAPPENS............. :scratchchin:

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2014, 06:10:53 AM »

.

About 1500 years ago, someone wrote about the worst heresy of that age in this way:

"The world groaned and woke up to find it was Arian."

There was not much "hard evidence" of any "negotiations" at that time, either.

What happened at Vat.II? Bishop +W says that the bishops went in to St. Peter's Basilica with cassocks and straight lines, and then they came out with their skirts hiked up and wiggling their tushes and kicking up their heels.

All that matters is the outcome. Would you like to keep waiting for the outcome?

You remember, I hope, the General Chapter of 2012, when the capitulants went into voting for stuff. We were not privy to the 'negotiations' then, either. Did that mean there wasn't any? Those guys went in with one Society and they came out with another Society. Ask Fr. Hewko. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, "Behold I have told it to you, beforehand" (Mt. xxiv. 25).

.

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2014, 07:20:57 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

That sounds to me like an opinion.

It's certainly possible he is pursuing a deal but there is no hard evidence that he is at this time, or since the collapse of talks. No official statements, no leaked pre-ambles, no new Resistance joining priests speaking of new draft agendas or midnight cold calls.

I therefore don't see that it is "lunacy" to hold the opinion that the SSPX-ROME deal is dead and not being pursued in any meaningful way. On the face of it, that would seem to me to be a sober opinion.

A "practical agreement" could mean anything and not encompass any kind of "deal". It could simply be to maintain the status quo, swap Christmas cards, allow SSPX pilgrimages to Fatima and other Catholic shrines. It could be that the Church agrees to recognise the validity of SSPX marriages for practical reasons (i.e. avoid scandalous situations of people playing the SSPX marriage card to get an annulment).

"transformation of the SSPX into something more edible by Rome."

I don't see Rome laying the table or putting a bib on. Do you?

ggreg, Matthew's post said it perfectly, I only will add that if you seek proof, you will have to look right in front of you next time you hear a sermon from an SSPX priest.

For me, for probably the last three years, with perhaps one, maybe two exceptions, every sermon has been on love and charity. Only one mention of the heretical NO which lasted all of one sentence - but beyond that, unlike years prior, every sermon, neutral as they've been, would have met with NO approval - and we've had sermons from maybe 15 different visiting priests in that time.

I don't know but I assume it's the same thing at every or nearly every SSPX chapel. At any rate, one of the reasons SSPX always gave for remaining "irregular" was because this way, they could condemn and speak the truth about the NO from the pulpit - when was the last time anyone heard a SSPX sermon preaching against the NO? For me, it was about 3 or 4 years ago.

ggreg · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2014, 07:41:14 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

This one's a keeper, Matthew:

A ROME DEAL WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY.

Quote from: ggreg
That sounds to me like an opinion.

It's certainly possible he is pursuing a deal but there is no hard evidence that he is at this time, or since the collapse of talks. No official statements, no leaked pre-ambles, no new Resistance joining priests speaking of new draft agendas or midnight cold calls.

I therefore don't see that it is "lunacy" to hold the opinion that the SSPX-ROME deal is dead and not being pursued in any meaningful way. On the face of it, that would seem to me to be a sober opinion.

A "practical agreement" could mean anything and not encompass any kind of "deal". It could simply be to maintain the status quo, swap Christmas cards, allow SSPX pilgrimages to Fatima and other Catholic shrines. It could be that the Church agrees to recognise the validity of SSPX marriages for practical reasons (i.e. avoid scandalous situations of people playing the SSPX marriage card to get an annulment).

"transformation of the SSPX into something more edible by Rome."

I don't see Rome laying the table or putting a bib on. Do you?

I think it's great that Matthew doesn't delete old posts from say two or three years back, because posts like this one, above, will be great to read once the news erupts that the SSPX will be hosting a NovusOrdo Newmass or concelebration, or the Confirmations this year will be using the New-rite, or a lecture series on the CCC and/or "Centering Prayer" will be hosted in the Widow's Mite Hall downstairs, or whatever.

But sadly, I'm a bit unhappy to imagine what we'll be able to say about it, then.

We'll have to resort to things like this:

Hey, ggreg!
So, do you still think that it's just "like an opinion?"

Hey, ggreg!
Do you still think there's "no hard evidence" of +F pursuing a deal?

Hey, ggreg!
Are you still waiting for "official statements, leaked pre-ambles and new draft agendas or midnight cold calls?"

It might look like gloating now for me to bring this up, but just imagine how gloating it will look when it actually HAPPENS............. :scratchchin:

.

OK I'll take that bet, if you care to put your money where your mouth is.

If in 2.5 years any kind of deal or accord has been signed where the SSPX as HQ'd in Menzingen has been officially co-opted into the Roman hierarchy I will donate $1000 or 1oz of gold, (whichever is more valuable) to this website or whatever you tell me constitutes the treasury of "the resistance".

If no deal has been signed by Feb 21st 2017 then you pay me $1000 or 1oz of gold (whichever is more valuable). Failure of either party to honour their agreement will result in a permaban.

If you don't have $1000 to wager then get together with a couple dozen of your resitance pals and share the load.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2014, 01:48:53 PM »

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

This one's a keeper, Matthew:

A ROME DEAL WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY.

Quote from: ggreg
That sounds to me like an opinion.

It's certainly possible he is pursuing a deal but there is no hard evidence that he is at this time, or since the collapse of talks. No official statements, no leaked pre-ambles, no new Resistance joining priests speaking of new draft agendas or midnight cold calls.

I therefore don't see that it is "lunacy" to hold the opinion that the SSPX-ROME deal is dead and not being pursued in any meaningful way. On the face of it, that would seem to me to be a sober opinion.

A "practical agreement" could mean anything and not encompass any kind of "deal". It could simply be to maintain the status quo, swap Christmas cards, allow SSPX pilgrimages to Fatima and other Catholic shrines. It could be that the Church agrees to recognise the validity of SSPX marriages for practical reasons (i.e. avoid scandalous situations of people playing the SSPX marriage card to get an annulment).

"transformation of the SSPX into something more edible by Rome."

I don't see Rome laying the table or putting a bib on. Do you?

I think it's great that Matthew doesn't delete old posts from say two or three years back, because posts like this one, above, will be great to read once the news erupts that the SSPX will be hosting a NovusOrdo Newmass or concelebration, or the Confirmations this year will be using the New-rite, or a lecture series on the CCC and/or "Centering Prayer" will be hosted in the Widow's Mite Hall downstairs, or whatever.

But sadly, I'm a bit unhappy to imagine what we'll be able to say about it, then.

We'll have to resort to things like this:

Hey, ggreg!
So, do you still think that it's just "like an opinion?"

Hey, ggreg!
Do you still think there's "no hard evidence" of +F pursuing a deal?

Hey, ggreg!
Are you still waiting for "official statements, leaked pre-ambles and new draft agendas or midnight cold calls?"

It might look like gloating now for me to bring this up, but just imagine how gloating it will look when it actually HAPPENS............. :scratchchin:

.

OK I'll take that bet, if you care to put your money where your mouth is.

If in 2.5 years any kind of deal or accord has been signed where the SSPX as HQ'd in Menzingen has been officially co-opted into the Roman hierarchy I will donate $1000 or 1oz of gold, (whichever is more valuable) to this website or whatever you tell me constitutes the treasury of "the resistance".

If no deal has been signed by Feb 21st 2017 then you pay me $1000 or 1oz of gold (whichever is more valuable). Failure of either party to honour their agreement will result in a permaban.

If you don't have $1000 to wager then get together with a couple dozen of your resitance pals and share the load.

Spoken like a true gambler. For you, money talks (& B.S.W.), correct? Any discussion that is not reducible to dollar signs is of no "real" value, correct? How much was the life of Christ worth? 30 pieces of silver? Are you an admirer of Judas, then, because that's what he thought.

I've met a few Protestant 'preachers' who firmly believe that the only 'good' sermon is one that rakes in lots of 'quiet' money, 5's 10's and up, so to speak. I heard of one trad priest saying "no more coins" in the collection basket, unless they're solid gold or perhaps sterling silver. Seriously.

Here is a recent (7-24-2014, Madra, India) sermon by Fr. Pfeiffer where, at minute 18 he quotes Bishop Fellay (without any verifiable reference, unfortunately, but perhaps someone else here can fill in the gap) saying, regarding the book of the sermons (?) of ABL, that his book is expelled from the Society of St. Pius X: "His book no longer has any place in our Society."

Now maybe to you, that kind of evidence isn't "hard" enough -- you can be the judge. While I can't provide the reference data, it seems reasonably well-established that +Fellay owns the copyright on the collection of Sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre, and that +F has forbidden its publication, because he doesn't want us to remember what ABL had to say. It's too INCONVENIENT. Does that qualify for "hard evidence?"

Don't get me wrong, ggreg, because I appreciate your skepticism, for it puts the bee on us to be more diligent. Someone needs to compile a list or two, that collects these data points, with footnotes. The DICI and sspx.org websites are being scrubbed such that these data points are being removed, and "thrown down the memory hole" like in 1984, a dystopian novel by George Orwell published in 1949.

It's simply not convincing to you for me to punch out these alpha-numeric character pixels on an LCD screen for all the virtual world to see. I get that.

Batter up.

.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2014, 10:14:31 PM »

ggreg:"I've not been following it THAT closely, but where is the hard evidence that Bishop Fellay is TODAY "pursuing an agreement" with Rome?

As I understand it, his last statement on the matter was that the deal collapsed.

Is Bishop Fellay today, actively pursuing, soliciting, negotiating any kind of agreement with Rome? If he is I don't know about it and I would be most curious to read about anything that was not conjecture or suspicion or conspiracy theory."

+F schmoozing with Pope Francis and his underlings well after stating that the deal was supposedly caput:

Lunching with the Enemy

If you believe +F just happened to 'accidentally' bump into His Holiness while giving in to a sudden craving for Italian food, then you probably also believe that he hasn't been in negotiations (maybe by proxy) since then. Just because it hasn't leaked (yet) doesn't mean it isn't happening. We found that out the hard way last go-around...

True Faith · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2014, 08:36:21 AM »

The hard evidence is that +Fellay wrote the April 15th Declaration, sent it off to Rome and had it published in the Cor Unam. Since then, whether or not Rome agreed to it or ever will, that docuмent has not been retracted publically. Therefore, it is the official position of the SSPX. How about the letter from the 3 Bishops to +Fellay? More proof.

From his heart, +Fellay wants recognition from Rome, and by his hand and mouth he has proven it. The worst "sin" is that he is not simply espousing Rome, he is adulterating with Her. (see Matthew 5:28)

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2014, 09:33:37 AM »

Ggreg, it's not sinking in.

You're saying that we should call off the emergency and go home -- which only sounds good for about 5 seconds. Once you think any deeper than that, it sounds like a ludicrous idea.

What are +Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko and the other Resistance priests supposed to do? Give up the priesthood? Many of them were DISMISSED from the SSPX, they didn't all quit. And even for the ones that did quit (really, they were forced out), the SSPX isn't exactly going to welcome them back with open arms.

What about the men at the Boston, KY seminary who have given up their worldly lives and are in the midst of discerning a vocation? I don't think the seminary formation in Winona has done a U-turn lately.

Yes, Ggreg, there is tons of hard evidence that +Fellay was pursuing a deal with Rome in 2012. If you don't know that, you haven't been following news in the Catholic world very closely of late. (Didn't you admit as much at the beginning of this thread?)

The only thing you could say is, "Stop living in 2012". But that's not reasonable. We're still in the same era, as long as +Fellay doesn't make a clean break from the era he started. And talk about lack of evidence! I haven't seen any evidence of a change back to the classic SSPX position. If you're sitting on some, you should share it with the rest of us. All I've seen is a few "words" from +Fellay which are more than contradicted by countless deeds during the same time period.

As I said earlier, if he was pursuing a deal AT ANY POINT in the last 2-3 years, we have every right to assume he is still on the same track, since he hasn't publicly repented, resigned, removed any pro-Rome-fantatics from positions of power in the organization, etc.

What are you, some kind of phenomenologist? Have you been influenced by various modern philosophers? You see a train at point A on the tracks, so you can vouch that it's there. It's moving, and 5 minutes passes. Can we assume it's somewhere near point B on the tracks?

Ggreg would seem to answer, "No, you haven't SEEN it yet, so you never know. It could have derailed or been beamed up by aliens for all you know. You can only be certain about what you've seen with your eyes -- seeing makes reality. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it, it doesn't actually fall!"

That bag of coffee John dug into at breakfast today and the day before was good coffee, but today it might be tea or hot chocolate unless he verifies it with his senses?

You laugh, but some people in this modern world believe precisely that.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2014, 11:05:48 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

.

As I said earlier, if he was pursuing a deal AT ANY POINT in the last 2-3 years, we have every right to assume he is still on the same track, since he hasn't publicly repented, resigned, removed any pro-Rome-fantatics from positions of power in the organization, etc.

well said

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2014, 11:23:26 AM »

They tell you who they are. Hiding in plain sight. Do you really think all this aggiornamento has gone away? Sheesh, what does it take?

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2014, 11:42:36 AM »

The bottom picture does not have +Fellay in it.