Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose  (Read 12946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Telesphorus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12713
  • Reputation: +22/-13
  • Gender: Male
David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2012, 11:43:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's important to understand.

    This isn't a complicated question.

    It doesn't take a PhD in philosophy to understand what's going on.

    You only have to understand that once the SSPX said Vatican II is conceived in modernism, and then one day the Superior General said it was part of the great tradition of the church.

    People who say "The Archbishop is dead, Bishop Fellay is in charge" are brain dead or consciously doing evil.


    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +1983/-96
    • Gender: Female
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #31 on: August 26, 2012, 11:46:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't know John, I just read this thread and one minute you are saying chill out, there's zero chance of a deal, if not less; then the next minute you're saying Nikolas is just one of those who likes things the way they were and is disturbed to have the way things were be threatened. He can't play the high stakes game etc... all of which implies the possibility of a deal and those not in favor are just inflexible old fogies. So which is it? Deal or no deal?  


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #32 on: August 26, 2012, 11:46:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: John McFarland
    Do you think that the disobedience of Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal to their superiors is part of what makes them "good." Is it that they're too good to have to obey orders?


    Bishop Fellay has been disobeying his Superior, Benedict XVI, for years, you know. The fact is that when a Superior commands us to do something that would compromise our Faith, we are not required to obey that command. That's why Archbishop LeFebvre didn't obey JPII when he told him not to Consecrate the four bishops, and that's why priests such as Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal have not obeyed Bishop Fellay when he told them to align themselves with modernist Rome.
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +22/-13
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #33 on: August 26, 2012, 11:49:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let's look at some of the points being made by this JD and PhD in philosophy.

    Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre:

    dismissed with the statement that the man is dead and the quotes are "cherry picked"

    That's vacuous hand-waving.

    Yeah, the pre-Vatican II Popes and Saints are dead too.  I suppose that means when we quote them and show how the modernist contradict it's "cherry picking" too.

    Then the claim that "The SSPX wasn't being asked to obey"

    This is another ludicrous statement.  The SSPX bishops were placed under excommunication.  To have it lifted they would have to obey.

    And it's apparent, Bishop Fellay is obeying them.

    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +1983/-96
    • Gender: Female
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #34 on: August 26, 2012, 11:59:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Then the claim that "The SSPX wasn't being asked to obey"

    This is another ludicrous statement.  


    Yes, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around him trying to pass that one off. I feel like I must be misunderstanding or misreading or something. It's not possible that anyone would try and pretend the Vatican just ignored the SSPX and let them go along their merry way until now.


    Offline Nickolas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 238
    • Reputation: +443/-0
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #35 on: August 27, 2012, 12:33:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • John McFarland, I don't even know where to begin.  

    My chief "weapon" as you put it is not a dead man.  I don't have a "weapon" except the sword of my faith which no man is at liberty to change.  Faith is timeless, has no life span, is not open to debate or the whims of a majority of whomever to change it.  Let powers that be vote and change this or that, they cannot change the faith.  It will persist long after you and I are dead.  Oh yes, mortals will try to "modernize" the Church in their belief in the flesh they are doing the "right thing", but we see that historically since Vat II, they have been dead,dead wrong, tragically so.  

    I'm 63 and have been a Catholic 4 years.  I came out of the protestant world that exhibits much of what the new mass attempts to imitate.  It is ugly in its liberties, encrusted with pride, glorifies man and his own mind set, and cheapens God to a buddy or daddy role who could send no man to hell.  Simply, it is a design crafted by the devil himself to kill, destroy and send our souls to hell.  I am not going back and will work with my might to prevent others from going there.  

    I attended a novus ordo vigil a while back in support of a family member and was astonished how similar it was to the protestant world I left, complete with dancing barefoot maidens in cocktail dresses, women in tank tops, men in shorts and flip flops, and most distressing of all, neutered priests in a happy clappy demeanor who surrendered the vigil to feminists and limp wristed men.  This is different church, John.  There can be no union with such a heretical assembly until the hearts and minds of Rome change.  That has not happened yet.  No sign it it.  None. It may not happen for another 100 years horribly enough. We do not know. Bishop Fellay does not know. No one does, but Our Lady.

    You are wrong that "virtually the entire Society" is convinced Bishop Fellay's horrifying reversal of position is the way to go.  Many that I know are waiting, praying, and praying some more.  They can do little else.  Many have wondered what has come about to cause this to happen.  I can only presume he and his assistants have been loved- bombed by Rome, but that is just my guess.   Whatever the cause, many, many people will not go along if a practical deal is struck. Those that do follow along will find, as the other Latin Mass groups have found out, the noose tightens little by little as the months and years go by until death of faith draws its last breath.  The Pope's most recent high appointments Archbishop Muller and Bishop Denoia stated it is their intention to convert the Society to adherence to Vat II.  So much for Bishop Fellay's stated belief that Rome wants us to draw them back to Tradition.  

    This is not a "game".  It is the Church and it's survival, man!  Those who are placed in positions of leadership are not "players".  They are or should be holy men, full of wisdom, meek, with great humility and most of all, faith of our fathers.  All the virtues we are taught to emulate.  All must be guided by the Holy Ghost, with reverence, charity, and devotion to our Lady and Lord Jesus Christ.  I will emulate and obey those who show such virtues.  None of us can do anything less.  

    Offline Clelia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 231
    • Reputation: +167/-0
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #36 on: August 27, 2012, 07:13:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nickolas
    John McFarland, I don't even know where to begin.  

    My chief "weapon" as you put it is not a dead man.  I don't have a "weapon" except the sword of my faith which no man is at liberty to change.  Faith is timeless, has no life span, is not open to debate or the whims of a majority of whomever to change it.  Let powers that be vote and change this or that, they cannot change the faith.  It will persist long after you and I are dead.  Oh yes, mortals will try to "modernize" the Church in their belief in the flesh they are doing the "right thing", but we see that historically since Vat II, they have been dead,dead wrong, tragically so.  

    I'm 63 and have been a Catholic 4 years.  I came out of the protestant world that exhibits much of what the new mass attempts to imitate.  It is ugly in its liberties, encrusted with pride, glorifies man and his own mind set, and cheapens God to a buddy or daddy role who could send no man to hell.  Simply, it is a design crafted by the devil himself to kill, destroy and send our souls to hell.  I am not going back and will work with my might to prevent others from going there.  

    I attended a novus ordo vigil a while back in support of a family member and was astonished how similar it was to the protestant world I left, complete with dancing barefoot maidens in cocktail dresses, women in tank tops, men in shorts and flip flops, and most distressing of all, neutered priests in a happy clappy demeanor who surrendered the vigil to feminists and limp wristed men.  This is different church, John.  There can be no union with such a heretical assembly until the hearts and minds of Rome change.  That has not happened yet.  No sign it it.  None. It may not happen for another 100 years horribly enough. We do not know. Bishop Fellay does not know. No one does, but Our Lady.

    You are wrong that "virtually the entire Society" is convinced Bishop Fellay's horrifying reversal of position is the way to go.  Many that I know are waiting, praying, and praying some more.  They can do little else.  Many have wondered what has come about to cause this to happen.  I can only presume he and his assistants have been loved- bombed by Rome, but that is just my guess.   Whatever the cause, many, many people will not go along if a practical deal is struck. Those that do follow along will find, as the other Latin Mass groups have found out, the noose tightens little by little as the months and years go by until death of faith draws its last breath.  The Pope's most recent high appointments Archbishop Muller and Bishop Denoia stated it is their intention to convert the Society to adherence to Vat II.  So much for Bishop Fellay's stated belief that Rome wants us to draw them back to Tradition.  

    This is not a "game".  It is the Church and it's survival, man!  Those who are placed in positions of leadership are not "players".  They are or should be holy men, full of wisdom, meek, with great humility and most of all, faith of our fathers.  All the virtues we are taught to emulate.  All must be guided by the Holy Ghost, with reverence, charity, and devotion to our Lady and Lord Jesus Christ.  I will emulate and obey those who show such virtues.  None of us can do anything less.  


    Impressive.  :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
    Leaving the Boyz Club of little popes. SWAK.

    Offline Mathieu

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 128
    • Reputation: +156/-0
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #37 on: August 27, 2012, 08:15:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • McFarland:
    Quote
    But also teaches, as the Church has always taught, that since the Pope is the pope, he must be obeyed unless he commands evil or that which clearly conduces to evil. So when he requires obedience, one must make a prudential examination and decision regarding whether to obey or not.


    To accuse Frs. Hewko, Pfeiffer and Chazal of disobedience is to accuse them of taking a page out of Bishop Fellay's own book.  

    Please read the following news from 2011:

    SSPX ordinations are illicit: Vatican spokesman
    CWN - July 05, 2011

    The ordinations of new priests within the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are “illegitimate,” the Vatican’s top spokesman has told reporters.

    Answering reporters’ questions about the traditionalist group, Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, pointed out that although Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication of the bishops who head the SSPX, those bishops remain suspended from ministry.

    Father Lombardi cited the Pope’s letter to the world’s bishops, issued on March 10, 2009. The Pope said in that letter that the SSPX “has no canonical status” and consequently its leaders “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”



    Are you telling me that Bishop Fellay was a most obedient son?  Do you realize that, according to the beloved Rome, your own son was illicitly (illegally) ordained?  Are you decrying your son's own disobedience as well as that of his disobedient Superior General in defying the order from beloved Rome?  

    Are you telling me that in the above "un-Catholic" attitude of having the necessity to continually make "prudential decisions" whether or not to obey (I would love to see that quoted from a Catholic catechism or theology manual), it is a great evil (and necessary prudentially to disobey) to tell a group that they cannot have ordinations?

    If you do, in some twisted logic (illogic) think it an evil, did not the obedient son, Bishop Fellay say that to the Traditional Franciscans and Dominicans in Europe this year?  No ordinations ???

    I am tired of hypocrasy.

    And as far as Fr. Ringrose is concerned, he has been saying these very things for YEARS.  Perhaps you had somehow missed Mass every single time he preached about it?  Did you also miss his sermons recently BEFORE the declaration was made public?  I dont' remember you crying "foul! foul!" then.

    If anyone's viewpoint has changed it is yours and you are causing a great scandal by your behaviour.  I am sorry that your son was indoctrinated in the seminary to cause him to ascribe to his current viewpoint.  It happened in the 60's in the Church at large as well, but to cry out in such a public and hypocritical fashion against men who are defending the Catholic faith is outrageous.



    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #38 on: August 27, 2012, 09:38:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's another "cherry-picked" quotation:

    Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
    The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth. (Quoted by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Fideliter, n. 123, pp. 25-29. May-June 1998.)
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #39 on: August 27, 2012, 10:10:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If telling someone they're excommunicated isn't telling them to obey, what is?


    That's a pretty good observation. I'm wondering how Mr. McFarland answers it.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #40 on: August 27, 2012, 10:59:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • John McFarland: "In addition, I have been looking carefully, and thus far have seen no evidence of any softening of Bishop Fellay’s opposition to conciliar errors. Everybody from Bishop Williamson through the bomb throwers of the blogosphere have asserted such a softening have said as much, but they’ve offered nothing to back it up."

    Mr. McFarland, If you were a dog and there was a bone under your nose, it seems you wouldn't be able to find that either.  A partial list of evidence that Bishop Fellay has melted into a puddle of compliance was provided to you on the thread "Eleison Comments Infection? - Who?" and you have yet to acknowledge its existence or respond.  


    Offline Magna opera Domini

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 107
    • Reputation: +261/-10
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #41 on: August 27, 2012, 11:09:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If I understand the genesis of this thread correctly, Mr. McFarland has been publicly treating his immediate spiritual superior, Father Ringrose, "the hand that feeds him" as Mr. McFarland would say, in exactly the same manner that he alleges Bishop Williamson and the resisting priests have been treating their immediate spiritual superior, Bishop Fellay:  public resistance, public impertinence, public correction of inferior to superior.  It is extraordinarily difficult to apply to ourselves the same principles to which we would hold others.  

    Offline John McFarland

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 100
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #42 on: August 27, 2012, 01:39:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear SJB,

    Quote from: SJB
    Quote
    If telling someone they're excommunicated isn't telling them to obey, what is?


    That's a pretty good observation. I'm wondering how Mr. McFarland answers it.


    Sorry, but I haven't figured out how to put in those nice boxed quotes.

    My point on this matter is that there hasn't been much in the way of de facto discipline in the post-Vatican II church, which I think is obvious except to those who wouldn't agree with a vile Fellayite like me if I said that the sun rises in the east.

    The "excommunication" of Abp. Lefebvre, the four new bishops, and (when he reminded Rome that he was there, too) Bp. Castro de Mayer is not a refutation of my point.  

    It is an example of my point.

    According to the Vatican, the excommunications were automatic -- latae sententiae, to use the technical term.  De eccesia adflicta was basically a statement to the effect that the automatic excommunciations had occurred.  

    So it wasn't an act of discipline as it would have been if the Vatican had passed a sentence of excommunication on the six bishops (ferendae sententiae being the technical term).  

    Indeed, since there were then as now, any number of canon lawyers in the Vatican, Rome knew that the argument for automatic excommunications was quite shaky. But it took the automatic excommunication route sooner than take any initiative in enforcing discipline.  In his biography of Abp. Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier says that the Abp. found then Msgr. Montini "vague and slipperry."  The same could be said for the conciliar style in general.    


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #43 on: August 27, 2012, 01:52:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: John McFarland
    My point on this matter is that there hasn't been much in the way of de facto discipline in the post-Vatican II church, which I think is obvious except to those who wouldn't agree with a vile Fellayite like me if I said that the sun rises in the east.

    The "excommunication" of Abp. Lefebvre, the four new bishops, and (when he reminded Rome that he was there, too) Bp. Castro de Mayer is not a refutation of my point. 

    It is an example of my point.

    According to the Vatican, the excommunications were automatic -- latae sententiae, to use the technical term.  De eccesia adflicta was basically a statement to the effect that the automatic excommunciations had occurred. 

    So it wasn't an act of discipline as it would have been if the Vatican had passed a sentence of excommunication on the six bishops (ferendae sententiae being the technical term). 

    Indeed, since there were then as now, any number of canon lawyers in the Vatican, Rome knew that the argument for automatic excommunications was quite shaky. But it took the automatic excommunication route sooner than take any initiative in enforcing discipline.  In his biography of Abp. Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier says that the Abp. found then Msgr. Montini "vague and slipperry."  The same could be said for the conciliar style in general.   


    Agreed, yet it seems quite obvious that the previous suspensions and then declarations of ipso facto excommunication were in fact noticed then ignored. This certainly wasn't because ABL thought they were never really made and only declared to have occurred automatically. If they were ignored simply because they came from the "conciliar church" ... what has changed?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6600
    • Reputation: +615/-5
    • Gender: Male
    David Allen White defends Fr. Ringrose
    « Reply #44 on: August 27, 2012, 02:00:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    And John McFarland --  you disgrace the Old Sod and the Irish portion of your ancestry by your blindness to the truth.

    Normally it's common for the Irish (and those with Irish heritage) to have the virtue of common sense.

    We have expressions like, "Don't p*** on me and tell me it's raining."

    We like to call a spade a spade.

    Not everyone with Irish blood is so blind, thanks be to God! Some still know how to fight for the truth, no matter how outnumbered they are or how unpopular it is.




    META FEW FELLOWS OVER WEEKEND, CAME IN TO THE ISOC CONFERENCE AND WERE BLOWN AWAY, ESP BY DR. WHITE STATEMENTS....
    THYE WERE TELL IT LIKE IT IS, NTOED TO THEM AS A CELT (SCOT) i CONCUR AND AM TELL IT LIKE IT IS SORT, TOO.

    (opps, caps were on)
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic