.
The original post, for reference:
And I do agree as well.
It does seem that there is an almost inevitable reckoning which is beginning to take place. It appearing as though Menzingen has chosen the path which will lead to the abandonment of resisting in favor of recognition, and hoping for the best.
The "resistance" has in opposing Menzingen woven themselves into a position where abandoning recognizing might be the only logical direction to maintain true resistance.
Having once raised the error and evil of the Conciliar church to such a high degree upon which much of their effort rests, it begs the question and highlights the deficiency of recognize and resist philosophy.
That is to say, if Menzingen has widened its recognition to the level which they have been espousing, how can they continue to resist and have any credibility?
Which brings to the fore the proposition that if the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which they are based?
.
Seeing your post, J.Paul, and then seeing it again later, it's still not
making total sense. I don't doubt that you know what you're trying
to convey, but the words on this page are not doing it for me.......
In my attempt to understand you, I have added some words in
brackets that I think must be missing because without them there
is simply far too much ambiguity endemic in the post.
Yes, fundamentally it's difficult to "recognize and resist" for decades on end.
"If the days were not shortened, not even the Elect would be saved."
Either you're tempted to stop resisting, or stop recognizing. It's hard to not give up on the Conciliar Church when it maintains a course AWAY FROM Catholicism for 4 decades and still going strong.
And it's hard to be against the world for that long. The world is all we know. How can we be the enemy of all we know, to have everyone call us names, etc. for DECADES on end. It's easy to be a perfect trad for 5, 10, maybe 15 years. But eventually we get sick of it. We want people to accept us already. We're sick of being misunderstood.
Only God knows how long this Crisis is going to go on. We have to be patient, and hunker down for the long haul. This has to be a great time of grace for those who persevere.
I think you are quite right.
And I do agree as well.
It does seem that there is an almost inevitable reckoning which is beginning to take place.
This reckoning: is it going to be explained or substantiated below, or, is what
follows a different subject matter? You don't say so I'm not sure.
It [is] appearing as though Menzingen has chosen the path which will lead to [their] abandonment of [their] resisting in favor of recognition [of the SSPX by modernist Rome], and hoping for the best.
The "resistance" has in opposing Menzingen woven themselves into a position where abandoning [any intention or interest in becoming recognized by modernist Rome] might be the only logical direction to maintain true resistance.
Here you seem to part company with the Resistance that I know. The
Resistance, properly understood, is nothing other than the Catholic Church
outside of which there is no salvation. You seem to be making it into
something else, at least in your own perception.
I put it to you that ABL himself had no interest in becoming recognized by
modernist Rome, either! The Menzingen-denizens are hard at work
building up a FALSE understanding of this pseudo-ABL of their own making,
now that he is no longer here (I really wish he were here for our sake but
he would have no interest in being here for his own sake, I'm sure!) to
explain himself. He did plenty of explaining himself in the last 4 years of
his venerable life for all of us to know full well what he stood for. And for
him, the "only logical direction to maintain" the ONE TRUE FAITH (which,
properly understood, is one and the same as the "true Resistance") is just
that, by abandoning any intention or interest in becoming recognized by
modernist Rome -- SO LONG AS IT REMAINS MODERNIST ROME.
It is not our place to change it into the True Rome of the One True Faith,
but rather to maintain that One True Faith intact while God, in His own good
time (whatever that is) decides it is now the time to restore the Faith of
Catholics in the seat of St. Peter where it belongs.
Having once raised the error and evil of the Conciliar church to such a high degree upon which much of their effort rests, it begs the question and highlights the deficiency of recognize and resist philosophy.
It is this paragraph, above, that is incomprehensible. What is the subject?
What is the object? What are you talking about? Who raised the error?
Whose effort rests on error? What begs the question? What highlights the
deficiency? What is this recognize and resist philosophy to which you refer?
Do you know anything about philosophy? Have you studied it? When
you use the word do you know what you're talking about? Or, is it in
your way of thinking one and the same as concept, principle or ideology?
(BTW it's not.)
That is to say, if Menzingen has widened its recognition to the level which they have been espousing, how can they continue to resist and have any credibility?
What is this "width" of the Menzingen recognition to which you refer? Can
you describe it, or can you define it? Because it might be something to
you that is unique, and to someone else it might be entirely different.
How have they been espousing this "width of their recognition" as you say?
Which brings to the fore the proposition that if the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which they are based?
Is this "recognize/resist position" the same thing as the "recognize and
resist philosophy" to which you alluded previously, above? If not, then
how is it different? If it's the same, then why would you use the much
more narrow and specific term "philosophy" above, since to do so only
introduces misunderstanding and confusion in the reader, who has to
go about presuming that you mean to say something other than what
you're literally saying?
There are at least 5 very different ways I could restate this paragraph
of yours, above, based on various ways of interpreting what you have
written. Would it help for me to do that? Then you could pick the one
you were trying to convey, or, you could write a new paragraph that is
entirely different from my 5, which is more like what you mean to say.
Your "proposition" (which is actually a hypothetical proposition):
If the resistance means what it says about the apostate modernist
Romans and Vatican II, and if it is true, then how can the
recognize/resist position not undermine the arguments upon which
they are based?When you say
"they," might I rightly presume you mean
the arguments? Because "they" could also/alternatively mean "the resistance," and/or
"modernist Romans," and/or "Vatican II."
Do I need to list the permutations of these elements for you?
The purpose of all this is to make the distinction between what many
of us here on CI and therefore the world think the Resistance IS, and
what it is NOT.
It's important to distinguish because one of the devices these nefarious
Menzingen-denizens are trying to use is the STRAW MAN of fabricating
a false image of what the Resistance is, and then (once they have seen
evidence that their effigy figure is being accepted by the Accordista-lap-
dog-lemmings) proceed thenceforth to attack it with pins and needles,
as if to make a mockery of anyone who would dare to expose their
lies for what they are: LIES.
FWIW this is all in context of the EC 309 inasmuch as +W is truly a
Resistance bishop, whether he has yet sufficient conviction that he can
rise up and proclaim it as such, because, at least in part, because the
most pernicious and subversive Menzingen-denizens have had some
measure of success in stringing up their Guy Fawkes "Resistance" for
the world to see (which is a lie) and he might be immediately
misunderstood by many who would be turned against him based on an
erroneous principle of mistaken identity.
Topic: Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Asian Journey - 309 (Read 18864 times)