Author Topic: Eleison Comments (Read 10441 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #25 on:** August 31, 2015, 09:22:53 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I'm still waiting for Wessex's reply to this post:
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Wessex

There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities".
They must always be acknowledged and remembered.

Great! But if the world relies on that post, they'll be forgotten.

How about this: Provide a list of their names and countries of origin/operation.

I'm asking for the names of those who stood up at least as prominently as ABL did (since your claim is that he didn't really stand up so much in the first place).

E.g., Does Fr. Leonard Feeney make your list? He "stood up" in 1948, long before the Council reared its ugly head. Or is he somehow disqualified for some unmentionable 'reason'?

.

Cardinal Ottaviani?

While Ottaviani attempted to intervene, maybe a bit weakly, he had long been rubbing elbows and perhaps involved in some of the preparatory shenanigans (at least philosophically or by not resisting early enough) with such characters as Annibale Bugnini and Augustin Cardinal Bea SJ. Since he did not do anything to preserve and continue the Traditional Latin Mass after the N.O. took root, I wouldn't like to say he "stood up to the unfaithful Church authorities," IMHO.

I would put Fr. Gommar DePauw, "Professor of Theology and Doctor of Canon Law and Founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM)" (according to Traditio.com), of New York, in this category, though. He was staunchly opposed to the Vat.II novelties and never had ANYTHING to do with the new liturgy. HOWEVER, since he was unfortunately not a bishop, there was only so much he could accomplish on his own.

While Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979) eventually saw the light and realized he missed his chance to make a real difference, he had long complied and cooperated with the Novus Ordo apparatus, including using the new liturgy, etc., so he did NOT "stand up."

.

Father Feeney of Course,

Father Gommar Depauw likewise

Father James Francis Wathen

Father Gregorius Hesse

Bishop Castro Mayer

And I am sure we could compile a long list of other unsung servants of God who refused to co-operate but who according to their means, made great acts of sacrifice to hold fast for the Lord.

JPaul · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2015, 09:42:19 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: J.Paul
The SSPX and its spinoff the resistance so called serve in the practical realm of things as gatekeepers providing the raw meat that keeps the natives from overrunning the conciliar fences and breaking out onto the sedevacantist savannahs or otherwise ditching the deracinated Traditional plantation entirely.

1. I don't equate "sedevacantism" with "unrestricted freedom/nirvana/utopia". In Sede-land, there is no authority and the natives there will tear you limb from limb. They each cleave to their own opinions as to the Faith itself, hinging their entire viewpoint of the Faith on one obscure passage from a given encyclical that caught their eye at some point. If you agree with their pet interpretation of their pet encyclical, "you're all right". If not, you're a vitandus (to-be-avoided) heretic, even if the Mass you attend on Sunday looks suspiciously like a good Tridentine Mass...

2. "otherwise ditching the deracinated Traditional plantation entirely"
I don't know what you're suggesting here... giving up on Tradition for the failed experiment it was, or what? Hey, I get frustrated with Trads as much as anyone -- probably more than anyone. But that's the Catholic Faith you're talking about there. Traditional Catholicism is nothing novel or new -- just the Catholic Faith as it was always taught. I don't care if everyone grows cold/lukewarm, becomes a hypocrite, worldly, apathetic, etc. I don't have a whole lot of choice.

"Faith of our Fathers...Holy Faith...We will be true to thee till death..."

I made nor intended none of the above about sedevacantist land only to say that it is over the forbidden fence, and that jumping that fence means that you are no longer under the power of control of the counterfits or the useful R&Rist wranglers. The sedevacantist wildlife is not my concern.

Not speaking about giving up on the true Catholic Faith, but rather leaving the withered field of the incomplete replication that calls itself Tradition today, that of SSPXism/Indultism. This manifestation is not The Church, and it it is not the Faith of our Fathers and ancestors who would not have established themselves upon compromise with marauding thieves and murderers.

My comment merely points out that the SSPX/Indult crowd wanting to or not, serve as gatekeepers for the Revolution.

JPaul · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2015, 09:46:32 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: TKGS

Again, this lack of unity in tradition coupled with the lack of unity in the Conciliar sect is just more evidence that there is no pope.

Would that logic apply in principle to an alcoholic father?

The family is fighting with each other and with the neighbors and the old man comes home drunk every day, which is just more evidence that there is no father.

.

Sounds like R&R tradition with its sincerely drunk pope...........

(SSPX, resistance, the sedvacantist neighbors, and.........Francis....)

Matthew · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:01:14 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

My comment merely points out that the SSPX/Indult crowd wanting to or not, serve as gatekeepers for the Revolution.

That would be fine, except you said TRADITION, not SSPX. I completely agree that compromise with Rome is no Traditional Movement at all. A Traditional Catholic worthy of the name A) knows the Faith and B) knows that he has a right to doubt-free sacraments, and C) knows that all priests have the right to say Mass -- even supplied jurisdiction is not necessary for Mass.

I believe you include the Resistance, too, in your criticism (that's what this thread was about), which is why you said "Tradition". So what you really meant was:

"My comment merely points out that the Resistance/SSPX/Indult crowd wanting to or not, serve as gatekeepers for the Revolution."

And that is what I have a problem with.

I don't want someone cursing the "darkness" I have willingly placed myself in, unless they can demonstrate to me a brighter place to be. And no, "giving up on Tradition" or home-aloneism is certainly not that brighter place.

I'll take all the warts of R&R and the Resistance over home-aloneism any day. The former is much better for my faith and my soul.

The Church will always have problems, as long as it continues to use frail, human ministers.

Matthew · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2015, 10:08:06 AM »

Quote from: J Paul

Father Feeney of Course,

Father Gommar Depauw likewise

Father James Francis Wathen

Father Gregorius Hesse

Bishop Castro Mayer

And I am sure we could compile a long list of other unsung servants of God who refused to co-operate but who according to their means, made great acts of sacrifice to hold fast for the Lord.

Nice double spacing there, to make it look like more :)

Seriously, though, I think I'll have to insist upon this explicit list of unsung servants of God. But I'll make it easier for you -- let's limit it to BISHOPS or higher.

I have a good reason for asking this. How many bishops were there in 1965, and how many priests?

Coming up with 4 priests is actually LESS impressive than coming up with 1 bishop, given the % of the total that each number represents.

I notice you can only list one bishop -- Bishop De Castro Mayer. That's honest of you, since there were only 2 who stood up to Vatican II (the other being the obvious Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre).

It's not rocket science -- who was present at Operation Survival on June 30, 1988? Just those 2 bishops. So any other bishops you list are either guilty of

A) fear of reprisal, human respect
B) fear of the Conciliar Church, media, etc.
C) cultism/sectarianism, since they didn't want to acknowledge the goodness of a consecration for the sake of Tradition, just because it didn't concern their own particular group

Either way, these hypothetical "good bishops" don't look very principled or magnanimous. Either they were cowardly, or petty (focused on their own group, their own good, their own thesis/position about the Crisis -- namely Sedevacantism, etc.)

Any sedevacantist bishop worth his salt should have been there to give witness with the Archbishop, for the sake of TRADITION AT LARGE. After all, these were bishops being ordained WITHOUT permission of Rome, for the purpose of continuing Tradition. What sedevacantist could have had a problem with that?

Sometimes a person must agree to disagree, for the common good.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: Even if you could list off 5 conservative or "sort of good" bishops, I say that all together they equal less than one Bishop de Castro Mayer, since he made himself known, actually DID something, and wasn't hiding in the shadows. It doesn't matter if 20 good bishops hid in the catacombs and said the Tridentine Mass, offered Traditional confirmations, and/or said their traditional breviary. What good are they, if they cowered in obscurity for the past 40 years?

Most people will list you just those 2 bishops (+Lefebvre, +De Castro Mayer) and there's a good reason for that. They are the ones who stood up and were counted.