Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)  (Read 768 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 21899
  • Reputation: +19217/-112
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
« on: Yesterday at 09:01:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DXCV (595)
    December 8, 2018
    Discussions Renewed? – II
    If anyone has a truly Catholic mind,
    He must, with Vatican II, leave it behind.

    The official press release coming from Society of St Pius X Headquarters on Friday two weeks ago, of the meeting held on the previous day between the Society’s Superior General and Rome’s Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, is full of good words. What remains to be seen is how these words will translate into acts on the part of the new Superior General.
    The press release contains seven paragraphs. The first two paragraphs introduce Cardinal Ladaria and Father Pagliarani with their respective colleagues, and state that it was the Cardinal who invited Fr Pagliarani to Rome to discuss the state of relations between Rome and the Society, as they may be evolving since Fr Pagliarani’s election as the Society’s new Superior General last July. The third and fourth paragraphs place the problem between Rome and the Society exactly where it belongs, in the domain of doctrine. Here they are, in the full text:—
    (3) In the course of the meeting with the Roman authorities, it was recalled that the underlying problem is well and truly doctrinal, and neither Rome nor the Society can get around that fact. It is the unyielding divergence of doctrine which has for the last seven years frustrated every attempt to work out any statement of doctrine acceptable to both sides. Here is why the question of doctrine remains absolutely basic. (4) The Holy See is saying nothing different when it solemnly states that there can be no setting up of any juridical status for the Society until a document doctrinal in character has been signed.
    However, the fifth paragraph proceeds to conclude that “Everything therefore impels the Society to re-open theological Discussions,” their purpose being not so much to convince the Romans as to bring before the Church the Society’s uncompromising witness to the Faith. The last two paragraphs give expression to the Society's trust in Providence. Its future lies in the hands of God and His Blessed Mother. (End of press release)
    Alas, one may well question whether it is useful or prudent to seek to re-open Doctrinal Discussions with these Romans. As one of the four Society representatives commented on the four Roman representatives after the last series of such Discussions held from 2009 to 2011, “They are mentally sick, but it is they who have the authority.” This comment was not meant personally, rather it testifies with precision to the incapacity of the Roman Neo-modernists to grasp the very essence of Catholic doctrine, namely its objective character, allowing of no subjective interference. Almighty God means what He says, He says it through His Church, and so there can be no question of re-moulding for modern times – as did Vatican II – what His Church always and unchangingly said before Vatican II. How then can today’s Romans be loyal to God’s Church and at the same time to Vatican II without either their minds being sick with contradiction, or their having a completely false idea of the Church?
    That being so, if and when the Holy See issues a press release on the same meeting of November 22, it will be interesting to see how they present the prospect of a re-opening of the Doctrinal Discussions. They certainly want Discussions, in the hope of luring the new Superior General out of his impregnable fortress of Church doctrine, but their own Conciliar doctrine can only be false insofar as it departs from that Tradition. And so the two great arguments available to them must be, as always, authority and unity, disregarding doctrine. But what is Catholic authority when it no longer serves Truth? And what is Catholic unity if it unites around a pack of slippery lies (Vatican II)? Alas, authority and unity are the only legs that these Conciliar Romans have to stand on.
    Therefore, honourable Superior General, here is an act to follow your words: why no t make public a clear and fair summary of the record of the last Doctrinal Discussions of 2009–2011? You would be backing your fine doctrinal paragraphs of November 23 with a real doctrinal act!
    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2198
    • Reputation: +2404/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 11:56:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • Quote
    EC595: What remains to be seen is how these words will translate into acts on the part of the new Superior General.

    I want to challenge you CI members, i.e those who are still with the Society, and those who are not, including Matthew. How many of you honestly think that Pagliarani is going to act? Do any of you really think that SSPX will publish a summary of the 2009-11 doctrinal discussions?

    Here is the bishop’s challenge in EC595:

    Quote
    Therefore, honourable Superior General, here is an act to follow your words: why not make public a clear and fair summary of the record of the last Doctrinal Discussions of 2009–2011? You would be backing your fine doctrinal paragraphs of November 23 with a real doctrinal act!
    Does the bishop ttuly believe that the new SG will act on his challenge? I DO NOT! And I have confidence that not a single forum member of CI believes it either. The studied silence of all interested forum members speaks volumes. Many of you are quite loquacious on other topics. But on this one, apparently, the cat has got your tongues.

    I will state further, without hesitation: Bishop Williamson knows too, in his heart of hearts that Society leaders will never do this. So why does he offer the challenge?

    After the last round of discussions, as the bishop reminds us in EC595, one of the four SSPX representatives in these discussions admitted openly “They (the Romans) are mentally sick, but it is they who have the authority.”

    Yet SSPX leaders conclude: “Everything therefore impels the Society to re-open theological Discussions.”

    Oh really?! Isn’t the very definition of insanity the repetition of an act, which has failed initially, to produce a different result the second time around?  How does one appeal a second time to a Roman hierarchy that by the Society's own admission is mentally sick.

    I want hear from some of you generally mouthy forum members. What do you think?


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3254
    • Reputation: +1979/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #2 on: Yesterday at 12:24:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hollingsworth,
    You make some great points, as usual.  Here are my comments:


    Quote
    How many of you honestly think that Pagliarani is going to act? Do any of you really think that SSPX will publish a summary of the 2009-11 doctrinal discussions?
    The odds are very low that anything positive happens, naturally speaking, but you never know how God might intervene if people pray for a miracle.


    Quote
    Does the bishop truly believe that the new SG will act on his challenge?
    Probably not but it never hurts to ask.  If the new SG does nothing, then we know there is something to hide of the past discussions; therefore, the new SG has lost some integrity and we know who we are dealing with.  At the present, we don't know how independent he is or how loyal to +Fellay's agenda he is.  I see this challenge as a litmus test to see the new SG's mindset.


    Quote
    I will state further, without hesitation: Bishop Williamson knows too, in his heart of hearts that Society leaders will never do this. So why does he offer the challenge?
    I agree with you and probably most would agree too.  However, the good Bishop also knows the dire straits that many Catholics would have, if the neo-sspx goes under Rome.  How many men, women and children depend on the society for mass/sacraments?  How many graces will be lost if they no longer can attend the society or (even worse) if they go along with new-rome into the depths of the indult madness?  The consequences are immense!

    Just like +ABL tried to negotiate with rome, and exhaust every opportunity to keep Tradition alive with Rome's approval, in the end, he was left no choice but to defend Tradition independently.  So with +Williamson, I see this last-ditch effort as a prudent attempt to salvage what's left of the neo-sspx before it falls off the cliff.  Sometimes Divine Providence only acts when man has exhausted every last possibility.  

    Either way, whether the neo-sspx turns around, or whether it joins with modernist-rome, Divine Providence will act to keep Tradition (i.e. the True Church) alive, but saving the neo-sspx is the best course of action because the collateral damage will be minimized.  Just like the delayed Consecration of Russia is causing the ever-decaying state of society, so Our Lady will have Her Consecration and will grant us Her peace, but the loss of the neo-sspx will make the suffering of the Church greater in the short term, which none of us wants (but we do deserve).  Kyrie Eleison!

    Offline Seraphina

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +218/-30
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 12:43:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :PI don't consider myself mouthy.  

    But I'm quite sure the SSPX SG will do nothing.  He's merely a puppet of Bishop Fellay and the Society's former leaders.  As for Bishop Williamson, he isn't as hard-line as his words often indicate.  He gives the benefit of doubt to the bitter end, allowing the errant one to nail himself into his own coffin.  Whether this be right or not, I decline to judge.

    The SSPX has become irrelevant to me, so I have no strong feelings on what they do or don't do.  It no longer has any effect on my day to day life.  I was introduced to the true Faith by several SSPX priests, Bishop W. among them, but I certainly don't need them to be Catholic.  

    I don't like it that I've been exiled from Mass and Sacraments into the fifth year now, but it's apparently God's Will.  It can't stop me from being Catholic.  The fact that there are many for whom the demise of the SSPX equals loss of the faith points to the root of the problem.  It is not loss of doctrine, but the sin of pride.  The SSPX is not the Church; is neither the engine of the Church, nor even the remnant of the Church.  

    Dare I suggest that had Archbishop Lefebvre been unsuccessful in establishing the Society or anything at all after his departure from the Holy Ghost Fathers, he would have lived out his remaining years in obscurity, with only the contents of his suitcase, a faithful Catholic to the end.  No doubt there were many unknown, unsung persons, religious and layperson who did exactly that in the wake of Vat. II.   Please pray I persevere to the end to be worthy of being counted among them.  

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2198
    • Reputation: +2404/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 01:15:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    PV: How many graces will be lost if they (sspx Catholics) no longer can attend the society or (even worse) if they go along with new-rome into the depths of the indult madness?  The consequences are immense!

    Or, one can ask alternately: how many graces have already been lost by Catholics still in attendance at SSPX chapels?  These Catholics can do what many traditional Catholics have already done.  They can search for independent alternatives, or stay home alone and say their Rosaries.  SSPX Catholics, who should know better,  support an organization which continues to function only because of them. Otherwise, it would justifiably sink into oblivion.  I have no sympathy for your argument.


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2446
    • Reputation: +1295/-628
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 01:20:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I want to challenge you CI members, i.e those who are still with the Society, and those who are not, including Matthew. How many of you honestly think that Pagliarani is going to act? Do any of you really think that SSPX will publish a summary of the 2009-11 doctrinal discussions?

    Here is the bishop’s challenge in EC595:
    Does the bishop truly believe that the new SG will act on his challenge? I DO NOT!
    If he didn't ask, many would complain that he didn't ask. He's the only one with the authority among those opposed to the accord who will be listened to by the Menzingen. Don't think for one minute that the other SSPX priests don't hear what he says.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21899
    • Reputation: +19217/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 01:34:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I want to challenge you CI members, i.e those who are still with the Society, and those who are not, including Matthew. How many of you honestly think that Pagliarani is going to act? Do any of you really think that SSPX will publish a summary of the 2009-11 doctrinal discussions?

    Does the bishop truly believe that the new SG will act on his challenge? I DO NOT! And I have confidence that not a single forum member of CI believes it either. The studied silence of all interested forum members speaks volumes. Many of you are quite loquacious on other topics. But on this one, apparently, the cat has got your tongues.

    I will state further, without hesitation: Bishop Williamson knows too, in his heart of hearts that Society leaders will never do this. So why does he offer the challenge?

    No, I don't believe Pagliarani is going to act honestly to turn the SSPX around 180 degrees (which is what it would require: a complete U turn from the present course). I think +W knows and believes this as well.

    How do you convince people -- who are difficult to convince -- to see the truth about the SSPX? Think reason. Think airtight arguments. Think clear logic.
    I see nothing wrong with stating "what it would require" for the SSPX to get right with God again, in a hypothetical dream scenario -- and then watching that scenario never happen. Otherwise people might be mistaken that the SSPX is in a good place TODAY, just as they are.

    See, most people can't work stuff like this out for themselves. Most people have poor imaginations. So it's a very powerful argument to paint a picture of "what it would look like if my adversaries were correct and I were just wrong."

    When said "painted picture" is completely logical and reasonable, it's hard to attack it.

    I can't speak for +W but I can speak for myself: I'm not afraid of being wrong, because if the SSPX weren't hopeless I wouldn't have left them. I didn't leave them and then conjure up a half-baked reason why they were hopeless; I could find myself in deep trouble then. No, I was forced to see the truth that the SSPX is hopeless, and THAT ALONE is why I'm not with them anymore. So I have nothing to fear, nothing to prove. The truth and reality will always be on my side.

    But being convinced of something yourself, and having a compelling argument to convince others are two different things.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4227
    • Reputation: +1939/-193
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 02:19:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I want to challenge you CI members, i.e those who are still with the Society, and those who are not, including Matthew. How many of you honestly think that Pagliarani is going to act? Do any of you really think that SSPX will publish a summary of the 2009-11 doctrinal discussions?

    Here is the bishop’s challenge in EC595:
    Does the bishop ttuly believe that the new SG will act on his challenge? I DO NOT! And I have confidence that not a single forum member of CI believes it either. The studied silence of all interested forum members speaks volumes. Many of you are quite loquacious on other topics. But on this one, apparently, the cat has got your tongues.

    I will state further, without hesitation: Bishop Williamson knows too, in his heart of hearts that Society leaders will never do this. So why does he offer the challenge?

    After the last round of discussions, as the bishop reminds us in EC595, one of the four SSPX representatives in these discussions admitted openly “They (the Romans) are mentally sick, but it is they who have the authority.”

    Yet SSPX leaders conclude: “Everything therefore impels the Society to re-open theological Discussions.”

    Oh really?! Isn’t the very definition of insanity the repetition of an act, which has failed initially, to produce a different result the second time around?  How does one appeal a second time to a Roman hierarchy that by the Society's own admission is mentally sick.

    I want hear from some of you generally mouthy forum members. What do you think?
    Until the issue of whether these non-Catholic men actually do have the authority is addressed the insanity will continue.
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2198
    • Reputation: +2404/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 04:18:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Back in around June of 2016,  Top Evangelical leaders met in a one day conference venue in the DC area. After the general confab, candidate Trump invited 40 or so major American Evangelical figures from the event to a special meeting with him, wherein he promised to deal sincerely with such Evangelical Christian concerns as abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood, the gay agenda, church tax exempt issues C 501(c)(3), etc.

    The assembled Evangelical pastors exhibited little interest in any of these things. What really seemed to focus their interest, the issue that really rowed their collective boat, was the security of Israel and the desire to see the American embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That was the one issue they enthusiastically rallied around to the practical exclusion of all the others.

    So Trump, being the not too principled pragmatist that he is, and realizing what a huge block of voters these Evangelical leaders represented, simply acquiesced to their demands. We know the rest of the story.

    Apparently then, it wasn’t the ‘deep state,’ or the Jews, or the liberal left, or the Democrats, which drove the move. No, it was the Christian Zionists, whose solid block of voters probably paved the way for a Trump presidency. (See from the minute 47:10 on)

    But to my way of thinking, what really are the differences between lock stepping Christian Evangelicals and lock stepping tradiional Catholics still in fellowship with SSPX? I see practically none.

    The Christian zionists bow slavishly to a state whose total corruption and criminality are open for the world to see.  The Catholic SSPXers bow submissively to their own leaders, whose organization is in not much better shape, and whose chapels are morally and spiritually deteriorating. They seem willing to ignore the fact that their own sspx heirarchy still seek to do business with an apostate Conciliar Church, even, if possible, to reunite with it.

    Christian zionists leaders cement filial bonds with filthy Khazars, who essentially hate and despise them.
    SSPX leaders, (who themselves, truth be told, have plenty to do with the Khazars), hold discussions with a fallen Roman hierarchy who feel exactly the same way about them and their traditionalist flock.

    Evangelical faithful, most of whom are probably ignorant of the real issues at hand, simply ignore, or refuse to acknowledge them. Or, they brush them off dismissively. They raise their hands to Jesus, and go on singing their happy-slappy neo Christian hymns. They go on listening to the inexhaustible rants of their preachers.

    The SSPX rank and file does virtually the same think. Give them “valid priests,” “valid sacraments,” “valid bishops,” and they’re happy as clams. Let the bells clang. Let pleasant odors arise from the altars. Let holy vestments glitter, shine and bedazzle. Hey, they’re good!

     

     

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3254
    • Reputation: +1979/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 04:46:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Or, one can ask alternately: how many graces have already been lost by Catholics still in attendance at SSPX chapels?  

    Plenty of catholics have benefited from the sspx even if many of their priests are liberal.  Those laity who aren't strong in their faith, only have themselves to blame.  The mass outweighs other concerns...at the moment.


    Quote
    These Catholics can do what many traditional Catholics have already done.  They can search for independent alternatives, or stay home alone and say their Rosaries.  

    A Catholic has an obligation to attend mass, under pain of mortal sin.  Right now, the sspx offers valid mass/sacraments and people have an OBLIGATION to attend, if they have no other alternatives.  One CANNOT stay at home if there is an sspx mass available.


    Quote
    SSPX Catholics, who should know better,  support an organization which continues to function only because of them. Otherwise, it would justifiably sink into oblivion.  I have no sympathy for your argument.
    If/when the sspx becomes an indult/rome mass, then your arguments apply.  Until then, the obligation of attending mass trumps all other concerns.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18069
    • Reputation: +8204/-625
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 06:07:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
     How many of you honestly think that Pagliarani is going to act? Do any of you really think that SSPX will publish a summary of the 2009-11 doctrinal discussions?

    .
    Perhaps he won't; I suspect he won't; looks like most here think he won't; certainly if +W had not written this EC he'd have been less likely to! 
    .
    Quote
    Here is the bishop’s challenge in EC595:
    Does the bishop [truly] believe that the new SG will act on his challenge? I DO NOT! And I have confidence that not a single forum member of CI believes it either. The studied silence of all interested forum members speaks volumes. Many of you are quite loquacious on other topics. But on this one, apparently, the cat has got your tongues.
    .
    How many CI members have even read this thread yet? I'm just reading it now. And I don't have TIME right now to answer all the points I have in mind!
    .
    Quote
    I will state further, without hesitation: Bishop Williamson knows too, in his heart of hearts that Society leaders will never do this. So why does he offer the challenge?
    .
    He's offering the challenge for readers like you and me to be informed and to form our respective opinions, and don't doubt for a minute that Menzingen is oblivious to this EC!
         He's offering the challenge so that in weeks, months, years, decades to come, nobody can accuse him of never offering the challenge.
         He's offering the challenge because it's the right thing to do ----- THANK GOD FOR BISHOP WILLIAMSON WHO DOES THE RIGHT THING AT THE PROPER TIME!
    .
    So much more to say, no time right now......................................   :soapbox:
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Seraphina

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 301
    • Reputation: +218/-30
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 06:48:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • A Catholic has an obligation to attend mass, under pain of mortal sin.  Right now, the sspx offers valid mass/sacraments and people have an OBLIGATION to attend, if they have no other alternatives.  One CANNOT stay at home if there is an sspx mass available.
    Not when one has been unjustly banned from the SSPX chapel.  My crime was to co-host two resistance masses and invite a dozen people to attend.  Seven took up the offer.  This was in 2013 and 2014.  The resistance never took hold and the SSPX is the only traditional outlet in the area.  There is a resistance chapel 300 miles one way, but I am no longer able to travel long distances due to changes in my life circumstances.  So I stay home.    

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2446
    • Reputation: +1295/-628
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #12 on: Today at 12:59:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not when one has been unjustly banned from the SSPX chapel.  My crime was to co-host two resistance masses and invite a dozen people to attend.  Seven took up the offer.  This was in 2013 and 2014.  The resistance never took hold and the SSPX is the only traditional outlet in the area.  There is a resistance chapel 300 miles one way, but I am no longer able to travel long distances due to changes in my life circumstances.  So I stay home.    
    They probably don't even remember who you are and even if they do, they have an obligation to take care of your soul. Just go there and do not give them any money. If you think that some busybodies talk about you, remember what was done to our Lord, their sheepish talk is nothing, let them heap coals upon themselves with their petty hates. Do your job and let God sort out the rest. They are valid priests, and that is the only reason you go there. I see many people like you at my SSPX chapel, they come to mass and then go home. Maybe once in a while they talk after mass to their few old friends who proved themselves to be real friends, and then they leave.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2122
    • Reputation: +522/-120
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #13 on: Today at 02:26:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not when one has been unjustly banned from the SSPX chapel.  My crime was to co-host two resistance masses and invite a dozen people to attend.  Seven took up the offer.  This was in 2013 and 2014.  The resistance never took hold and the SSPX is the only traditional outlet in the area.  There is a resistance chapel 300 miles one way, but I am no longer able to travel long distances due to changes in my life circumstances.  So I stay home.    
    Lord have mercy

    And most likely, you are not the only one. How many others have walked away, never to show up again?
    Some people may wonder, but most will not say anything for fear of being banned or being accused of gossip.
    It has become "do it my way" or take the "highway."
    If the SSPX priests have been rotated from your area, perhaps a new priest will not know you, but then gossipers might tattle.
    Lord have mercy.

    I cannot travel either as the fumes from auto exhaust make me physically ill.
    Taking a plane is also not an option as I have severe vertigo.
    Lord have mercy.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3254
    • Reputation: +1979/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Discussions Renewed? II (no 595)
    « Reply #14 on: Today at 10:31:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Not when one has been unjustly banned from the SSPX chapel. 
    Obviously, if you're banned you can't go.  Exception to the rule.  This thread isn't about your situation.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16