Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)  (Read 1079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 21642
  • Reputation: +19101/-102
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
« on: January 13, 2018, 07:41:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DXLVIII (548)
    January 13, 2018
    Faith Crucial – II
    God is invisible, but always there.
    Men must believe in Him, His Heaven to share.

    Your Excellency,
    Talking with an Indult priest (one who says the true Mass but obeys the Church officials in Rome) I have become confused about Archbishop Lefebvre and the stand which he took in defence of the Faith. I thought he was right, but now I am not so sure. Here are some of that priest’s arguments:—
    1 The Archbishop disobeyed Rome. That proves that he was proud.
    2 Had he given up his Society and seminaries to obey Rome, he would have been heroic.
    3 If he disobeyed Rome to save Tradition, he did evil in order to bring about good, which is wrong.
    4 To obey a Pope as misguided as Pope Francis is, is a martyrdom by which one imitates Christ.
    5 For Bishop Fellay to step into the jaws of the Roman lion is, in spiritual terms, heroic.
    Dear Sir,
    In sane times the Catholic Church gives to souls a clear direction as to what is true or false, right or wrong, and you would need to be in no confusion. But ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once. For instance, your Indult priest says the Mass of the true religion, while meaning to obey the Romans set upon the false religion. No wonder it confuses you to listen to him. And you will remain confused until you fully grasp the difference between God’s true religion and men’s Conciliarism – God may want you to do some more homework.
    A Catholic is a Catholic by the Faith he believes in, by the sacraments he receives and by the hierarchy which he obeys. But he is firstly Catholic by his Faith, without which he would hav e no concern for the Catholic sacraments or hierarchy. Therefore the Catholic Faith is fundamental to a Catholic, and it is that Faith which the Roman officials abandoned at Vatican II in order to get off the wavelength of God and onto the wavelength of modern man. Therefore Conciliarism is fundamentally different from Catholicism and it creates a quite different viewpoint from which to consider pride, heroism, obedience, and so on. The Catholic viewpoint is true, the Conciliar viewpoint is false. Now, to the Indult priest’s arguments:—
    1 The Archbishop was not proud, because he was defending God’s truth and putting God before men. On the contrary, heretics like Luther and Conciliarists are proud because they are defying God to please men.
    2 He was heroic not by giving way to Rome, but by resisting Rome, in order to put God first.
    3 When he did what he did in order to save Tradition, he was doing not evil but good to achieve good.
    4 Catholic martyrdom lies in suffering harm and death not just for any cause, but only for the true Catholic Faith. The Archbishop suffered a true martyrdom not by giving way to the Popes who had gone wrong, but by doing all he could to make them see how they were abandoning the true Faith.
    5 His successors on the contrary, by doing all they can, since 2000 at least, to bring the Archbishop’s Society under the control of the Conciliar Romans, are in no terms heroic because they are putting men before God. Nor are they martyrs, nor are they truly imitating Christ, but they are indeed proud.
    Dear Sir, I hope that by now you can see that everything in the Church must ultimately be judged in the light of the Truth and of the Faith. This is because a man’s faith or lack of it is his basic attitude to God. A man may choose to go to Hell if he wants, but if he wants to go to the one true Heaven of the one true God, then he must start by believing in Him, according to the true Faith.
    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #1 on: January 13, 2018, 08:36:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now that's a darn good Eleison Comments!
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2172
    • Reputation: +2392/-229
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #2 on: January 13, 2018, 09:00:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • RNW:
    Quote
    But ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once.

    I can not buy this statement entirely.  Roman churchmen did not abandon "God's true Catholic religion" and adopt "man-made religion" immediately after the Council.   The church has been in serious decline for at least 500 years.  RNW has himself taught this in several of his own conferences from the past.  He outlines on a chalk board or a sheet of butcher paper simple linear graphs, much like a bell curve, the rise and subsequent precipitous decline of the Roman church, from at least the Middle Ages onward to the present.  So how can he infer that the Church suddenly fell off the cliff just after the Council?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #3 on: January 13, 2018, 09:04:25 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • RNW:
    I can not buy this statement entirely.  Roman churchmen did not abandon "God's true Catholic religion" and adopt "man-made religion" immediately after the Council.   The church has been in serious decline for at least 500 years.  RNW has himself taught this in several of his own conferences from the past.  He outlines on a chalk board or a sheet of butcher paper simple linear graphs, much like a bell curve, the rise and subsequent precipitous decline of the Roman church, from at least the Middle Ages onward to the present.  So how can he infer that the Church suddenly fell off the cliff just after the Council?
    The cause of the collapse has been around, working on the Church for 500 years.

    But the crisis did not hit the Church until Vatican II, which is the point on the EC.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17363
    • Reputation: +8059/-591
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #4 on: January 13, 2018, 09:31:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    Quote
    Quote from: hollingsworth on Today at 07:00:39 PM
    RNW:
    Quote
    But ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once.

    I can not buy this statement entirely.  Roman churchmen did not abandon "God's true Catholic religion" and adopt "man-made religion" immediately after the Council.   The church has been in serious decline for at least 500 years.  RNW has himself taught this in several of his own conferences from the past.  He outlines on a chalk board or a sheet of butcher paper simple linear graphs, much like a bell curve, the rise and subsequent precipitous decline of the Roman church, from at least the Middle Ages onward to the present.  So how can he infer that the Church suddenly fell off the cliff just after the Council?
    .
    .

    The cause of the collapse has been around, working on the Church for 500 years.

    But the crisis did not hit the Church until Vatican II, which is the point on the EC.
    .
    Good answer, SeanJohnson!
    .
    +W is trying to be brief in this EC with limited space. You know more of what he's talking about, hollingsworth, because you have paid attention to his more lengthy discourses. That's to your credit! But you should not be so hasty so as to presume he's changing his tack in this one page.
    .
    Actually, he did not say or even imply here that it was only "just after the Council" that things went wrong. H.E. is trying to drive the point home that it was at Vat.II that an ABRUPT change in course took place. You know what he's talking about!
    .
    What H.E. IS strongly implying here is that a dark plague of insanity ensued after the Council, and we can infer from his other works that he puts square blame on the Council for this pandemic spiritual and mental illness. The prelude to it was over centuries but it erupted full force as a direct consequence of the Council's dereliction.
    .
    ABL was among a large group of bishops, about 450 of them, who signed a petition for the Council Fathers to address the single greatest threat to Holy Mother Church at that time (during Vat.II) namely COMMUNISM. He is on record saying that because of this one act of dereliction (in which the Council leaders "lost" the petition and failed to address the issue) the credibility and validity of the Council is rightly called into question. The Council never did address this enormous evil attacking the Church, and because it failed to do so, it is arguably null and void. But it will take a Council to pronounce that effectively!
    .
    All the previous 19 Ecumenical Councils of the Church were convened for the specific purpose of facing a threat to the Church. But Vat.II was the FIRST ONE (and hopefully the last!) that was convened for no such stated purpose. It was called by John XXIII with a vague "feeling" of "inspiration" he had, to what, make everyone feel better? He was not clear. Later they claimed it was for "pastoral" reasons. Well, that doesn't wash. All the Councils were for the pastoral care of the flock, but not one of them was convened specifically for "pastoral" reasons.
    .
    The four questions he was asked here exemplify the heavy burden ABL endured all through his latter years, for he knew such accusations would be raised against him and he no doubt prayed many long nights for wisdom and fortitude to know what to do and to do the right thing. It was not a cavalier whim of his, nor was it an agenda he undertook without due reflection and concern. He truly suffered a dry martyrdom.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4134
    • Reputation: +1907/-189
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #5 on: January 14, 2018, 06:06:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And yet the head of this new false religion who has abandoned the Catholic Faith is still the head of the Catholic religion.  Sounds confusing to me.   ???

    .....the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism.

    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 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4134
    • Reputation: +1907/-189
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #6 on: January 14, 2018, 06:09:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • RNW:
    I can not buy this statement entirely.  Roman churchmen did not abandon "God's true Catholic religion" and adopt "man-made religion" immediately after the Council.   The church has been in serious decline for at least 500 years.  RNW has himself taught this in several of his own conferences from the past.  He outlines on a chalk board or a sheet of butcher paper simple linear graphs, much like a bell curve, the rise and subsequent precipitous decline of the Roman church, from at least the Middle Ages onward to the present.  So how can he infer that the Church suddenly fell off the cliff just after the Council?
    I just think he meant that this is when it became "official".
    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: 2172
    • Reputation: +2392/-229
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #7 on: January 15, 2018, 03:58:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just think he meant that this is when it became "official". (i.e. during and after V2)

    Maybe.  But I have noted over the years that sspx and "Resistance" bishops and priests focus in particularly on the errors of the post-V2 church, and virtually ignore what went on before.  Malachi Martin, in his book The Jesuits, chronicles the fall of the Jesuit order from way before V2.  We all know that Fr.Dhanis, a Jesuit, began his onslaught against the message of Fatima around 1944, long before V2 was even a twinkle in the eyes of liberal, modernist churchmen.  The holy monk Savanarola exposed the deep corruption of the city of Florence, both its ecclesial and civil government.  For his efforts he was put to death in 1498 under the direction of Pope Alexander VI.  Joan of Arc was handed over to British prelates by the corrupt French clergy in 1430; and we all know how that ended.  The seeds of decline were planted early and never, I believe, seriously confronted.

    I think it would help if the RNW and other traditional Catholic clergy would point out from time to time, in some detail, how V2 was going to be the inevitable outcome from centuries of church abuse and corruption.  V2 did not happen in a vacuum.  We need to know some of the things which transpired in church history before it all became "official."


    Offline obscurus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 791
    • Reputation: +866/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #8 on: January 15, 2018, 06:03:21 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just think he meant that this is when it became "official". (i.e. during and after V2)

    Maybe.  But I have noted over the years that sspx and "Resistance" bishops and priests focus in particularly on the errors of the post-V2 church, and virtually ignore what went on before.  Malachi Martin, in his book The Jesuits, chronicles the fall of the Jesuit order from way before V2.  We all know that Fr.Dhanis, a Jesuit, began his onslaught against the message of Fatima around 1944, long before V2 was even a twinkle in the eyes of liberal, modernist churchmen.  The holy monk Savanarola exposed the deep corruption of the city of Florence, both its ecclesial and civil government.  For his efforts he was put to death in 1498 under the direction of Pope Alexander VI.  Joan of Arc was handed over to British prelates by the corrupt French clergy in 1430; and we all know how that ended.  The seeds of decline were planted early and never, I believe, seriously confronted.

    I think it would help if the RNW and other traditional Catholic clergy would point out from time to time, in some detail, how V2 was going to be the inevitable outcome from centuries of church abuse and corruption.  V2 did not happen in a vacuum.  We need to know some of the things which transpired in church history before it all became "official."
    Hasn't +Williamson done this countless times in his Doctrinal conferences and sermons? I can send you one of his schemas which outlines the slide into V2. 

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #9 on: January 15, 2018, 06:15:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hasn't +Williamson done this countless times in his Doctrinal conferences and sermons? I can send you one of his schemas which outlines the slide into V2.

    One example among many, many others:

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2172
    • Reputation: +2392/-229
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548)
    « Reply #10 on: January 16, 2018, 03:47:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    Hasn't +Williamson done this, (explained the historical decline of the Church) countless times in his Doctrinal conferences and sermons? I can send you one of his schemas which outlines the slide into V2.
    Yes, he has. And I referred to this fact in a previous post- which makes me wonder why SJ put up an example of one of the very kind of conference settings to which I had previously alluded.

    The fact remains, however, that in the minds of your average trad, I think, particularly your average sspx trad, the church began her free fall at the very moment that John XXIII declared a “new springtime of the church,” of which even Pius XII made mention before his death. Very few trads believe, it seems, other than that the Church lost her way at the Second Vatican Council, and, subsequently, hurtled at mach speed towards total oblivion when Paul VI promulgated the New Mass in 1969.

    I contend that the full blown demolition of the church might have started much earlier than that. At the very least, Roncalli’s predecessor should be credited for having contributed mightily to the triggering of the V2 super event and the church’s destruction.

    After all, it was Pius XII who was eventually forced to sidestep or modify Pius XI’s Divini Redemptoris. It was was this pope who gave in to evil clergymen like Spellman (the “American Pope” and the Vatican’s chief funding agent) and Montini, not to mention the pressure put on him by Roosevelt and Stalin, and a number of other sympathetic world leaders and diplomats. It was this man who agreed not “to pronounce a single word, a single indication of approval or encouragement..” for the invasion of Russia in 1941.

    Even more importantly, it was Pacelli who failed utterly to consecrate Russia by name to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Even direct appeals by Sr. Lucy herself did not move him. Because of Pacelli, Stalin was given carte blanche in much of Europe during and after the War. Because of the Holy Father’s failure to act, the post-War years saw Communism taking over, not only Eastern Europe, but many other parts of the world, as well

    And all this poor Holy Father could do was to write weakly in a 1942 letter to Ambassador Myron Taylor: “May God grant that the free world may not have to regret my silence one day.”

    Ah yes, Pius XII preserved the Old Mass alright. But that did not prevent him from giving much of the Catholic world away in the process.  And many trads want to make Pius XII a saint.  Wow!

    If Bp. Williamson has ever really spoken to these things in a conference setting, then I for one have failed to hear them.







     

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