Author Topic: Evolutionary Stages in the Resistance: (Read 22862 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #30 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:07:25 PM »

Quote

Nothing will return it to its former place as a solid defense against the modernism which has infected it.

On that point are the 100 or so who went to Knock shrine with Fr Morgan aware that the SSPX no longer fights Modernism? Even having Mass offered where the Novus ordo takes place is interesting in itself.

John Grace · « **Reply #31 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:11:55 PM »

Quote

The next part of this evolution is for the resistance to untie itself from the SSPX and move on to become a new work of the Church.

Moving on is key. We are already seeing 75 or so Resistance chapels, seminaries opening, convents flourishing. All very positive and necessary.

People need to move away from the SSPX. Others will disagree but there cannot be resistance from within.

JPaul · « **Reply #32 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:34:30 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote
Nothing will return it to its former place as a solid defense against the modernism which has infected it.

On that point are the 100 or so who went to Knock shrine with Fr Morgan aware that the SSPX no longer fights Modernism? Even having Mass offered where the Novus ordo takes place is interesting in itself.

Interesting yes, but more so it is indicative of a low grade infection.

To say Mass outside and apart from the place in which the sacrilege takes place would be the proper action for the uncompromised and uncompromising.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #33 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:40:08 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

1) ... and the belief that mistakes which have been made are now realized, and measures are being taken to incrementally rewind (perhaps too slowly for some) the damage.

4) Finally, regarding the process of rewinding: As one educated and experienced in both political consulting and salesmanship, I understand the dynamics involved in trying to change course without further damaging your own authotity. Menzingen has to figure out a way to revert to the old SSPX without disturbing those who have backed them all along, while simultaneously assuring the internal resistance (there being no point in worrying about the external resistance) it is rewinding. I suspect this is presently happening, but the definitive proof would be for Menzingen to find a way to eliminate the 6 conditions (e.g., Perhaps it could say that circuмstances have changed again, with the ascension of Francis, and the conditions are no longer prudent?).

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

Sean,

1) Are you aware of any actions which lead you to believe that the Society is attempting to rewind?

2) I'm disturbed by Bp Fellay's (your?) attitude toward how much concern should be placed on bringing those scandalized by these "mistakes" back into the care of the SSPX. If you make a mistake which leads someone away from the Sacraments, wouldn't that person be your first concern? I don't see how admitting your mistakes would disturb those who supported you all along.

I know that those who have left the Sacraments haven't left the Faith, but the Shepherd and His lost sheep certainly comes to mind.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** October 30, 2013, 03:46:12 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: SeanJohnson
1) ... and the belief that mistakes which have been made are now realized, and measures are being taken to incrementally rewind (perhaps too slowly for some) the damage.

4) Finally, regarding the process of rewinding: As one educated and experienced in both political consulting and salesmanship, I understand the dynamics involved in trying to change course without further damaging your own authotity. Menzingen has to figure out a way to revert to the old SSPX without disturbing those who have backed them all along, while simultaneously assuring the internal resistance (there being no point in worrying about the external resistance) it is rewinding. I suspect this is presently happening, but the definitive proof would be for Menzingen to find a way to eliminate the 6 conditions (e.g., Perhaps it could say that circuмstances have changed again, with the ascension of Francis, and the conditions are no longer prudent?).

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

Sean,

1) Are you aware of any actions which lead you to believe that the Society is attempting to rewind?

2) I'm disturbed by Bp Fellay's (your?) attitude toward how much concern should be placed on bringing those scandalized by these "mistakes" back into the care of the SSPX. If you make a mistake which leads someone away from the Sacraments, wouldn't that person be your first concern? I don't see how admitting your mistakes would disturb those who supported you all along.

I know that those who have left the Sacraments haven't left the Faith, but the Shepherd and His lost sheep certainly comes to mind.

Hello Mater:

1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.

2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).

3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).

4) Yet another would be the recent comments of Bishop Fellay against Pope Francis (i.e., calling him an overt modernist, when the branding campaign was supposed to cease fire on Vatican II).

5) The plain statement of Bishop Fellay that a practical agreement would have been disastrous. Yes, he pushed mightily for it! But it would be most difficult for him to switch course again and chase after one, having just made such a statement. That realization causes me to think this is a humble admission of bad judgment, without actually saying so.

6) WHat do you think the practical consequence of these things in Rome will be? If Francis dies tomorrow, do you think the next Pope will not be a little hamstrung by these things?

These would be just a few of the actions that come to mind off the top of my head.

I do not understand your 2nd question; could you please rephrase?

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

s2srea · « **Reply #35 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:11:51 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: Matthew
The so-called Resistance is nothing less than the core of the Traditional Movement itself (if by "Traditional movement" one means a fight against Modernism) in 2013.

There are many Catholics who call themselves "traditional", but who are the real traditionalists? The ones who know the enemy and aim for the General during the battle -- that is to say, Modernism, which is the SOURCE and cause of Vatican II and all the other things "trads" hate: Novus Ordo Missae, altar girls, liturgical dancing, use of vernacular in worship, lay takeover of churches, etc.

So I would call the Resistance the core, heart, or "elite corps" of Traditionalists. They're the ones who don't get distracted with side issues, who know the enemy and what the battle is about in the first place.

I disagree with this. The so-called Resistance is nothing more than a bunch of people who tend to agree with each other on certain issues

Wow...that is a very humanistic and democratic view of the Catholic Resistance.

Not at all. I merely stated a fact, not how I wish the Resistance would be. There is very little to what makes up any structure of the resistance. Do you disagree?

Quote

Please meditate on the consequences of the Doctrinal shift towards modernism that has infiltrated the organs of the SSPX and how the "disease" trickles and effects everyone inside of it.

If you think you are immune to that environment, then look at the Catholics of Vatican II...

Hogwash. I know I am not immune to anything. But you have a perverse view of what I just said. If I misstated my position, or am confusing, then I accept the cause of our disagreement. But I stand by my word and I am anything but humanistic and democratic. Give me a break... this is laughable.

John Grace · « **Reply #36 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:14:55 PM »

SJ

Quote

1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.

2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).

3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).

I realise your comments are directed to MD but regarding 'face-saving' any action or actions by Bishop Fellay are far too late.

Regarding Erich Priebke, who died recently. Priebke was a soldier and a hero. Not a 'war criminal'. I never met him but would have regarded it as an honour to shake his hand.

Your defence of Bishop Fellay is pathetic as is your naive comments here.

Let us get some comment from 'Cassini' now. Cassini is more than welcome to share my views with Fr Angles.The gloves are off now.

John Grace · « **Reply #37 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:22:11 PM »

SeanJohnson,

This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #38 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:40:13 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

SeanJohnson,

This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.

What an exemplary Catholic you are!

John Grace · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:41:33 PM »

It's a shame to see SeanJohnson defend and make excuses for Bishop Fellay.

John Grace · « **Reply #40 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:43:37 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: John Grace
SeanJohnson,

This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.

What an exemplary Catholic you are!

Laughable. Do you still believe you started the resistance?

John Grace · « **Reply #41 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:53:25 PM »

I have no doubt Bishop Fellay is embarrassed and is trying to save face. Most SSPX priests are. However, an apology from him would not be sincere and far too late.

John Grace · « **Reply #42 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:02:36 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: John Grace
SeanJohnson,

This is a resistance forum. Bishop Fellay and his crowd can take their 'face-saving' and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.Liberal rats and traitors.Traitors one and all.

What an exemplary Catholic you are!

Perhaps I should of phrased it differently but I shall adhere to the principles my great grandfather adhered to when he quarrelled with a priest many years ago. My great grandfather adhered to his principle.He is dead for many years, the seminary associated with the cleric is long gone but the stone pillars built by my great grandfather about a hundred years ago are still standing.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #43 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:09:18 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

I have no doubt Bishop Fellay is embarrassed and is trying to save face. Most SSPX priests are. However, an apology from him would not be sincere and far too late.

His window for you to forgive him closed, then?

It would be very difficult to trust Fellay without some sign of good will. Not sure what that would include, but certainly rescinding the six conditions. Natually, some apology to the priests and Bishop that were kicked out for doing *apparently* what Fellay is doing now.

But even if he did that, JohnGrace, you would not forgive him? That is what I took from your post. This personal animosity is understandable, though throwing around teenager-like axioms like "it's too late to apologize" is embarrassing to the Resistance.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #44 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:14:51 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: MaterDominici
Sean,

1) Are you aware of any actions which lead you to believe that the Society is attempting to rewind?

2) I'm disturbed by Bp Fellay's (your?) attitude toward how much concern should be placed on bringing those scandalized by these "mistakes" back into the care of the SSPX. If you make a mistake which leads someone away from the Sacraments, wouldn't that person be your first concern? I don't see how admitting your mistakes would disturb those who supported you all along.

I know that those who have left the Sacraments haven't left the Faith, but the Shepherd and His lost sheep certainly comes to mind.

Hello Mater:

1) Yes, I am aware of some actions which lead me to believe Menzingen is attempting a face-saving rewind.

2) The actions I have in mind squarely contradict the branding campaign, which was designed to foster a public image more appealing to the modern world (and therefore make Rome less reluctant to offer/accept an accord).

3) One such action would be the willingness to attempt funeral rites for the (unjustly) convicted war criminal, Eric Priebke in Albano, Italy. Such a thing would not have been attempted last year (the unfortunate clarification of the Italian District superior notwithstanding).

4) Yet another would be the recent comments of Bishop Fellay against Pope Francis (i.e., calling him an overt modernist, when the branding campaign was supposed to cease fire on Vatican II).

5) The plain statement of Bishop Fellay that a practical agreement would have been disastrous. Yes, he pushed mightily for it! But it would be most difficult for him to switch course again and chase after one, having just made such a statement. That realization causes me to think this is a humble admission of bad judgment, without actually saying so.

6) WHat do you think the practical consequence of these things in Rome will be? If Francis dies tomorrow, do you think the next Pope will not be a little hamstrung by these things?

These would be just a few of the actions that come to mind off the top of my head.

I do not understand your 2nd question; could you please rephrase?

Sincerely,

Sean Johnson

Thank you, Sean. I can't give much credit to #4 or #5 as those are words and Bp Fellay has lost my trust in what he says. I do, however, hope to see more actions which support your thesis.

My #2 was not a question but rather a comment in which I'd like to hear your thoughts. I will rephrase later when more time permits.