Author Topic: Father Rostand sermon in Saint Marys, KS (Read 17289 times)

Columba · « **Reply #60 on:** December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 PM »

Quote from: Cronier

KyrieEleison
Quote
This mentality coming out of the sspx may be cultish when describing the complacency of the faithful who adhere to every stupid thing they are told from people like Fellay and Rostand but to call the leadership cultish is being to nice. They act in a calculated slithering way that has every trait of communist tactics written all over it. The people in the pews are the useful idiots but the ones running the show from menzingen have taken up the character of those they want to come under, they take up the characteristics of the enemies of Christ.
The sspx needs one big exorcism. Its mentally and spiritually sick from the top and its working its way down. In the case of the superior its easy to see how he lost it, it happens when someone fights the known Truth-with a capitol T. In his case he fights the Truth in order to get his way.
Lord let MY will be done, that's what his plan has been all along.

Neil Obstat
Quote
warn us AGAINST believing what Fr. Rostand
is heard here saying in this abominable sermon, given while standing in the
holy place, as he leaves Sacred Tradition in desolation before our ears, for those
who have ears to hear!!

Quote
They have Most Conspicuously Taken Up the Character of those under whom they want to become subject in all things — covetous of their jurisdiction with an unholy spirit, an unclean spirit of DEADLY VICE, like an apocalyptic MONSTER.

This ROT, that, like a FISH has started from the HEAD, has started to spread
down to the district superiors and from there to the parish priests and from
there to the lay faithful in the pews, is a fulfillment of Scripture, for when one
is given to a HARD HEART, and persists in this abominable pride saying LORD,
LET MY WILL BE DONE, God 'blesses' their obstinacy with a CURSE, and
heardens their heart. For when it is GOD Who does the hardening, the heart
turns totally against the truth, and the Romans One Curse comes into play:

I would say those quotes most certainly display hostility, antagonism, enmity. And that is just from this thread....

Thank you for providing quoted examples. Usually, those who make accusation against the resistance are loath to do so. While the statements are certainly harsh, they are at least arguably backed up by the undeniable facts regularly presented in this forum.

If these critics a) sincerely believe their targets to be guilty of subverting Catholic Tradition, b) have reasonable supporting evidence, and c) have not employed deceit or faulty logic, then the cited examples cannot be considered ill will. Harsh language used to describe harsh reality is not sin. Many of the saints have employed language far more violent than in the cited examples.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #61 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:07:45 PM »

I am a hard liner, as should be obvious by now.

I'm pretty sure nobody here considers me a softy, or sympathetic in the least with the current orientation in Menzingen.

But I do agree with Cronier that there is much gratuitous overly-harsh language employed against Menzingen/Kansas City.

When I make my criticisms, I generally do it by simply citing the contradictions, scandalous quotes, and generally leave my critiques free of adjectives.

I think the force of my observations is neither lessened nor enhanced by the use of ad hominems or adjectives.

If you think my arguments have carried a certain amount of force, despite being lacking in ad hominems and adjectives, then there should be no fear that good old Seraphim is softening (or encouraging others to soften) by simply pointing out that logical argumentation carries within itself its own force of conviction.

The flowery language which could surround it would only subtract and distract from the force of the logic itself.

At least, that is my 2 cents.

Pax

Seraphim

Columba · « **Reply #62 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:20:47 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

I am a hard liner, as should be obvious by now.

I'm pretty sure nobody here considers me a softy, or sympathetic in the least with the current orientation in Menzingen.

But I do agree with Cronier that there is much gratuitous overly-harsh language employed against Menzingen/Kansas City.

When I make my criticisms, I generally do it by simply citing the contradictions, scandalous quotes, and generally leave my critiques free of adjectives.

I think the force of my observations is neither lessened nor enhanced by the use of ad hominems or adjectives.

If you think my arguments have carried a certain amount of force, despite being lacking in ad hominems and adjectives, then there should be no fear that good old Seraphim is softening (or encouraging others to soften) by simply pointing out that logical argumentation carries within itself its own force of conviction.

The flowery language which could surround it would only subtract and distract from the force of the logic itself.

At least, that is my 2 cents.

Pax

Seraphim

You are changing the subject a bit here. Cronier did not complain of "gratuitous overly-harsh language." Rather he specifically alleged ill will. Is that what you are alleging?

I do not necessarily disagree with your post taken in isolation, but in the present context your post muddy's the water.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #63 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:22:50 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Seraphim
I am a hard liner, as should be obvious by now.

I'm pretty sure nobody here considers me a softy, or sympathetic in the least with the current orientation in Menzingen.

But I do agree with Cronier that there is much gratuitous overly-harsh language employed against Menzingen/Kansas City.

When I make my criticisms, I generally do it by simply citing the contradictions, scandalous quotes, and generally leave my critiques free of adjectives.

I think the force of my observations is neither lessened nor enhanced by the use of ad hominems or adjectives.

If you think my arguments have carried a certain amount of force, despite being lacking in ad hominems and adjectives, then there should be no fear that good old Seraphim is softening (or encouraging others to soften) by simply pointing out that logical argumentation carries within itself its own force of conviction.

The flowery language which could surround it would only subtract and distract from the force of the logic itself.

At least, that is my 2 cents.

Pax

Seraphim

You are changing the subject a bit here. Cronier did not complain of "gratuitous overly-harsh language." Rather he specifically alleged ill will. Is that what you are alleging?

I do not necessarily disagree with your post taken in isolation, but in the present context your post muddy's the water.

Ah...

I did not read the complete dialogue.

I admit, that is a bit different subject.

Mea culpa.

John Grace · « **Reply #64 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:24:10 PM »

To contrast for a moment with this found on Catholic Truth. Having met Fr Morgan a few times he is an excellent priest.A suggestion would be to send Fr Morgan messages of support.

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2012/11/society-of-st-pius-x-sspx-news-latest/#respond
Klaire on December 3, 2012 at 8:37 pm

Quote

As one of the younger members of the Glasgow SSPX congregation I was shocked to hear the priest’s sermon. I believe a sermon is religious instructions according to the church, not one’s opinion. A priest should never under any circuмstance use his sermons to ‘point the finger’ at people especially who are sitting in the pews in front of him. I was taught through my catechism and my parents to always forgive and forget no matter how serious the matter is.

Klaire on December 3, 2012 at 9:13 pm

Quote

Petrus,

after his sermon on Sunday I don’t think I could feel comfortable in his company or ever go to him for advice etc. Its a shame really because as Catholics we should be able to look up to a priest as he represents Our Lord on earth. Shocking indeed!I was stunned.

John Grace · « **Reply #65 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:26:30 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Seraphim
I am a hard liner, as should be obvious by now.

I'm pretty sure nobody here considers me a softy, or sympathetic in the least with the current orientation in Menzingen.

But I do agree with Cronier that there is much gratuitous overly-harsh language employed against Menzingen/Kansas City.

When I make my criticisms, I generally do it by simply citing the contradictions, scandalous quotes, and generally leave my critiques free of adjectives.

I think the force of my observations is neither lessened nor enhanced by the use of ad hominems or adjectives.

If you think my arguments have carried a certain amount of force, despite being lacking in ad hominems and adjectives, then there should be no fear that good old Seraphim is softening (or encouraging others to soften) by simply pointing out that logical argumentation carries within itself its own force of conviction.

The flowery language which could surround it would only subtract and distract from the force of the logic itself.

At least, that is my 2 cents.

Pax

Seraphim

You are changing the subject a bit here. Cronier did not complain of "gratuitous overly-harsh language." Rather he specifically alleged ill will. Is that what you are alleging?

I do not necessarily disagree with your post taken in isolation, but in the present context your post muddy's the water.

A problem on an internet forum is establishing tone and intent.

bowler · « **Reply #66 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:28:43 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Cronier

Fr. Rostand spoke the truth in his sermon. The Prostestant mentality is rampant throughout the world. Traditional Catholics, being part of the world, are not exempt. This spirit of "independence" is Modernist, it is American, it is Prostestant.

Here's a repsonse for you from this thread:

Quote from: Telesphorus
"My opinion" - here's the problem Father Rostand - "your opinion" is not that of your ordinary.

So who are you to criticize Catholics for following their own opinions on the Crisis of the Church?

Are you claiming authority to decide who is Catholic and who is not?

Fr. Rostand and Menzingen are Protestants, independents, and everything that they accuse us of. Once they join Rome and are subject to their ordinary, then that speech will make sense.

From:
http://sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_1_11-30_2012.htm

Quote

During the doctrinal discussions, as explained by Bishop Fellay, the Roman theologians accused us of having a Protestant attitude because we followed our own judgment against the Church Magisterium,

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #67 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:09:20 PM »

Quote from: TinkerBell

I hope that those who are so critical of the SSPX priests and its leadership are not hypocrites who attend their Masses and receive their sacraments. In other words, do you use the priests you so disdain as sacramental vending machines while anonymously trashing them in a public forum?

I think you need to stop living in Disneyland.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #68 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:21:28 PM »

Quote from: Cronier

Fr. Rostand spoke the truth in his sermon. The Prostestant mentality is rampant throughout the world. Traditional Catholics, being part of the world, are not exempt. This spirit of "independence" is Modernist, it is American, it is Prostestant. St. Benedict spoke of it in his rule. However, by the replies on this thread, it would seem many here would claim St. Benedict was a "cult leader." This rule is not just for monks. Layman follow this rule as well, they are known as oblates.

So anyone who is "indepentant" from the SSPX is a Protestant or has a Protestant mindset?

Regardless of what Bishop Fellay and Fr. Rostand may think, the SSPX isn't the Church. If one says that they will no longer support the Society because of this mess, and goes elsewhere - or in Bishop Williamson's case, sets out to start his own group - they haven't left the Church. They've left a priestly fraternity. If you think there's anything "Protestant" or "modernist" about that, well, there isn't.

Bishop Fellay should have expressed understanding towards the other three Bishops when they wrote to him earlier this year with concern over the negotiations with Rome. Instead he tried to be a big shot, painting himself as the one who was in control and no one else was going to influence his thinking. And interestingly enough, priests such as Fr. Rostand who sided with Bishop Fellay have had more say so throughout this than ANY of the other three Bishops, which is not how Archbishop Lefebvre would have wanted it.

padrepio · « **Reply #69 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:30:55 PM »

Cronier stated,

Quote

I would say those quotes most certainly display hostility, antagonism, enmity. And that is just from this thread....

BTW: The Archbishop had no problem calling a spade, a spade.

Union with Rome Pamphlet

Part 1 Part 2
How about some of these:

“We now know with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience…I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals….. “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?”(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978, Ordination Sermon, Apolo-gia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. 2, p. 209, Michael Davies)1980 “I have never change

1987 “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below....This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on it’s work of destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove...”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to future bishops Aug. 29, 1987)

AND MOST IMPORTANT..
1988 “One is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like, “They prefer to be mistaken with the pope, than to be with the truth against the pope.” That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church... St. Thomas says...”if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked, by their inferiors, even in public.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, March 29, 1988)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #70 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:45:59 PM »

Quote from: Cronier

KyrieEleison
Quote
This mentality coming out of the sspx may be cultish when describing the complacency of the faithful who adhere to every stupid thing they are told from people like Fellay and Rostand but to call the leadership cultish is being to nice. They act in a calculated slithering way that has every trait of communist tactics written all over it. The people in the pews are the useful idiots but the ones running the show from menzingen have taken up the character of those they want to come under, they take up the characteristics of the enemies of Christ.
The sspx needs one big exorcism. Its mentally and spiritually sick from the top and its working its way down. In the case of the superior its easy to see how he lost it, it happens when someone fights the known Truth-with a capitol T. In his case he fights the Truth in order to get his way.
Lord let MY will be done, that's what his plan has been all along.

Neil Obstat
Quote
warn us AGAINST believing what Fr. Rostand
is heard here saying in this abominable sermon, given while standing in the
holy place, as he leaves Sacred Tradition in desolation before our ears, for those
who have ears to hear!!

Quote
They have Most Conspicuously Taken Up the Character of those under whom they want to become subject in all things — covetous of their jurisdiction with an unholy spirit, an unclean spirit of DEADLY VICE, like an apocalyptic MONSTER.

This ROT, that, like a FISH has started from the HEAD, has started to spread
down to the district superiors and from there to the parish priests and from
there to the lay faithful in the pews, is a fulfillment of Scripture, for when one
is given to a HARD HEART, and persists in this abominable pride saying LORD,
LET MY WILL BE DONE, God 'blesses' their obstinacy with a CURSE, and
heardens their heart. For when it is GOD Who does the hardening, the heart
turns totally against the truth, and the Romans One Curse comes into play:

I would say those quotes most certainly display hostility, antagonism, enmity. And that is just from this thread....

Dear Cronier,

You have accused me of hostility, antagonism, enmity and I would like to talk
to you about that.

Are you willing to defend yourself, or are you going to hurl epithets of spite
and judgment in a general direction toward others whom you have never met
nor know anything about, and then run away and hide?

If you were a man, I might have other questions.

But since you are a woman, I would like to say that I really appreciate your
being willing to divulge the fact, to at least provide the Catholic true men on this
site, of which there are no small number, the opportunity to be gentlemen in
your presence.

And please try to remember that this is a thread about Fr. Rostand's sermon
in St. Mary's, KS. Which reminds me, it would be appropriate if you could let
us know if you were present at the sermon, because I, for one, was not, and if
you were, then you would have a more powerful witness grace due to that
fact alone, which I promise to respect.

If you are too busy to reply soon, due to work or other duties, you can rest
assured that no one is going to hold that against you.

Thank you for your consideration.

~Nl.Obs.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #71 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:57:53 PM »

Anger:

Quote

The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm

I don't see any ill will in the criticisms of the subversion and usurpation of Catholic Tradition that is occurring.

Rather it is justified anger, justified by the immensity of the evil that those people are collaborating with.

Cronier · « **Reply #72 on:** December 03, 2012, 06:19:21 PM »

Neil,

I'm just reminding us all, by way of St. Benedict, that we should all be very conscious of our words and thoughts. We should live with the thought of death always before us in order to avoid sinning, in thought, word and deed.

I cannot help but sense animosity in your posts Neil which in turn leads me to conclude you harbor ill-will toward priests/bishops of the SSPX. No I have never met you but you leave open a window into your character by the words you put forth on this forum. We all do.
Example taken from the "Menzingen propaganda" thread page 4 wherein you stated:

Quote

Okay, now the gloves are off.

You want to talk about deceptive pride, do you? You, who support,
apparently (we don't really know because he doesn't identify himself)
the deceptive pride in presuming to hog-tie three bishops of the
SSPX under the smarmy counsel of a big-money dealing donor who
would purchase (can you spell simony?) the direction of a would-be
office of the Church (at least the leadership of a fraternal society) for
the purposes of diverting the operation and effectiveness of the
world's largest remnant of traditional Catholics? That deceptive
pride?? Oh, no, you wouldn't want to talk about that, would you.

Why not? Well, obviously, then we would be ready to talk about your
practical atheism. Is that why you know so much about where that
comes from, because it is what you have embraced yourself??

What is the SSPX's confidence or hope in God, if not what was
providentially supplied by the most unique treasure of the life of the
Founder himself, who gave said life entirely to the establishment and
preservation of this Society, and, as it were, DIED IN CHILDBIRTH!!

And therefore it is YOU, unnamed priest, hiding behind Internet
anonymity (but not daring to complain about it when others practice
it!) it is YOU who no longer considers himself beholden to the
Providence of God! For it is YOU who are hereby supporting and
abetting the nefarious wiles of the Menzingen-denizens and their
incessant push to get Catholics (read: the pew-sitters and collection
basket fillers) worldwide to kowtow to your PRAY, PAY AND OBEY
tyranny, isn't it, in obstinate defiance of any and all the inconvenient
principles of the Founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. ISN'T IT?!?!

on further you state, speaking to the anonymous priest who wrote the article:

Quote

WWHHHHOAAAA, BOY! I most definitely do have a right to question
the manifest defection of one or more priests who would dare to '
lead my soul to HELL by deception, DO I NOT?? Oh, but you would
screech and howl, like a demon under exorcism, like your feet held
to the fire, for me to be "charitable!" to "have mercy!" and to "be nice!"
to this DEMONIC PERVERSION you proffer, WOULDN'T YOU?!

I can't help but read anger in that post Neil. I mean no disrespect to your Neil. But it seems from your posts that you often times let your passions rule you...passion over reason. That's not good.

To answer your question, no I was not at St. Mary's. I do not live there.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #73 on:** December 03, 2012, 06:22:19 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Cronier

Fr. Rostand spoke the truth in his sermon. The Prostestant mentality is rampant throughout the world. Traditional Catholics, being part of the world, are not exempt. This spirit of "independence" is Modernist, it is American, it is Prostestant.

Here's a repsonse for you from this thread:

Quote from: Telesphorus
"My opinion" - here's the problem Father Rostand - "your opinion" is not that of your ordinary.

So who are you to criticize Catholics for following their own opinions on the Crisis of the Church?

Are you claiming authority to decide who is Catholic and who is not?

Fr. Rostand and Menzingen are Protestants, independents, and everything that they accuse us of. Once they join Rome and are subject to their ordinary, then that speech will make sense.

From:
http://sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_1_11-30_2012.htm

Quote
During the doctrinal discussions, as explained by Bishop Fellay, the Roman theologians accused us of having a Protestant attitude because we followed our own judgment against the Church Magisterium,

It is most instructive to see that Fr. Rostand appears to be trading places
with the Romans, for during the earlier experience when they were accused
of having a Protestant attitude, they were on the receiving end, so they
ought to be understanding of that. But instead, it is as though they have
not endured that abuse (and LIE, actually, calumny) against them with the
charity and perseverance on which they are so prone to preach, and
are thereby so demanding of their own would-be subjects (no jurisdiction = we
are not their subjects, but they presumptuously preach AS IF we were,
which presumption is objectively sinful, and if grave in matter, mortally sinful,
which they should know all about since they're the 'experts') to practice. It
therefore seems to be the case, they demand of us (illegitimately unless we
give them their erstwhile missing "grace of state," but if we don't, then they
won't have it) our practice of moral virtues that they have in case of fact
demonstrably shown they are not able to likewise practice. There is a word
for that, but we would have Cronier jumping out of her seat and we cannot
have that, can we?

Should I resort to charades (again! :chef: ?)

I could go through my detailed explanation of how this moniker of
"Protestantism" is demonstrated by that very person by his own making
of the very same repeated accusation in the link to the OP but I'd rather
take a cue from Tele this time: it doesn't do much good to cover too
much in one post, for the readers probably won't plough through the
whole thing.

Right, Tele?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #74 on:** December 03, 2012, 06:30:08 PM »

It is very typical of these characters in the "Church of +Fellay" to attack the characters, reputations, and motives of those who criticize them, while at the same time trying to guilt anyone who confronts them and their BS.