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

No not at all Spiritus Sanctus.  That is not what I was indicating at all.  An independent spirit and/or ideals is practically embedded in today's mindset, particularly Americans.  It is a mindset that has no authority other than oneself.  That is a Protestant mindset.  It is a statement of fact.  That is what Fr. Rostand was saying.  We are all infected with it.  I believe Americans even more so.  But it is also due to original sin.  

I agree with you that the SSPX is not the Church.  The SSPX would agree with you as well.  

I am stating that it is easy to fall prey to the independent American mindset in any and all decisions that we make due to its prevalence in society, therefore we have to fight against it at every turn.  

You cannot argue with these people - they are not interested in discussion, they have put on airs of authority and they insist that no one question it.

Menzingen supporters cannot engage in a good faith discussion because their position is manifestly indefensible from a traditionalist standpoint. The only defenses currently offered by Menzingen are attacks upon the characters of its internal critics. Previously, Menzingen invoked the pejoratives of "schismatic" and "sedevacantist." Now it seems they have moved toward epithets of protestant, liberal, and democrat.

Tomorrow they may call us taliban, modernists, and freemasons. Or perhaps they will start a run-down of the historical heresies, starting with Jansenist, Domatist, and Gallicanist. When punch of those epithets wear off, they may dig deeper to employ Manichaeist, Pelagian, and Arian.

What is certain is that Menzingen will never sit still for a civilized discussion on the merits of its position and always resort to stirring up distraction by ad hominem attacks upon the persons of the resistance.

Let those uninformed or uncertain about Menzingen's position simply examine its conduct to determine whether it is aiming to deceive.

Dear Cronier,

You had me on the edge of my seat whether and how you would
respond.  Thank you for your diligence.  I hope this is not cutting
into your duties...

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.  

Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti: Vade Retro Satana Non Suade Mihi
Vana: Sunt Mala Quae Libas Ipse Venea Bibas: Ejus in obitu nostro
praesentia muniamur.

Thank you for pointing out a place where the holy Rule has a
direct application in context.  We all have much to learn from it.

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.  

I don't blame you for first touching on the intention question.  You
can read a lot of written stuff but only when you have access to the
author can you clear up this question, and only then if he's willing to
answer it.   But this is not about me.  If it helps you at all, last time
I checked, I didn't find I was harboring any ill will or animosity toward
anyone, much less any SSPX clerics.  Is that a question you would
ask the guy who overturned the money changers at the temple, or
accused the Pharisees of being whited sepulchres and sons of satan?

I have known and still know several SSPX priests for whom I would
gladly give my life if it were required.  I have absolutely the highest
regard for the SSPX bishops, but not all.  Now, I do not question their
Holy Orders, and I do not hold their sacraments in suspicion.  And, as
St. Francis of Assisi was wont to say, I would kneel before them and
kiss their hand for this is the hand that brings me the Bread of Life.

I hope that makes you feel better.  But again, this thread is about
the sermon given on the First Sunday of Advent at St. Mary's.  Oh,
and by the way, I knew the holy priest who had been an SSPX priest,
and who purchased that KS property for the SSPX many many years
ago with his own, personal money, and got the parish started.  I am
forever grateful to God for the signal grace and conspicuous
privilege bestowed upon me and my friends for being allowed to
keep his company for a limited time before he raced off to another
important sacramental appointment.  He was covering about 15
states, from what I hear.  He died of terminal cancer, but he never
stopped saying Mass and traveling immense distances to do so.
He died with his boots on.  I think I have met a saint.  

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?!?!

I did not forget that there was considerable context to this quote
which you have omitted.  Do you remember the context?   Do you
recall that the author wrote these things after the conference in
Post Falls, apparently, or, at least they were posted well after the
conference so as to at least appear to be a development thereof?

Do you have any comments on that observation?

Are you willing to acknowledge the principle of context when you
select out one quote from among thousands of quotes and focus
all your attention on that one?

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

Actually, I do not know who wrote the article.  Do you?  Are you
saying he is an anonymous priest because you know he is such, or
are you saying that because you see me presume that.. BTW it isn't a
sin of presumption to presume that, I was simply taking the worst
case option in the event that he is a priest.. But I suppose "he" could
be a "she," now couldn't he?

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.  

Let me explain something here.  This is an Internet forum.  We do
not have the power to see each other face to face.  So think of it as
we are writing letters to each other, okay?  Remember the days when
people would carry on postal intercourse, perhaps for years, before
they ever got to meet the person to whom they wrote?  And, to
touch on the topic you seem to be rather focused on (and I must say,
rightly so!) sometimes they would never actually get to meet, but
one would find by someone else's letter that their pen-pal had
passed away, and this is to let you know..

In the days when Americans came from Europe, often times they left
behind friends and family that they would never see again.. But now,
Americans are more likely to have friends and family living within
convenient driving distance whom they neglect to meet for years on
end, amen.

Speaking of "amen," if a priest threatens to lead you astray and cause
you to lose your faith, is that something that these Americans, who
can ignore their own family and friends for years until they die,
should therefore play nice to, and the priest someone they should
continue to tolerate and respect as a "man of God" when they in fact
see him as a priest who is leading souls to hell by his apostasy??

Or, are you of the mind that priests NEVER lead souls to hell by their
apostasy?

I mean no disrespect to [you] 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.  

Thank you for answering my question regarding your absence at the
sermon. Can I therefore expect that you are relying on the mp3
recording supplied by sspxbvm for this discussion?  I presume you
have listened to that by now?

And I do know that you mean no disrespect, by the tone of your
posts, so seeing you say that here (I was going to type "hearing you
say" but I can't actually hear you but rather I see what you typed)
reassures me that the intention I had perceived was not an illusion.  

Thank you.

As for my passions,  that is between my confessor and me, and not
for the eyes of strangers worldwide.   But you know, God gives us
our passions for a reason.  They are gifts, actually, and it is up to
us to make the best use of them.  

Are you aware, for example, that if you had not read what you saw I
wrote, perhaps you would not realize that the sermon of Fr. Rostand
is offensive to pious ears?  Would you prefer to remain in that
deception?  
 
Now, perhaps if we could hear the whole thing, we may have a
different impression.  But keep in mind, that if 65% of it was
offensive, is there much chance that the other 35% would fix the
problems?  

Therefore, I fully expect that hearing the whole enchilada would
have been even MORE offensive to pious ears than the part we CAN
hear.  

Most people listening to that sermon would leave the room and not
give it a second thought.  Same goes for most Catholics.  But if
5,000 people walk by a starving man on main street and only one is
moved to stop and give him consolation, is that somehow offensive
to the others who did not stop or did not notice?  

Are you aware that Our Lord warned us not to fear him who can kill
your body but rather fear him who can cast your soul into hell
forever?   How is it uncharitable to quote Our Lord when we see
that the words are appropriate?  Or are you accusing me of
misappropriating His words?  Perhaps you would prefer His words
to quietly pass over the horizon where we won't need to see them
anymore?  Don't forget what He said at the end of last week's
Gospel.  Do you recall the Gospel for Christ the King Sunday?

Are you aware that there have been heresies that raged for years,
one of which did so before one layman standing up and making a
loud accusation effectively caused the ungodly thing to crash and
burn?  

Have you ever been in a church that was being defiled, and have
you ever seen anyone intervene with good will to stop it from
happening?  Would you think of telling him that something he said
while stopping the outrage seemed to you to be due to him not
having control of his passions?

Now, I could be way off the mark here, but since the authors of these
screeds are not daring to show their faces, all we can do is presume.

But when the firemen get an alarm bell, should they stand around
and discuss whether or not to go on the call?  Or, if the firemen fail
to take the proper action and a passer-by notices the need, should
he jump in a waiting truck and take some kind of action?

The post you first quoted, "More Menzingen Propaganda" was sourced
from the SSPX website, and was first posted there several days before
the sermon Fr. Rostand gave yesterday in St. Mary's.   I don't know if
you realize that the content and tone of his Post Falls "conference"
the other day was comparable to the sermon he gave yesterday.  Can
you tell me how it was not identical?  

I could go on and on and on, and I think you agree I'm not kidding!
HAHAHAHAHA

But let's save us all some grief and maybe you can answer a few of
my points here, okay?  BTW: I sense a religious aspect to your posts.  
Are you a nun, perhaps?

If nothing else, tell me how you think Fr. Rostand's content and
demeanor was different yesterday, the First Sunday of Advent, from
his erstwhile appearance in Idaho, Immaculate Conception parish, I
think it's called.  Or let me know if you think it was the same.  




Remember, this thread is about Fr. Rostand's sermon yesterday.  It
could turn into its own sub-forum if there were a few more nuts like
me around, eh??                  HAHAHHAHA

"coincidental", Neil Obstat, that we posted almost simultaneously, using the reference to 'whited sepulchres'.  +1 alone for that :smile:

which fr nichols is that?

Dear Cronier,

In the event you are unfamiliar with how things happen here on CI, while Tele's
post, below, was made some half hour after yours here, and the fact that often
times he does not quote the post to which he's replying, this time, since his post
is rather long (it is rather unusual for him to have so much to say in any single
post), he could easily have been typing it when you made this post, and he may
not have checked the thread (which may require opening a new tab or browser
to see if any new posts have arrived while you were typing) before submitting
this reply.  Therefore it is reasonable to presume that his post, below, was not
a reply to yours, here, nor is it impossible that he may have been unable to
factor in yours here before running off to other duties.

I am stating that it is easy to fall prey to the independent American mindset in any and all decisions that we make due to its prevalence in society, therefore we have to fight against it at every turn.  

Americans are a unique breed in history, to be sure.  The practice of religious
obedience does not come easily to any American.  And this characteristic is
not unrelated to Protestantism, but also, it's not identical to it, either.  You can't
put all the blame on Americans, but the unclean spirit of Vatican II was not a
matter insulated from Americanism, either.  Some commentators have opined
that it was precisely Americanism being exported across the Pacific Ocean to
Rome that gave the Council a lot of its impudence toward Catholic Tradition.

Do you agree with that?  

The reality is that the Protestant, Americanized (or rather Judaized - as this culture is heavily [influenced] by the Jєωιѕн media) attitudes are being exhibited by those who don't care about the principles of the Archbishop but rather in the social status of the society.  They don't like being "irregular" - it's bad for business, or "circulation" (a Fellayite on IA compared the SSPX and the Pope to the editorial board of a newspaper).  It's very apparent who the people are who have the liberal, bourgeois, and Americanist attitudes, and they aren't the ones in the resistance.  

The priests leading the resistance, Bishop Williamson, etc, are not motivated by a "Protestant" mentality.  That is simply a mendacious slur.

The leadership of the SSPX are acting as Protestants in usurping the Archbishop's work - and in making claims to authority that are not theirs to make.

These clarifying statements are so essential for us to recognize to make our
thinking capable of recognizing the truth of what is going on these days.  

When I read Cronier's statement that what Fr. Rostand said in his sermon is
"the truth," I had to hang my head and nearly cry.  It was not the "truth."  It
was at most a HALF truth.  And a half truth is a whole lie.  This is the manner
of deception that the devil uses.  It is most UNBECOMING of a priest to stoop
to such a lowness.  And then for him to presume his listeners are obligated to
accept this manifest lie and be "obedient" to his dictates when he objectively
has no such authority, is heaping one mendacious lie on top of another.

These things need to be called out.  Shame on him!  And the Menzingen-denizens
have the GALL, the TEMERITY, the IMPUDENCE to punish other good priests who
are doing God's work while they subborn the PURGERY of this ilk?  

This is a moral CRIME of the HIGHEST ORDER.  And it's time Catholics WAKE
UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

And for me to say so is not me expressing "anger" or "animosity" or "enmity" or
"ill-will" or "hostility" or "antagonism" or any of the other words you can find in
the thesaurus to dole out your ad hominems when you can't grope in the dark
sufficiently to defend these indefensible acts of the Menzingen-denizens.  It is,
rather simply righteous indignation, and it is entirely justified, for here
we are, being stripped of our patrimony and heritage before our eyes,
and some of us have been there and done that already, and some things are
worth fighting for.  American pioneer women learned the hard way to tell their
men-folk, "now is the time to defend your family."  And sometimes it meant the
father had to die.  That is also part of American history.  We are not that far
removed from the prairie and the frontier.  

The resistance doesn't accept Bishop Fellay's attempt to tightly control the priests  - so that an essay against Assisi 3 has to be published with a disclaimer, that it has Bishop Fellay's permission!  Do the priests now need permission to criticize false ecuмenism?  The priests of the resistance see the liberalization taking place.  They are there.  They see it.  They are not following their own will.  They are refusing to practice false obedience to the illegitimate exercise of authority, that they have observed getting worse for years now, and has now reached the point where they feel compelled to speak out.

You know, Tele, it is so good to see you expound on this essential matter.  We
are actually obligated to make these principles our own and be prepared to
voice them in context whenever the need arises.  

We have been conditioned in our age to be blind to such things by the spoon-
feeding of errors in the MSM and politicians' words, which have trickled down
into education and even the pulpits of various religions.  We repeat the mantras
of Freemasons, basically, without being aware of it.  The smoke of satan has
entered the Church through some crack.  Pope Gregory XVI described a black
fog from hell covering the earth and he called it "the Liberalism."  We are nearly
200 years hence today.  The black fog has had a lot of time to get into our
minds.  It is time some clarity is applied by means of truth in action.  The truth
will set you free.  

To not go along with Bishop Fellay as he shakes hands with modernists and Zionists and has Bishop Williamson kicked out of the society?  That is Protestantism?  Let's not forget, the Zionist (under the name Pius XII) has been quoted on Kreuznet as calling the letter of the three bishops to Bishop Fellay "Protestant."  This slur of "protestant" is just garbage - coming from people, some of whom, would have a hard time justifying the label Catholic.  Certainly they could be called Protestant, with much more justice, than those they are accusing of it.

It is our duty to identify hypocrisy when it happens like this.  Mendacity has no
place in the words of any priest.  Father Rostand stands there and accuses
others of "Protestantism" while he's practicing it himself!  

Does your handy thesaurus have any fingerprints on that page??

(Not you, Tele!)

These liberal priests are not only following their own will in opposition to that of the Archbishop (as John MacFarland says, the Archbishop is dead) - they are also insisting that others must follow their will and change as they change.  They are the ones who are possessed of a towering vanity and pride, and that is shown by their tyrannical acts, over and over again.  Their arrogance is repulsive and seemingly without limit - the impossibility of having a good faith discussion with them is manifest.  

Man, sometimes you come up with a paragraph that should be immortalized.

And that's one for the record!  

These liberal priests are not only following their
own will in opposition to that of the Archbishop
(as John MacFarland says, the Archbishop is dead)
- they are also insisting that others must follow
their will and change as they change.  They are
the ones who are possessed of a towering vanity
and pride, and that is shown by their tyrannical
acts, over and over again.  Their arrogance is
repulsive and seemingly without limit - the
impossibility of having a good faith discussion
with them is manifest.

You cannot argue with these people - they are not interested in discussion, they have put on airs of authority and they insist that no one question it.  Well, they're not in a position to do that.  No one who attends the SSPX is bound to obey them - because they are no one's ordinary.  

Truer words were never spoken.  The Lion of Wimbledon would be reading this
and know that all is not lost.  There is a glimmer of hope yet to be found.

I'm going to be quoting this post of yours, Tele, if you don't mind.  Thank you.

Practically speaking, they do treat the SSPX as the Church.  They are double-talkers of course, always speaking out of both sides of their mouth - refusing to accept the implications of their words - their position is always inconsistent, always convenient.  

As this "protestant" slur shows.

For those who are not "getting it," when Tele says "this protestant slur shows"
he is saying that Father Rostand stands there and points the finger of
accusation at the Resistance, accusing them of "Protestantism."  But it's a lie.
It is a "slur."  It is pertinacious calumny, actually.  He should know better.

Shame on him.  

It is not "anger" or "malice" or "animostiy" or "pride" or "hatefulness" or "ill will"
for any of us to say these things in the face of such a priest who commits
these moral transgressions, these vicious digs, these outright outrages against
everything true, just, good, beautiful and honest.  

He had better own up to his ERROR and ABJURE IT before it is too late,
because if he happens to go to meet his Maker with such dark and dreary
blemishes on his soul, he's in for NO GOOD CONSEQUENCE to be sure.

There is no way to put a NICE FACE on this objective perversity.

There is, rather meet justification to repeat the Romans One Curse warning:




This is a sad day indeed.

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 prophesy.  



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,

God hardens 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:


22 For professing themselves wise, they became foolish...
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart...
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served
the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen.
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections...
27 ...receiving in themselves the recompense that was due to their error.
28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered
them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient:
29 Being filled with all iniquity ... malice ... avarice, wickedness, full of envy,
contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of
evil things, disobedient to parents (and Founding Fathers)
31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy,
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they
who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them,
but they also who consent to them that do them.
cap. ii. 1 Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that
judgest.  For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.
For thou dost the same things that thou judgest.
2 For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against
them that do such things...



Woe to thee, Corozain,
Woe to thee, Bethasida.  
For if in Tyre and Sidon
had been wrought
the miracles that have
been wrought in you,
they had long ago
done penance
in sack cloth and ashes.

But I say unto you,
it shall be more tolerable
for Tyre and Sidon
in the day of judgment
than for you.

And thou Capharnaum,
shalt thou be exalted
up to heaven?
thou shalt go down
even unto hell.

For if in Sodom
had been wrought
the miracles that
had been wrought
in thee,
perhaps it had remained
even unto this day.

But I say unto you,
it shall be more tolerant
for the land of Sodom
in the day of judgment
than for thee.

At that time Jesus
answered and said:

I confess to Thee,
O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth,
because Thou hast
hid these things
from the wise
and prudent,
and hast revealed
them to little ones.

Yea, Father,
for so it hath
seemed good
in Thy sight.

(Saint Matthew cap. xi. 21-26)


"Heaven and earth shall pass away

but my words shall not pass away."

(Mk. xiii. 31, cf. Matt. xxiv. 35)

What is the date of this sermon?

What an oversight!  Thanks for asking.  I had to go back and see, for we
had been running on in full knowledge of the date, yet the date is nowhere
to be found in this thread (I think) but is only in the words of Fr. Rostand
in the audio on YouTube.  He begins saying it's the First Sunday of Advent.

That was two days ago, December 2nd, 2012.



...........a lot has "hit the fan" in only a day and a half..............