It's funny. In this case "If I had to speculate" means "In my opinion. An opinion I am very much displeased with." As can be seen if the whole thing is read clearly. What follows is nonsense! "...You are saying..." A Judgement of MY soul! I've told people before that leaving a post on a computer website is not the best because of the rash judgement it subjects people to (okay, I can hear it already, "sspxbvm, you talk about rash judgement but don't see yourself...." ---typical response from an irrational debater)

I am glad God will be my judge and not you. Catholic behaviour? Catholic behaviour is to take up spiritual arms and fight the fight in these dark times and be awake and alert know the devil prowls around seeking someone to devour. That is Catholic behaviour and it prompts me to have an opinion I don't feel comfortable with but I know is the right way.

What is this supposed to prove? --Sorry, if you don't understand maybe you need to read it a few more times.

"...based on a paragraph in a newsletter." Excuse me. Do you not understand the events of the last several months? Father Cyprians words in the newsletter are clearly in favor of bishop Fellay and hence a union with Rome. The Dominicans came out with a clear condemnation...maybe you need to read it. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Statement-by-the-Dominicans-of-Avrille
If these particular Benedictines were against a betrayl to Rome they should come out and say it. No. The words in the simple "newsletter" are quite clearly taking a side. Proof enough.

Yes. I agree it WOULD be an overreaction if not for the events of the last several months. Events you need to brush up on. Or maybe you already know and are in favor of an agreement with Rome??

Yes. The Benedictines and so many others who are now favoring an agreement with Rome HAVE had real concern for the benefit of the SSPX in the past. That being said there is something much more sinister going on here. The Devil is hard at work and has clearly infected so many priests and faithful with a diabolical disorientation (I can hear your response already but will tell you if I am right or not if you respond).

If you intend on continuing this "forum" or whatever it is suppose to be called do so with charity. Try not to condemn and then judge. You said I was condemning. No. I was lamenting. Seems you jumped the gun.

I am rather excited that I got a negative, judgemental response and told my wife I was staying up to answer it. It's probably not worth it since nobody's going to change their opinion over a post on the internet. So often these things are read in the wrong way. I am perhaps wrong but this is what I imagined with this OBSCURUS person  ---> :cussing: Now I will go close my tired eyes! God speed.

Quote from: sspxbvm

It's funny. In this case "If I had to speculate" means "In my opinion. An opinion I am very much displeased with." As can be seen if the whole thing is read clearly. What follows is nonsense! "...You are saying..." A Judgement of MY soul! I've told people before that leaving a post on a computer website is not the best because of the rash judgement it subjects people to (okay, I can hear it already, "sspxbvm, you talk about rash judgement but don't see yourself...." ---typical response from an irrational debater)

I judged what I saw as an unfair and harsh post on Fr. Cyprian and his direction of the monastery based on very little evidence. Before we make severe judgments on someone (and I do believe we can make judgments) shouldn't we at least caution on the side of charity and have clear evidence? That was the point of my message but perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.

I am not sure why you are calling me an "irrational debater." I have no bones to pick with you personally but do you not see any merit in what I wrote? I am arguing against the principle of attacking Fr. Cyprian based on little to no evidence.

Quote from: sspxbvm

I am glad God will be my judge and not you. Catholic behaviour? Catholic behaviour is to take up spiritual arms and fight the fight in these dark times and be awake and alert know the devil prowls around seeking someone to devour. That is Catholic behaviour and it prompts me to have an opinion I don't feel comfortable with but I know is the right way.

I said, I find it difficult to believe, so I tried to be as charitable as I can and have no intention in judging your interior dispositions or the like. Just as you said you expressed your opinion, I have expressed mine. Catholic behaviour also dictates that we use reason and prudence in the discernment of the evils out there. I agree, we must fight the good fight as St. Paul said, but we also have a mind to judge accordingly and this attack on Fr. Cyprian does not seem very prudent at all.

Quote from: sspxbvm

What is this supposed to prove? --Sorry, if you don't understand maybe you need to read it a few more times.

Are you trying to say that he is now exhausted and does not want to fight for Tradition?

Quote from: sspxbvm

"...based on a paragraph in a newsletter." Excuse me. Do you not understand the events of the last several months? Father Cyprians words in the newsletter are clearly in favor of bishop Fellay and hence a union with Rome. The Dominicans came out with a clear condemnation...maybe you need to read it. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Statement-by-the-Dominicans-of-Avrille
If these particular Benedictines were against a betrayl to Rome they should come out and say it. No. The words in the simple "newsletter" are quite clearly taking a side. Proof enough.

I have been "with" the SSPX for over 15 years and look at the present situation with the SSPX as a major crisis or as Bp. Williamson has said "the VII of the SSPX." Have you asked what Fr. Cyprian's views are? You extrapolated his desire for union with Rome based on those rather brief statements in his newsletter? Union with Rome, as a principle, is good and natural, union with modernists is not a good principle. Are you sure Fr. Cyprian believes the latter and not the former? I don't agree with your assessment. I am entitled to that, no?

Quote from: sspxbvm

Yes. I agree it WOULD be an overreaction if not for the events of the last several months. Events you need to brush up on. Or maybe you already know and are in favor of an agreement with Rome??

I have been following the events from day one. I am not sure how many times I am going to repeat this: I am not in favor of a practical agreement without an addressing of doctrinal issues. However, I will not just blindly follow any type of criticism when I do not agree with the methods and cause for such criticism.

Quote from: sspxbvm

Yes. The Benedictines and so many others who are now favoring an agreement with Rome HAVE had real concern for the benefit of the SSPX in the past. That being said there is something much more sinister going on here. The Devil is hard at work and has clearly infected so many priests and faithful with a diabolical disorientation (I can hear your response already but will tell you if I am right or not if you respond).

I do agree there is a diabolical disorientation which is something I have been telling my wife constantly throughout the past year. I am not sure why you feel the need to preemptively answer my supposed response. I think much of your disagreement with me is based on a severe misunderstanding. Perhaps we can have a few beers and talk it over? (I don't really drink beer but maybe some port wine would do.)

Quote from: sspxbvm

If you intend on continuing this "forum" or whatever it is suppose to be called do so with charity. Try not to condemn and then judge. You said I was condemning. No. I was lamenting. Seems you jumped the gun.

I believe you made some very unfair criticisms of Fr. Cyprian and his monastery.  

Quote from: sspxbvm

I am rather excited that I got a negative, judgemental response and told my wife I was staying up to answer it. It's probably not worth it since nobody's going to change their opinion over a post on the internet. So often these things are read in the wrong way. I am perhaps wrong but this is what I imagined with this OBSCURUS person  ---> :cussing: Now I will go close my tired eyes! God speed.

And perhaps you read my post in the wrong way and I would dare say maybe I misread yours (I am open to correction). My desire is not to get in a fruitless argument with you, in fact, if anyone knows me one would know that I am very reluctant to get in arguments because of my temperament. However, when I see certain injustices and lack of fairness in the treatment of priests, then I cannot remain silent. God speed, I hope you have not found offense in anything I have written.

...It's a bit ironic, that from those humble origins, Fr. Cyprian is now supporting Bp. Fellay and more sadly, his stated intentions to unite with newRome.[/color]

Quote from: Incredulous

I suspected we had a "Birds of Feather" situation at Silver City.

Bp, Fellay's west coast "lieutenant", Fr. Emily is close to to the Silver City Benedictines.  He typically goes there at least once a year to make a small retreat. One of his "confessors" is there.

Benedictine priests also visit Fr. Emily's Los Gatos retreat center and help out for extended periods.  

It should be relatively easy to map-out the "SSPX-network" for who supports the prelature (sell-out) and who doesn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe the Domicans of Avrille were friends of
the Silver City Benedictines.  I wonder how that relationship is holding up now?

Why do you say "west coast lieutenant, Fr. Emily?"
Has Fr. Emily written something in favor of "regularization" with conciliar Rome?

Quote

It should be relatively easy to map-out the "SSPX-network" for who supports the prelature (sell-out) and who doesn't.

So then, how does one go about this task??

Thanks for the answer, but I still have questions. Based on what information do you make these judgments? You're providing nothing about the other locations, but for your conclusions: conclusions because of what evidence??

As for Fr. Emily, how has he been a long time supporter of +Fellay's "plum" dream over the years? How do you know "he does not like or support Bishop Williamson?"

Are you talking about something he has said in sermons? or something he has
written in newsletters? or something a reporter has given with an interview for some magazine or radio program? What?

What information are you using to make these conclusions? If you are going by some unsupported comments by someone else, you could be making a mistake. If I were to believe this unsupported report of yours I could be promoting erroneous conclusions. I'd like to avoid doing that if possible.

Now, I have Fr. Emily's phone number. I could call him up and ask him. Would you prefer I do that, and then I can come back here and let you know what the horse's mouth has to say about his own reputation. Or, do you have someone to recommend who has been attending Fr. Emily's Masses on Sunday, for example? I went to Los Gatos for a retreat last year, and for the duration there was no mention of the political movements of the SSPX. All of the retreatants were entirely occupied with the curriculum of the retreat, which was missing a lot of details as it was. It was a very abbreviated program. We did not have any spare time.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but at the banquet after ordinations in Winona, Fr. Cyprian said, "…wherever the Society goes we go.  And we support the Society in any of their endeavors, their projects, their resolves, their decisions; we are 100% with them."