Quote

Forgive me John Grace, but when I first read your post it made no sense,

Which posts of mine do? I'm afraid, I haven't the time to address the comment you made. Perhaps I can return to it at the weekend but this I can't guarantee.

Please know there is no hurry.  If you never reply, I'll take that as God's
will that my question not be answered.

Whilst late, I will deal with this now as am quite fed up of the nonsense going on.

Quote

It is behind doubt that some priests and laity agree with Krah and the new direction of the SSPX. Even early on when concerns were expressed regarding Dr Krah, some SSPX priests had no problem dismissing facts as 'internet rumour'.

I appreciate your quite-fed-up-ness.  

Here!!  Here!!  And I don't mean 'maybe' -- but that's another topic.

When I read "It is behind doubt" I had no idea what you meant. It was utterly
meaningless.  Then I thought, "If I were to say this with a brougue, what
would it sound like?"  At which point, it became evident that you would make
sense if the word "behind" is replaced with "beyond," -- as follows:

It is beyond doubt that some priests and laity agree with Krah and the new
direction of the SSPX, etc.

Quote

It is legitimate to ask though of what priests or laity could do regarding the Rothschild-Gutmann money behind the SSPX.

Once again, this made no sense to me.  What were you trying to say?  It is
legitimate to ask something of priests or laity? What are you thinking of asking
them to do? You want certain priests and/or (?) laity to do something about
the money?  Then, I figured there might be a word out of place, so I tried
a few possibilities and that's when it became evident that if I were to remove
the word "of" then the sentence suddenly becomes intelligible:

It is legitimate to ask though,  of    what priests or laity could do regarding the Rothschild-Gutmann money behind the SSPX.

The "  of  " means I recommend removing the word "of," and I was
asking if that is okay with you. (Upon further consideration, it seems that
replacing "of" with "about" would also do it -- now, I fear that in American
English the word "of" here tries to impart a different meaning than it does in
Irish-English.)

Because then you would be saying that,

"asking [about] what priests or laity could do, regarding the
Rothschild-Gutmann money behind the SSPX," would be a legitimate
question.

Now, go ahead and call me dense, or ask if I have Asperger's or hurl
some other timely epithet my way, I don't mind.  I have +W as my model
of endurance.  If he can put up with it, I can put up with it.  Would that
my lowness be elevated by his stellar example, by its meet imitation thereof!  


But I need more of your own examples!  


I.e., I need to see some examples of WHAT ARE "various things that
priests AND/OR laity could do regarding the Rothschild-Gutmann money
behind the SSPX."

I am not trying to tax your patience.  I am only asking these things
for the benefit of the newcomers who might be as CLUELESS as I am.

You gave some below, and those are now precious to me, as silly
as it may seem!  You see, John Grace, your experience and
knowledge and even WISDOM in these matters far exceeds my
own, and I am really trying to keep up.  I have friends who keep
asking me why I even bother.  "Why is this so important to you?"
they say.  "Why does it matter to you what is going on in the SSPX?"

I know a sedevacantist who's pat answer is a question:  "Anyone
who has anything to do with the SSPX really needs to make a
decision."  


I'll tell you this much:  it is getting to the point where it is now easier to
know who one's real friends are by the ones who are willing to listen to
the facts, and the ones who are bent on ignoring the facts.  




This is a key feature of our age.  We are now in a time when the things
of God are being obscured by the SMOKE OF SATAN, and more and
more people are being convinced that WORLDLINESS and CHARITY
are interchangeable.

Quote

How can a Society priest preach against International Jєωry when the Jєωs in reality control the purse? It's rather embarrassing  for them.

It seems to me that mere "embarrassment" isn't the problem, but rather
"running the risk of being DEFUNDED" is a lot closer to the reality, all considered.

Quote

I don't dispute there are good priests in the Society but International Jєωry is at the heart of it.

A positive is not everybody was sleeping and took action.

Regarding people being aware but not sure what to do. I feel this is a legitimate line of argument.

My other point is some priests and laity support Dr Krah and the new direction of the SSPX. This is beyond doubt.

Okay, now I can see you have made the correction, so "beyond doubt" IS what you were
trying to say, as I had suspected.  Thank you.  I just want to be sure, here.

Some took action. An 'action' could mean they stopped financing the SSPX, they spread the word, they asked their priest, they phoned a friend. They just didn't sit back and believe the hype from Menzingen. They were not blinded by the false obedience.

NOW THAT'S what I like to see!  It nails the topic when you provide a few
examples!  I am just asking for the "(John!) Grace" of CLARITY by giving this
very important message the full power at its disposal, and now you have
provided it with "...An 'action' could mean they stopped financing the SSPX,
they spread the word, they asked their priest, they phoned a friend. They
just didn't sit back and believe the hype from Menzingen. They were not
blinded by the false obedience."

Facts dismissed as internet rumour. A friend encountered this with a priest and I myself experienced with a SSPX via the telephone. When I told him what I said could be proven, he did do the right thing and agreed to discuss with the Superior.

 

It is most important that the Faithful are informed in regards to what can be
proven.  We really need a HOT LIST of these things.  The Recusant is doing
this a little bit, but I'm going to suggest to Ed. that this become a regular
feature.  I'm sure he can find a way to make it set off with a graphic. Then
everyone can flip to that page and see the updated HOT LIST.

Now, it might be nice if you could come back to this thread and report on
the results.  

Has your friend spoken to the Superior about this HOT LIST of things that can
be proven?  

(I just heard a linguist explain that "proved" has been in more
common usage in the U.K., while "proven" has been in more common usage
in America, but that both have existed in each of these locales from the
earliest traceable use of the words, hundreds of years ago.  He did not have
anything to say about their use in Ireland, Scotland or Australia, for example.)

If so, what was the Superior's response?  Would you expect your friend to
be willing to divulge the content, or, what I fear is more likely, the Superior
may have sworn him to secrecy under 'obedience' not to discuss this matter
with anyone, especially the 'members of the Resistance' -- can you ask him
about that?  

There is a lot to keep track of with all this, and it's getting worse.  

Just today, I referred twice to the Father-Pfluger-file and made the mistake
of calling it the "Letter of Fr. Laisney."  Moments like this are humbling.  

I await your reply, reporting on your friend's meeting with the Superior,
who may I presume, would be Fr. Morgan?