Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: curioustrad on January 15, 2013, 09:52:31 PM
-
The only thing we really need to know. Not what the SSPX-accordistas are up to - but is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church ? Straight question - how about a straight answer ?
-
We do not deny the Roman Church. We do not deny their existence, but we cannot follow their directives. We cannot follow the principles of the Council. We cannot relate.
I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of see. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."
Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear.
When he explicitly said to us: "Obviously, if this protocol [of 1988] is granted to you, you must also accept what we do, therefore, in the church Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet it will be necessary also to say a new mass every Sunday " …
You see he wanted to lead us to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible since it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to end the Tradition.
They do not grant anything for appreciation of the traditional liturgy, but simply to cheat those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the traditional block to destroy it.
This is their policy, their conscious tactics. They do not make a mistake, and you know the pressures that they exert...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/THE-VISIBILITY-OF-THE-CHURCH
-
We do not deny the Roman Church. We do not deny their existence, but we cannot follow their directives. We cannot follow the principles of the Council. We cannot relate.
I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of see. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."
Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear.
When he explicitly said to us: "Obviously, if this protocol [of 1988] is granted to you, you must also accept what we do, therefore, in the church Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet it will be necessary also to say a new mass every Sunday " …
You see he wanted to lead us to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible since it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to end the Tradition.
They do not grant anything for appreciation of the traditional liturgy, but simply to cheat those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the traditional block to destroy it.
This is their policy, their conscious tactics. They do not make a mistake, and you know the pressures that they exert...
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/THE-VISIBILITY-OF-THE-CHURCH
We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! We want Pfeiffer ! :rahrah: :rahrah: :rahrah:
-
You sure seem to have a lot of axes to grind, curioustrad. What gives?
-
Somebody didn't get their cookie today. :wink:
-
When somebody starts their own church we need to make sure it professes the One Holy Catholic Faith - the Apostolic part will follow in due course - no doubt. :jester:
-
The only thing we really need to know. Not what the SSPX-accordistas are up to - but is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church ? Straight question - how about a straight answer ?
Answer: No.
-
Dear CURIOUSTRAD aka Brother Peter or Michael Dimond:
Why don't you just contact Fr. Pfeiffer at the KY address and set this debate up?
Should be interesting. Be sure to post it at your website, www.schismatic-home-aloner.com.
:dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:
-
When somebody starts their own church we need to make sure it professes the One Holy Catholic Faith - the Apostolic part will follow in due course - no doubt. :jester:
Fr. Pfeiffer has started his own church?
curioustrad, you're not a member of the resistance. I think you're just here to grind an axe against Fr. Pfeiffer. Please go elsewhere to do that, CatholicInfo doesn't appreciate slander like that here.
-
Dear CURIOUSTRAD aka Brother Peter or Michael Dimond:
Why don't you just contact Fr. Pfeiffer at the KY address and set this debate up?
Should be interesting. Be sure to post it at your website, www.schismatic-home-aloner.com.
:dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
Is the "Most Holy Family Monastery" the Catholic Church?
-
This reminds me of the time the Pharisees tried to trap Our Lord, in one of their many attempts. And what do you think He said?
"And Jesus answering, said to them: 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they marvelled at him." Mark 12:17
-
This reminds me of the time the Pharisees tried to trap Our Lord, in one of their many attempts. And what do you think He said?
"And Jesus answering, said to them: 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they marvelled at him." Mark 12:17
He also said that everything he had taught he had taught openly and that nothing was hidden. :popcorn:
-
I would say the ultimate point of this thread from my perspective (since Scriptural quotations seem to be in order) I'm asking St. John the Baptist: By what authority do you do these things. Fr. Pfeiffer needs to offer some coherent ecclesiology before I will believe there is a reason for an episcopal consecration. I can more clearly see a consecration without an ecclesial exposition.
In modern times most very candidate for the episcopacy has given a serious theological justification for this step but here I can find none (justification in writing from him that is).
Mark my words this point will almost certainly go unaddressed - except by the thumbs down and one liner brigade but that's small beer where this is concerned.
-
It would seem that "curioustrad" has an axe to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
It would seem that "curioustrad" has an axe to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer.
That, and the fact that his whole distorted line of thought condemns Bishop Fellay, and he seems not to realize it.
-
Yes, curioustrad, what dog do you have in this fight?
Do you even attend an SSPX chapel?
Do you have any investment in the destiny of the SSPX whatsoever? If not, your opinion is less than worthless.
-
[Having a bad dream...]
I would say the ultimate point of this thread from my perspective...
...Mark my words this point will almost certainly go unaddressed...
:sleep:
-
Maybe it's going unanswered because Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't read this forum?
:drillsergeant:
-
Yes, curioustrad, what dog do you have in this fight?
Do you even attend an SSPX chapel?
Do you have any investment in the destiny of the SSPX whatsoever? If not, your opinion is less than worthless.
These are early days yet for the Resistance. As far as I am concerned we must be patient and be able to discuss opposing views peacefully. For whatever reason, it seems to me that there are lay Resisters ( the vast majority) who are happy with ALL of the Resistance priests. There are a few (myself included) who are not happy with SOME of the Resistance padres. It seems unlikely, but some may not like ANY of the priests!!!.
Let's see if the message makes sense, rather than attacking the messenger!
-
Yes, curioustrad, what dog do you have in this fight?
Fight: against what are we fighting ? "Powers and principalities" according to St. Paul. Every Catholic has a dog in this fight.
curioustrad: moniker that suggests a Traditional Catholic who is curious and seeks the truth.
Dog: preservation of the Holy Inviolable Catholic Faith
Do you even attend an SSPX chapel?
This question would seem to be redundant. We are all fighting for the continuance of the Traditional Catholic Faith. The SSPX-SO chapels aren't listed as SSPX so what's the issue here ?
Do you have any investment in the destiny of the SSPX whatsoever?
Every Traditional Catholic has an investment in the SSPX whether formally attending, formerly attending now sedevacantist or independent, or attending a chapel sponsored by the Diocese. Every one of them depends upon the work of Archbishop Lefebvre without exception.
If not, your opinion is less than worthless.
Here you are getting into ad hominem argumentation. My questions are based upon one premise: upon what reason is a future consecration predicated ? Even the CIC presumes a reason for acting when flouting the letter of the law. I am only asking the SSPX-SO to give a canonical explanation for the reason for their existence. So far they "seem" to be running in opposition to the SSPX. Bishop Williamson always said, before you dynamite the building be sure you have a foundation with which to replace it. I guess I'm asking "Where's the foundation" ?
It's like the seminarian who once asked the Archbishop what the charism of the SSPX was and he responded: "The Mass". That is an inadequate answer since all orders and secular priests have that. Later in life the Archbishop answered the question with his book the Spiritual Journey - the restoration of the priesthood.
-
It would seem that "curioustrad" has an axe to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer.
Read what I ACTUALLY write first.
-
It would seem that "curioustrad" has an axe to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer.
That, and the fact that his whole distorted line of thought condemns Bishop Fellay, and he seems not to realize it.
By no means ! The SSPX has made its own case for 42 years and it holds together !
-
It's obvious from your words that you don't like Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
It would seem that "curioustrad" has an axe to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer.
That, and the fact that his whole distorted line of thought condemns Bishop Fellay, and he seems not to realize it.
By no means ! The SSPX has made its own case for 42 years and it holds together !
Like I said...
-
Maybe it's going unanswered because Fr. Pfeiffer doesn't read this forum?
:drillsergeant:
If Pablo posts here he must read it - he'd be a fool not to with that loose cannon running around.
-
It's obvious from your words that you don't like Fr. Pfeiffer.
What's obvious ?
-
Yeah, like Fr. Pfieffer has a whole lot of time to prowl the forums to debate with the likes of you, curioustrad. Get a clue. I think if he had 10 spare minutes he would either spend it preaching or take a nap.
-
It would seem that "curioustrad" has an axe to grind with Fr. Pfeiffer.
That, and the fact that his whole distorted line of thought condemns Bishop Fellay, and he seems not to realize it.
By no means ! The SSPX has made its own case for 42 years and it holds together !
Like I said...
Parla Inglese ?
-
Yeah, like Fr. Pfieffer has a whole lot of time to prowl the forums to debate with the likes of you, curioustrad. Get a clue. I think if he had 10 spare minutes he would either spend it preaching or take a nap.
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows me way better than most of you.
-
Yeah, like Fr. Pfieffer has a whole lot of time to prowl the forums to debate with the likes of you, curioustrad. Get a clue. I think if he had 10 spare minutes he would either spend it preaching or take a nap.
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows me way better than most of you.
Why don't you just call him?
-
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows me way better than most of you.
That should read:
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows the way better than most of you.
-
Yeah, like Fr. Pfieffer has a whole lot of time to prowl the forums to debate with the likes of you, curioustrad. Get a clue. I think if he had 10 spare minutes he would either spend it preaching or take a nap.
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows me way better than most of you.
Why don't you just call him?
That would only be a private conversation. I want a public declaration of theological principles.
The SSPX have one, so do SSPV, CMRI and the Dolan / Sanborn group - interestingly each group has a bishop or bishops but... CRUCIALLY... they declare their position on the issues that matter.
Also each of those groups had numerous stable chapels well before the need for a consecration was needed, and / or they had outside episcopal help which Bishop Williamson has already said he is more than willing to provide.
-
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows me way better than most of you.
That should read:
If he is a man who preaches "Christ crucified" then he also believes that Christ is "the way the truth and the life". He would have nothing to fear from me especially since he knows the way better than most of you.
Freudian slip? What is your real agenda here? Obviously it is to discredit Fr. Pfieffer, but why? He and Fr. Chazal have already stated on a multitude of occasions that their theology has not changed, that they hold true to the SSPX's original teachings of ABL. So where the SSPX stands on that issue , then they do too. What is your point?
-
charity, charity, charity
-
I'd like to know what +TdM is thinking right now. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.
:pray:
-
I'd like to know what +TdM is thinking right now. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.
:pray:
No kidding.
-
Yes, curioustrad, what dog do you have in this fight?
Fight: against what are we fighting ? "Powers and principalities" according to St. Paul. Every Catholic has a dog in this fight.
curioustrad: moniker that suggests a Traditional Catholic who is curious and seeks the truth.
Dog: preservation of the Holy Inviolable Catholic Faith
Do you even attend an SSPX chapel?
This question would seem to be redundant. We are all fighting for the continuance of the Traditional Catholic Faith. The SSPX-SO chapels aren't listed as SSPX so what's the issue here ?
Do you have any investment in the destiny of the SSPX whatsoever?
Every Traditional Catholic has an investment in the SSPX whether formally attending, formerly attending now sedevacantist or independent, or attending a chapel sponsored by the Diocese. Every one of them depends upon the work of Archbishop Lefebvre without exception.
If not, your opinion is less than worthless.
Here you are getting into ad hominem argumentation. My questions are based upon one premise: upon what reason is a future consecration predicated ? Even the CIC presumes a reason for acting when flouting the letter of the law. I am only asking the SSPX-SO to give a canonical explanation for the reason for their existence. So far they "seem" to be running in opposition to the SSPX. Bishop Williamson always said, before you dynamite the building be sure you have a foundation with which to replace it. I guess I'm asking "Where's the foundation" ?
It's like the seminarian who once asked the Archbishop what the charism of the SSPX was and he responded: "The Mass". That is an inadequate answer since all orders and secular priests have that. Later in life the Archbishop answered the question with his book the Spiritual Journey - the restoration of the priesthood.
Even if one doesn't agree with him, curioustrad is answering all the questions asked of him. So why all the thumbs down? There is alot worth pondering here. And I would add to his statement that all Catholics, and non-Catholics alike, have a stake in what happens with the SSPX, because we are talking about souls here--not just trads. Or is that not true?
-
Under the Title for the forum name I read:
Traditional Catholic Forum
A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith
Now over on the recusant site I see a link to this forum and other pro-sspx rebellion sites.
I have read with distaste the frequent posts over here demanding to know who this or that ID is and demanding the expulsion and / or silencing of people who ask questions.
I have also seen the intimidation of people telling them to go join IA etc.
Clearly this site ISN'T what it bills itself to be and / or it has become infected with lurkers of a different persuasion with an agenda of their own.
This site seems to be a pro-SSPX-SO shill and not a place where Traditional Catholics (presumably without further distinction) can calmly debate.
I suppose after the founder / moderator was subjected to hectoring from the SSPX he thinks a repetition of the same behavior is acceptable along the lines of "Monkey see monkey do" as Bishop Williamson would say.
Factoring all this in - (as Jesus said in the Temple) "You shall not see me here again!".
I shall leave you to the ravings of semi-delusional American-wanna-be-Mexicans.
-
You aren't debating, you're disrupting.
Debating means advancing a position, and that's not what you're doing here. You want a platform to insult the resistance priests, pretend as though they need to respond to you "calling out" thread, etc.
You haven't said anything substantive here, you're just trying to disrupt the forum.
Fortunately Matthew's long patience is not inexhaustible.
Soon you will probably be gone from this forum.
-
Under the Title for the forum name I read:
Traditional Catholic Forum
A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith
Now over on the recusant site I see a link to this forum and other pro-sspx rebellion sites.
I have read with distaste the frequent posts over here demanding to know who this or that ID is and demanding the expulsion and / or silencing of people who ask questions.
I have also seen the intimidation of people telling them to go join IA etc.
Clearly this site ISN'T what it bills itself to be and / or it has become infected with lurkers of a different persuasion with an agenda of their own.
This site seems to be a pro-SSPX-SO shill and not a place where Traditional Catholics (presumably without further distinction) can calmly debate.
I suppose after the founder / moderator was subjected to hectoring from the SSPX he thinks a repetition of the same behavior is acceptable along the lines of "Monkey see monkey do" as Bishop Williamson would say.
Factoring all this in - (as Jesus said in the Temple) "You shall not see me here again!".
I shall leave you to the ravings of semi-delusional American-wanna-be-Mexicans.
I can feel some sympathy for Curioustrad. Here is a clipping from Traditio. The incident is true. I know the poster who is a Founding Father of the Traditional Catholic movement in India, small though it may be. This incident was witnessed by the wife of a friend, who was sitting nearby. Traditio may well have spiced up the language of the post, but the fact is that high handed behavior on the part of the priest did take place. And this was not the only time. And who was the priest? Rostand? No. One who is now a "star" Resister!
A Reader Writes: "Fellay & Co. Denied Me the Neo-SSPX's Communion
Because I Questioned Benedict-Ratzinger's Novus Ordo"
From: John (India)
Dear TRADITIO Fathers
It does not surprise me that Bernie Fellay and his subordinate priest-presbyters are conducting a purge of all Neo-SSPX clergy, so that those who profess continued devotion to Archbishop Lefebvre's traditional Catholic principles, whether clergy or lay, are being viciously persecuted. In my own case, when I was in prayer before the Maundy Thursday ceremonies, one of Fellay's clergy rushed over to interrupt my prayer and shout before the congregation at me that I was a "public sinner" because I had questioned the strong-arm tactics being used to force SSPXers into accepting Benedict-Ratzinger's Novus Ordo-based "Motu" Mess of 1962+.
Like your other reader, Fellay & Co. denied me the Neo-SSPX's Communion, even though a decade ago I had made a major donation of property to Fellay's now-corrupt organization. But, thank the Lord, I am much happier now out of Fellay's Neo-SSPX. I pray the Traditional Latin Mass prayers at home on Sundays and Holydays and hope for the day when the Lord will send us an independent traditional Catholic priest not affiliated with Fellay's Neo-SSPX.
Perhaps Bishop Williamson could make a trip to India for that purpose. There are many here who now despise Fellay's now anti-traditional organization and would welcome a true bishop like Richard Williamson into our midst.
-
A "star" Resister? :confused1:
-
Abp Lefebvre and Fr Pfeiffer say the same thing : the conciliar church hasn't a catholic doctrine and has not a catholic cult. But the pope is the pope. It is a mystery of iniquity. Listen to Fr Pfeiffer's sermons and you have all your answers.
Bp Tissier de Mallerais made a very powerful sermon in french about that subject :
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/01/un-sermon-extraordinaire-mgr-tissier-de.html (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/01/un-sermon-extraordinaire-mgr-tissier-de.html)
-
Here is a good quote of Abp Lefebvre. I let you find the english translation :
Mgr Lefebvre le 29 juillet 1976 dit :
« L'Eglise qui affirme de pareilles erreurs est à la fois schismatique et hérétique. Cette Eglise conciliaire n'est donc pas catholique. Dans la mesure où le Pape, les évêques, prêtres et fidèles, adhèrent à cette nouvelle Eglise, ils se séparent de l'Eglise catholique. L'Eglise d'aujourd'hui n'est la véritable Eglise que dans la mesure où elle continue et fait corps avec l'Eglise d'hier et de toujours. La norme de la foi catholique, c'est la Tradition. »
-
Under the Title for the forum name I read:
Traditional Catholic Forum
A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith
Now over on the recusant site I see a link to this forum and other pro-sspx rebellion sites.
I have read with distaste the frequent posts over here demanding to know who this or that ID is and demanding the expulsion and / or silencing of people who ask questions.
I have also seen the intimidation of people telling them to go join IA etc.
Clearly this site ISN'T what it bills itself to be and / or it has become infected with lurkers of a different persuasion with an agenda of their own.
This site seems to be a pro-SSPX-SO shill and not a place where Traditional Catholics (presumably without further distinction) can calmly debate.
I suppose after the founder / moderator was subjected to hectoring from the SSPX he thinks a repetition of the same behavior is acceptable along the lines of "Monkey see monkey do" as Bishop Williamson would say.
Factoring all this in - (as Jesus said in the Temple) "You shall not see me here again!".
I shall leave you to the ravings of semi-delusional American-wanna-be-Mexicans.
Good riddance scurriloustrad!
-
I, for one, miss him.
:thinking:
Now who's going to play the devil's advocate?
:devil2:
-
I, for one, miss him.
:thinking:
I suspect if he'd speak in a more straightforward manner, his posts would be better received. I tried to understand what his thoughts were often without much success.
Perhaps if you understood him better than I did, you can explain to me what he was hoping to achieve with this thread.
-
Curioustrad, please continue to check in every now and then. Your pointed questions forces one to ponder, which is always a good thing!
-
It seems to me that Bishop Williamson's foundation for consecrations, if he performs any, will be exactly the same as Archbishop's Lefersvre's, and for exactly the same reasons. if you think the Archbishop's were valid, then it seems to me that you would think Bishop Williamson's would be as well.
-
I, for one, miss him.
:thinking:
I suspect if he'd speak in a more straightforward manner, his posts would be better received. I tried to understand what his thoughts were often without much success.
Perhaps if you understood him better than I did, you can explain to me what he was hoping to achieve with this thread.
Yes, he's a bit abrasive at times. I think, perhaps, he feels we're moving too quickly without enough thought for what may come of it.
-
It seems to me that Bishop Williamson's foundation for consecrations, if he performs any, will be exactly the same as Archbishop's Lefersvre's, and for exactly the same reasons. if you think the Archbishop's were valid, then it seems to me that you would think Bishop Williamson's would be as well.
Which decision would be entirely Bishop Williamson's or +Tissier de Mallerais' or +Alfonso de Galarreta's. Each for himself. Any one of the three will do, if and when they decide to do so.
:incense: :incense: :incense:
-
I am sorry, but you have lost me. What decision are your talking about?
-
I am sorry, but you have lost me. What decision are your talking about?
The decision to consecrate a new bishop. The decision should come from +Williamson (or +Mallerais or +Galarreta), and not be done under pressure. We need to trust them and Our Lady. And yes, you are right. It would then, and should be for the same reason as did ++ABL.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre said it Very Clearly:
"Cardinal Ratzinger is not Catholic!" "He--Cardinal Ratzinger--is for the destruction of Christianity!; we are for the building of Christianity!"
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, after the conclusion of the so-called "doctrinal discussions', at which he represented the SSPX, stated: "There can be no agreement-- THEY (Rome) do not have the faith!"
In 1993,Bishop Bernard Fellay stated "there are four lodges of the Masonic Order operating in the Vatican."
Now-- Ratzinger has not converted. nobody of note in Rome has adopted the Roman Catholic faith, and the masons have not left. Their power and influence has become more entrenched and has grown. From at least Angelo Roncalli,who they "installed" as "John xxiii", to the communist Montini, who they "installed" as "Paul vi", they have had absolute control over the Vatican.
The introduction into the Catholic priesthood of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and sodomites was deliberate and planned, specifically to get atheists and communists into the Church to destroy it. This they have done. They are master strategists. They know their game well--very well. Nobody that plays with them escapes their clutches. You either become a sodomite along with them, or they compromise you in other ways ( women, money, etc).
All the outward smiles, the "traditional' trappings, the "desire" for a return to tradition, are mere tools in the tool box to trick gullible faithful. The clown Masses, the naked-men masses, the females on the altars, the black masses in the Vatican, the never-ending sodomizing of young children, the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyles (robbing the parishes of millions to support "boyfriends" , lavish condos,push drugs, and fancy dresses)-- this is, unfortunately, the conciliar church--which parades around with the name "Roman Catholic."
Of course they do not have the Catholic Faith. Hence they cannot be Catholic.
www.sossaveoursspx.com (http://www.sossaveoursspx.com)
-
Abp Lefebvre and Fr Pfeiffer say the same thing : the conciliar church hasn't a catholic doctrine and has not a catholic cult. But the pope is the pope. It is a mystery of iniquity. Listen to Fr Pfeiffer's sermons and you have all your answers.
Bp Tissier de Mallerais made a very powerful sermon in french about that subject :
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/01/un-sermon-extraordinaire-mgr-tissier-de.html (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/01/un-sermon-extraordinaire-mgr-tissier-de.html)
Of course the dear Father is saying the same things as Archbishop Lefebvre but is he saying them with the same finesse ? I think it would be prudent to wait to see what Bishop Fellay's mob end up doing before jumping the gun and rushing ahead.
Right now Bishop Williamson enjoys a lot of clout inside the SSPX as does Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. The two bishops have a great esteem for one another. Intellectually Bp. T. de M. is in lockstep with Bp. W but psychologically he's different.
Who ever said the SSPX needs to be recreated form the ground up ? Let the evident sell out of Bp. Fellay work on Bp. T. de M. and he may well surprise us all.
Bishop Williamson does much good by his "softly, softly" approach rather than consecrating Bishops immediately let Bp. Fellay hang himself - he's bound to in the end and all those in favor of a deal will get their come-uppance.
The Society will itself need a leader and one it had shunned previously (and this thinking may well explain why we see Bp. Williamson keeping his options WISELY OPEN).
I think there is quite a bit of one English historical figure in Bp. W. and time will tell what he will do when the SSPX turns to him again and asks him to lead them all out of the mess. Read your immediate pre-World War II history of England and what happened between Chamberlain and Churchill.
Bishop Williamson thinks quite highly of Churchill and not without reason - he saved his country in her hour of need (with a little help from the former 13 colonies of course)
History takes crazy turns and, after all the Lord God is the Lord of Human History after all !
Thanks to all of you who were kind enough to coax me back again.
-
Bishop Williamson thinks quite highly of Churchill
Does he really?
Bishop Fellay has the SSPX structure locked down securely.
The very idea that Bishop Williamson will be allowed back in some sort of position of authority is very far-fetched.
I hope someone with some actuarial knowledge is helping him to determine how much longer he can wisely wait.
-
Welcome back, ct.
-
Welcome back, ct.
I second that and I also look forward to the return of Lepanto Again!
-
I think it would be prudent to wait to see what Bishop Fellay's mob end up doing before jumping the gun and rushing ahead.
Do you think what Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko are doing now is too much / too soon, or are you only referring to the rumored consecration(s)?
-
Welcome back, ct.
I'll second that too.
-
A word to curioustrad:
It's not anyone's job to answer your disingenuous questions on this forum.
Your opening post shows arrogance towards and contempt for Father Pfeiffer.
You're a disgrace.
-
A word to curioustrad:
It's not anyone's job to answer your disingenuous questions on this forum.
Your opening post shows arrogance towards and contempt for Father Pfeiffer.
You're a disgrace.
Relax, Telesphorus. He's on our side.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer please address this question: Is the Conciliar Church Catholic
The person who posted this is demonstrating insulting arrogance, customary for a pharisee.
It shows a low character to ask a question on an anonymous internet forum to a priest as though you expected him to answer. The person is a troll and an instigator, not interested in the answer to the question but rather in making a scene.
-
Relax, Telesphorus. He's on our side.
Then let him act like it. Instead he posts like a troll.
-
You know, I have to agree with Tele here. curioustrad has an axe to grind against Fr. Pfeiffer, this is obvious. His last post may have refrained from attacking him, sure, but look through this thread, and you'll find this fellow demanding that Fr. Pfeiffer answer some question (with childish posts, to boot).
I don't understand why so many wanted him to come back, especially considering all the thumbs down he received. Did that many people change their minds? I don't want to sound rude here, but his attacks against Fr. Pfeiffer simply weren't fair.
If he wants to post, fine, but he should at least offer an apology first and then promise to lay off his criticisms of Fr. Pfeiffer.
-
When somebody starts their own church we need to make sure it professes the One Holy Catholic Faith - the Apostolic part will follow in due course - no doubt.
Exhibit A.
What is curioustrad trying to say here, that Fr. Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson, and the rest of the resistance have started their own church?
I don't consider someone like that to be on the side of the resistance. This forum supports the resistance, we don't need to question them or insult them when all they're doing is remaining faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
When somebody starts their own church we need to make sure it professes the One Holy Catholic Faith - the Apostolic part will follow in due course - no doubt.
Exhibit A.
What is curioustrad trying to say here, that Fr. Pfeiffer, Bishop Williamson, and the rest of the resistance have started their own church?
I don't consider someone like that to be on the side of the resistance. This forum supports the resistance, we don't need to question them or insult them when all they're doing is remaining faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Good point ! But with the multiplication of small groups all claiming to be heirs of the Archbishop how can you say that there is one-ness or unity ? This is (after all) one of the marks of the church...
Fr. Cekada (also claiming the mantle of the Archbishop) once wrote a hit-piece on the so-called "Thuc Bishops" calling it "Two Bishops in every garage".. We have to be careful that the resistance doesn't resolve itself as that.
Lest anyone remind us that the Apostles started in the upper room and the Trad movement started in rented rooms etc. may i please point out that this is not the 1970s anymore and that, for the most part, if one were an observer on the outside, the constant splitting of the Trad movement with each little group claiming to have the fullness of truth looks at best comical, and at worst it is a wound in the heart of Christ Himself.
-
Fr. Cekada does not claim to follow the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. He still speaks well of the Archbishop but also sometimes criticizes him.
-
Fr. Cekada does not claim to follow the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. He still speaks well of the Archbishop but also sometimes criticizes him.
Well he must be following some mission or other or what religion is he ? Don't you see the point about the unity of the Church as an essential sign of the presence (or absence) of the Church Herself ?
-
Fr. Cekada does not claim to follow the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. He still speaks well of the Archbishop but also sometimes criticizes him.
Well he must be following some mission or other or what religion is he ? Don't you see the point about the unity of the Church as an essential sign of the presence (or absence) of the Church Herself ?
He is with Bishop Dolan and the SGG (St. Gertrude the Great) in Cincinnati, Ohio.
I agree that it is a shame there isn't more unity amongst Traditional Catholics, but I think the resistance had no choice but to part ways with the Neo-SSPX.
-
Fr. Cekada does not claim to follow the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. He still speaks well of the Archbishop but also sometimes criticizes him.
Well he must be following some mission or other or what religion is he ? Don't you see the point about the unity of the Church as an essential sign of the presence (or absence) of the Church Herself ?
He is with Bishop Dolan and the SGG (St. Gertrude the Great) in Cincinnati, Ohio.
I agree that it is a shame there isn't more unity amongst Traditional Catholics, but I think the resistance had no choice but to part ways with the Neo-SSPX.
The shepherd has been struck and the sheep have been scattered. Only the requested Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will bring the desired unity back. "In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph."
-
This whole thread began as a question/response to Pablo the Mexican who asked us to pray for the repose of the soul of a Novus Ordo priest. Now I have absolutely no qualms about praying for Fr. Hurtado. However, I have always heard Trads in the mould of the Archbishop decry the modern church as not being Catholic. There reigns among Trads a kind of schizophrenia: the Novus Ordo is and is not the Catholic Church and Trads are also the Catholic Church.
Faced with this ecclesial crisis one has to adopt a certain approach as to whether the conciliar church is (a) Catholic and (b) to be obeyed. Now most Trads over here would say the conciliar church is NOT Catholic and NOT to be obeyed - I agree.
Problem: If the official apparatus is not Catholic and not to be obeyed, then where is the Catholic Church ? All theologians and canonists prior to the Council speak in terms of "profession of Faith" as a prerequisite for membership in the church, but unity of government is also essential, i.e. submission to the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic bishops in communion with him. Thus two essential credentials must be established: what Faith is professed (what do they believe) and are they in union with the Roman Pontiff ?
The original question was a request of the SSPX-SO to make an official statement as to what this group believes. Any Catholic may ask a priest what he believes i.e. for the Faith he professes, and most crucially what position they take as regards the question of submission to the Roman Pontiff.
The minute somebody starts talking episcopal consecration, we're no longer talking about the reception of "just another order" we're talking about the issue of submission to the Roman Pontiff and the unity of the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre was acutely aware of this second problem - ecclesial unity - and in the 1974 declaration and the letter to the 4 bishops addresses the unity issue in conjunction with the lack of profession of Faith in the conciliar church. In other words he proceeded to consecrate to perpetuate the priesthood because there was a failure to profess the Faith by the conciliarists. Now Archbsihop Lefebvre wandered all over the place on these questions as the sedes and Bishop Williamson all admit until the consecrations and then he never wavered. If the Archbishop could make a simple declaration of his theological reasons for disobeying Rome in 1974 and the reasons for proceeding with an episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate in 1988, is it too much to ask for a small group of Trad priests to draw up a theological statement of principles and reasons for seeking episcopal consecration (when the need arises) ?
That's all I'm saying.
-
Bishop Williamson thinks quite highly of Churchill
Does he really?
Bishop Fellay has the SSPX structure locked down securely.
The very idea that Bishop Williamson will be allowed back in some sort of position of authority is very far-fetched.
I hope someone with some actuarial knowledge is helping him to determine how much longer he can wisely wait.
Now, now, read your English history first. Before WWII Churchill was booted for suggesting England re-arm and prepare for the German war-machine. Chamberlain pooh-poohed the idea and went running hat in hand to Herr Hitler and returned to England with a shameful piece of paper selling the Czechs down the river. Chamberlain called it "Peace in our time". Of course Poland vanished next and that was the end of the appeasement process.
Churchill who was banished was made Prime Minister, after all he had been right all along even in the banishment period which is known in Churchill's life as the "wilderness years". Do the parallels start to ring clear to you ? (AN attic in Wimbledon..)
If Providence can return an ousted politician to the top job to lead a country in war cannot the same Lord of Providence restore another man to lead where one has so disastrously failed ? I do believe in miracles. Could you believe a piece of bread by ancient words could change its substance ? We're looking for something infinitely less than that here ? Have Faith, Faith that can move mountains !
-
Now, now, read your English history first. Before WWII Churchill was booted for suggesting England re-arm and prepare for the German war-machine. Chamberlain pooh-poohed the idea and went running hat in hand to Herr Hitler and returned to England with a shameful piece of paper selling the Czechs down the river. Chamberlain called it "Peace in our time". Of course Poland vanished next and that was the end of the appeasement process.
Churchill who was banished was made Prime Minister, after all he had been right all along even in the banishment period which is known in Churchill's life as the "wilderness years". Do the parallels start to ring clear to you ? (AN attic in Wimbledon..)
If Providence can return an ousted politician to the top job to lead a country in war cannot the same Lord of Providence restore another man to lead where one has so disastrously failed ? I do believe in miracles. Could you believe a piece of bread by ancient words could change its substance ? We're looking for something infinitely less than that here ? Have Faith, Faith that can move mountains !
Who are you?
-
Churchill was a warmonger and a creature of the Jews.
-
Now that's the spirit.
:popcorn:
-
Now, now, read your English history first. Before WWII Churchill was booted for suggesting England re-arm and prepare for the German war-machine. Chamberlain pooh-poohed the idea and went running hat in hand to Herr Hitler and returned to England with a shameful piece of paper selling the Czechs down the river. Chamberlain called it "Peace in our time". Of course Poland vanished next and that was the end of the appeasement process.
Churchill who was banished was made Prime Minister, after all he had been right all along even in the banishment period which is known in Churchill's life as the "wilderness years". Do the parallels start to ring clear to you ? (AN attic in Wimbledon..)
If Providence can return an ousted politician to the top job to lead a country in war cannot the same Lord of Providence restore another man to lead where one has so disastrously failed ? I do believe in miracles. Could you believe a piece of bread by ancient words could change its substance ? We're looking for something infinitely less than that here ? Have Faith, Faith that can move mountains !
Who are you?
In the immortal words of Gilbert and Sullivan:
A wandering minstrel I —
A thing of shreds and patches,
Of ballads, songs and snatches,
And dreamy lullaby!
My catalogue is long,
Through every passion ranging,
And to your humours changing
I tune my supple song!
I tune my supple song!
:guitar:
-
Churchill was a warmonger and a creature of the Jews.
Well as to being a creature of a certain and particular ethnic, cultural and religious group I have no knowledge, but history should bear me out that it wasn't England or France that invaded Poland.
-
Well as to being a creature of a certain and particular ethnic, cultural and religious group I have no knowledge, but history should bear me out that it wasn't England or France that invaded Poland.
It wasn't Germany that declared war on the UK or France.
Time to start using your brain.
-
Problem: If the official apparatus is not Catholic and not to be obeyed, then where is the Catholic Church ? All theologians and canonists prior to the Council speak in terms of "profession of Faith" as a prerequisite for membership in the church, but unity of government is also essential, i.e. submission to the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic bishops in communion with him. Thus two essential credentials must be established: what Faith is professed (what do they believe) and are they in union with the Roman Pontiff ?
The Authority of the Church
by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/authorityds.htm
(Below is Chapter IV - Unity of the Church
OF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN DOCTRINE AND BELIEF. THE TRUE CHURCH MUST BE ONE IN ITS DOCTRINE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS UNITED IN BELIEF, THE SO CALLED REFORMED CHURCH IS NOT.
Is Jesus Christ divided? No, surely, for he is the God of peace, not of dissension, as S. Paul taught throughout the Church. It cannot then be that the true Church should be in dissension or division of belief and opinion, for God would no longer be its Author or Spouse, and, like a kingdom divided against itself, it would be brought to desolation. As soon as God takes a people to himself, as he has done the Church, he gives it unity of heart and of path the Church is but one body, of which all the faithful are members, compacted and united together by all its joints; there is but one spirit animating this body: God is in his holy place: who maketh men of one manner to dwell in a house (Ps. ixvii. 7); therefore the true Church of God must be united, fastened and joined together in one same doctrine and belief.
It is necessary, says S. Irenmus (iii. 3) that all the faithful should come together and unite themselves to the Roman Church [on account of] its superior ruling power. She is the mother of their sacerdotal dignity, says Julius I. (ad Euseb.) "She is the commencement of the unity of the priesthood, she is the bond of unity," says S. Cyprian (Ep. 5 5). Again: "We are not ignorant that there is but one God, one Christ and Lord, whom we have confessed, one Holy Spirit, one pastoral office (episcopatus) in the Catholic Church " (de un. Ec. iv.). The good Optatus also said to the Donatists (ii. 2, 3) : " Thou canst not deny that thou knowest that in the city of Rome the chief chair has been first granted to S. Peter, in which sat the chief of the Apostles, S. Peter, whence he was called Cephas ; the chair in which the unity of the whole was preserved, in order that the other Apostles might not seek to put forward and maintain each his own, and that henceforward he might be a schismatic who would set up another chair against this one chair. Therefore in this one chair, which is the first of its prerogatives, was first seated S. Peter." These are almost the words of this ancient and holy doctor; and every Catholic of this age is of the same conviction. We hold the Roman Church to be our refuge in all our difficulties; we all are her humble children, and receive our food from the milk of her breasts; we are all branches of this most fruitful stock, and draw no sap of doctrine save from this root. This is what clothes us all with the same livery of belief; for knowing that there is one chief and lieutenant general in the Church, what he decides and determines with the other prelates of the Church when he is seated in the chair of Peter to teach Christendom, serves as law and measure to our belief. Let there be error everywhere throughout the world, yet you will see the same faith in Catholics. And if there be any difference of opinion, either it will not be in things belonging to the faith, or else, as soon as ever a General Council or the Roman See shall have determined it, you will see every one submit to their decision. Our understandings do not stray away from one another in their belief, but keep most closely united and linked together by the bond of the superior authority of the Church, to which each one gives in with all humility, steadying his faith thereon, as upon the pillar and ground of truth. Our Catholic Church has but one language and one same form of words throughout the whole earth.
Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock
http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/athnasus.shtml
"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...
"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." St. Athanasius
-
Well as to being a creature of a certain and particular ethnic, cultural and religious group I have no knowledge, but history should bear me out that it wasn't England or France that invaded Poland.
It wasn't Germany that declared war on the UK or France.
Time to start using your brain.
The French and British had made a pact with Poland that they would come to the aid of Poland if attacked. The UK Prime Minister does not have the power to declare war. Now read Chamberlain's radio address:
The British Declaration of War
The British declaration of war against nαzι Germany came at 11.15 on September 3rd 1939. Neville Chamberlain spoke to the nation via radio. Britain had given Hitler an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland after the Germans invaded Poland on September 1st.
"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10, Downing Street.
This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.
I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different I could have done and that would have been more successful.
Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it.
He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened; and although he now says he has put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.
The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us; and although they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to make comment on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier.
His actions show convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.
We and France are today, in fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word given to Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable.
And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will play your part with calmness and courage.
At such a moment as this the assurances of support that we have received from the Empire are a source of profound encouragement to us.
When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be made on behalf of the Government. Give these your closest attention.
The Government have made plans under which it will be possible to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain that may be ahead. But these plans need your help.
You may be taking part in the fighting Services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of civil defence. If so you will report for duty in accordance with the instructions you have received.
You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of war for the maintenance of the life of the people – in factories, in transport, in public utility concerns or in the supply of other necessaries of life. If so, it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your jobs.
Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution – and against them I am certain that the right will prevail."
-
That's a non-answer of course.
Britain and France didn't declare war to defend Poland. They declared war to start a world war with Germany.
They didn't declare war on the Soviet Union. How were they supposed to restore Poland to its boundaries after it was conquered, that is, make good on their guarantee, without going to war with the Soviet Union?
In fact, when the war was ended, Poland was under Communist domination and the territorial annexation of Polish territory by Stalin was confirmed by those who started the World War by declaring war on Germany, ostensibly over Poland.
The reality is: the guarantee to Poland was a fraud, a pretext to start a world war.
Or course, Churchill actually had more of a hand in helping to ensure British entry into WWI.
Not to mention his support of the dehousing plan, targeting civilians, his support of firebombing, his consideration of the use of poison gas on cities, etc.
-
That's a non-answer of course.
Britain and France didn't declare war to defend Poland. They declared war to start a world war with Germany.
They didn't declare war on the Soviet Union. How were they supposed to restore Poland to its boundaries after it was conquered, that is, make good on their guarantee, without going to war with the Soviet Union?
In fact, when the war was ended, Poland was under Communist domination and the territorial annexation of Polish territory by Stalin was confirmed by those who started the World War by declaring war on Germany, ostensibly over Poland.
The reality is: the guarantee to Poland was a fraud, a pretext to start a world war.
Or course, Churchill actually had more of a hand in helping to ensure British entry into WWI.
Not to mention his support of the dehousing plan, targeting civilians, his support of firebombing, his consideration of the use of poison gas on cities, etc.
Ah, an historical revisionist - well of course we cannot even debate these questions because we are not even on the same page.
Well the fact that my grand parents' parish church was burnt to the ground by German (ahem, excuse me English) fire bombs was just another part of a one world government plot I suppose ?
Wanna buy this bridge ?
(http://wirednewyork.com/bridges/brooklyn_bridge/images/brooklyn_bridge_wtc.jpg)
-
Ah, an historical revisionist
Nothing I said is historical revisionism.
France and Britain declared war on Germany because of a guarantee to Poland, a guarantee they didn't keep, and never lifted a finger to keep, therefore starting the world war.
If you can't debate then don't.
- well of course we cannot even debate these questions because we are not even on the same page.
Well the fact that my grand parents' parish church was burnt to the ground by German (ahem, excuse me English) fire bombs was just another part of a one world government plot I suppose ?
Churchill was the one who initiated strategic bombing of cities as a policy and the raid on on London was retaliation for a raid on Berlin.
Wanna buy this bridge ?
(http://wirednewyork.com/bridges/brooklyn_bridge/images/brooklyn_bridge_wtc.jpg)
Looks like you lost the argument.
Catholic Tradition isn't going to be preserved by people who admire the leaders of its worst enemies, the people who created this current world political order by waging two world wars and destroying the 19th Century political order.
True Catholics resist Zionism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and their influence. They don't praise warmongers like Churchill for their policies. That is insanity.
-
Where the heck did I praise Churchill ? I pointed out some historical resemblances between Churchill's wilderness years and + Williamson's attic years. + Williamson himself quoted Churchill in the Bristol conferences in a favorable way and has done in my hearing many times.
Saying: "I won the debate!" isn't actually saying anything.
+ Williamson may indeed rise again - stranger things have happened before as did Churchill's resurrection.
I wish you understood English - it's a very subtle language - very capable and susceptible of misinterpretation especially when we want it that way. I was talking about the Trad crisis and drew an historical parallel - somehow you went off on an anti-Zionist tirade that wasn't germane to anything on this thread.
But, after all (and we should never start a sentence with a preposition or conjunction) Pfeiffer has a reassuring Germanic name - perhaps enough to found a IV Reich, mein General ?
-
Where the heck did I praise Churchill ? I pointed out some historical resemblances between Churchill's wilderness years and Williamson's attic years. Williamson himself quoted Churchill in the Bristol conferences in a favorable way and has done in my hearing many times.
Saying: "I won the debate!" isn't actually saying anything.
Williamson may indeed rise again - stranger things have happened before as did Churchill's resurrection.
I wish you understood English - it's a very subtle language - very capable and susceptible of misinterpretation especially when we want it that way. I was talking about the Trad crisis and drew an historical parallel - somehow you went off on an anti-Zionist tirade that wasn't germane to anything on this thread.
But, after all (and we should never start a sentence with a preposition or conjunction) Pfeiffer has a reassuring Germanic name - perhaps enough to found a IV Reich, mein General ?
I understand English perfectly. The one posting non sequiturs here is you.
-
Where the heck did I praise Churchill ? I pointed out some historical resemblances between Churchill's wilderness years and Williamson's attic years. Williamson himself quoted Churchill in the Bristol conferences in a favorable way and has done in my hearing many times.
Saying: "I won the debate!" isn't actually saying anything.
Williamson may indeed rise again - stranger things have happened before as did Churchill's resurrection.
I wish you understood English - it's a very subtle language - very capable and susceptible of misinterpretation especially when we want it that way. I was talking about the Trad crisis and drew an historical parallel - somehow you went off on an anti-Zionist tirade that wasn't germane to anything on this thread.
But, after all (and we should never start a sentence with a preposition or conjunction) Pfeiffer has a reassuring Germanic name - perhaps enough to found a IV Reich, mein General ?
I understand English perfectly. The one posting non sequiturs here is you.
So do I and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it ?
-
So do I and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it ?
It really isn't. You're a jackass.
-
So do I and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it ?
It really isn't. You're a jackass.
(http://www.livinginsidehope.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/donkey.jpg)
Your servant, a humble client of St. Francis....(if only I were so good)
-
You know, Telesphorus and curioustrad, I bet you two would like each other if you met in person.
:cheers:
-
I am sorry, but you have lost me. What decision are your talking about?
The decision to consecrate a new bishop. The decision should come from +Williamson (or +Mallerais or +Galarreta), and not be done under pressure. We need to trust them and Our Lady. And yes, you are right. It would then, and should be for the same reason as did ++ABL.
I see. Thanks.
-
You know, Telesphorus and curioustrad, I bet you two would like each other if you met in person.
:cheers:
I wouldn't doubt it for a minute - I'm sure we would! (actually I thought that myself earlier today)
-
You know, Telesphorus and curioustrad, I bet you two would like each other if you met in person. :cheers:
Yes, I would agree with this observation. Both are against cultish behavior in the Traditionalist movement, be it Fellayite or the nascent Pfeifferish one ... ..just my penny's worth here!