Author Topic: Lets discuss Greggs thoughts on the "resistance". (Read 10488 times)

sedetrad · « **on:** August 16, 2013, 09:44:37 AM »

Quote

How is this justification any different than the Old Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox church?

If the resistance split into the "pretend resistance" and the "real resistance", which it already shows signs of doing. Who would be standing up for the Faith, "pure and undefiled"?
If someone was hyperfocused on modesty for example in the middle ages, then Puritans or Anabaptists might have seemed more "pure and undefiled", than Catholic priests and Bishops with mistresses and Catholic Royalty with their boobs on display. How does a person judge this objectively?

I'm still not convinced that the resistance are resisting anything other than a figment of their imagination or, more precisely, a lot of old grips and vendettas and human politick between priests. The SSPX did not do a deal with Rome. They rejected it. So what exactly is being resisted?

It does not make any sense to me that God would allow ABL to spearhead Tradition with the SSPX, make it a relative success for 25 years and then allow +Fellay to destroy it, or have it absorbed by the Borg of Rome, to the point where only a TINY fraction of Trads who had made huge efforts to keep their faith could actually attend a "pure and undefiled" mass.

I think the resistance just like resisting stuff because it makes them feel "special".

But even if you are right and the "resistance" are really the only Catholic Church which is "pure and undefiled" left, then what is someone like me to do? Sell my house? Move my children half way across Britain to attend a "pure and undefiled" mass? Tell them and my wife to just "make new friends". I am lucky that I could at least keep my job.

Only to find that the resistance priest in Covertry or Norwich or wherever he decides to re-locate himself then suddenly moves locations because some dead widow has left him a nice house and a chapel in Surrey?

Traditionalist zealots already did this with the Transalpine Redemptorists, moving to Sheppy, then France, then the Outer Hebrides and shot themselves in the foot. St. Mary's Kansas has similar stories of disaster by families who put hope before reason.

sedetrad · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2013, 09:46:12 AM »

It really looks as if he is bemoaning the "mystery of our present circuмstances."

Frances · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2013, 11:13:05 AM »

On one hand, a person can lack common sense resulting in foolish action with harmful consequences to others. On the other hand, a person can lack common sense resulting in no action with dire consequences to others. Let's not be duped into an argument based upon two sides of a coin made of fool's gold.
Gregg has pointed out the apparent foolishness of those who have chased the SSPX all over the country, thereby bankrupting their families and ruining their wives' social lives. Which is to be preferred, a father who pursues Truth in a foolish manner or a father who chooses material security over God?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2013, 11:40:18 AM »

People who don't have a problem with the Jєωιѕн influence on society can't imagine why there is a resistance to what Bishop Fellay has been doing.

It sounds so stupid, but I would guess it's the feigned and insolent obtuseness of the sort of person who calls people "tin-foil hatters" and "kooks" or "nutters" etc, when they actually want to protect their children, have Catholic communities, have some social autonomy, etc.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2013, 11:41:26 AM »

Father Pfeiffer makes it clear: it's the priests who generally need to be itinerant in this situation.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2013, 11:47:23 AM »

That an article The Lessons of Hanukkah would appear in an ersthwhile traditionally leaning paper really says everything.

People who can't see a problem with that are either simple folks or they are liberals.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2013, 11:50:16 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

And that my friends is why 'the resistance' will never survive and thrive. It is made up of perfectionists, pedants, prigs and purists who will never be able to reach a consensus on anything. A house divided against itself and all that good stuff.

More of his "thoughts"

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2013, 11:56:58 AM »

If someone who is knowledgeable about the world doesn't see the Jєωιѕн campaign to destroy Catholicism as one of the worst things in the world, such a person is simply not a serious Catholic.

It's really quite simple, and however eccentric Bishop Williamson's opinions may sometimes seem to be, when the SSPX stopped seriously warning against the enemies of the Church and their plans for us, it is because they stopped being seriously Catholic.

That is one of the main reasons there is a resistance.

It isn't surprising that those who admit to not being seriously Catholic for 20 years say they can't see what the issue is.

sedetrad · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2013, 12:01:07 PM »

Gregg causes me to reflect upon my own sins and my own lack of horror at some aspects of the modern world. He forgets as I think most of us do the small size of the "remnant" throughout history and how few of us are actually saved.

TCat · « **Reply #9 on:** August 16, 2013, 12:07:52 PM »

Quote from: sedetrad

Gregg causes me to reflect upon my own sins and my own lack of horror at some aspects of the modern world. He forgets as I think most of us do the small size of the "remnant" throughout history and how few of us are actually saved.

Whatever you think about him, he is stained with great sins and his posts reflect a soul corrupted, grown cold in the faith, unwilling to sacrifice, cynical about the truth, not loving the truth or willing to put himself on the line for it, Greg is just a typical Brit, cold, formal, inhuman, cynical about anything humane and traditional, holding all truth up to the scrutiny of the modern world and its fashions and judging it on behalf of the modern world.
I would know he is English without him saying so, Americans don't appreciate the mindset of the average brit, but they take their poison on board at their peril.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #10 on:** August 16, 2013, 02:14:29 PM »

Quote from: sedetrad

Gregg causes me to reflect upon my own sins and my own lack of horror at some aspects of the modern world. He forgets as I think most of us do the small size of the "remnant" throughout history and how few of us are actually saved.

Agh, the fallacy of "good people." I'm always hyping on the fewness of the Saints, not to be holier-than-thou or paranoid, but because, let's be real, most people we encounter simply don't believe in an afterlife at all anymore, much less God, and most people we run across ("catholic", "christian", whatever) are actually humanists (they believe in humanity's ability to prevail without God — that seems to be Frank's religion). It seems many people historically were the same way, too (we're waffling on sending our oldest to UVA because of Jefferson, and how his philosophies may have trickled down to present-day professors). There are many who might acknowledge "a concept of God" (or just want good soundbites), but who actually blaspheme Him boldly by daring God to bend to their perceptions (Tutu: "God can't be homophobic!") And I suspect (given the writings of the ancient Church fathers, and Holy Scriptures themselves) that it has always been this way: relatively few Faithful versus a host of the self-righteous damned. I link to and memorize "the fewness" not to scare, but to help those who feel alone and bereft in a sick world. And I don't use my own words, but the words of the Saints.

This concept of a person being "not in the Church, but overall a good guy" is one of the most damning lies ever devised by that created monster Satan (besides "it's just an apple; where's the harm?"). It DOES tempt the Faithful, I see it every day. But ultimately, it is Satanism, plain and simple.

Our priest did a 3-mt sermon a few years ago that still sticks with me, about the numbers of the actual "saved" throughout various eras; it had a good, haunting cadence to it. (Father later said it was mostly in the Scriptures; he just added the Saints to it and a bit about their unholy times). But he warned that too many of us (ancient past through the future generations) trust too much in the "goodness of humanity", which is a completely anti-Catholic principle. It really made me open my eyes. If all these "good people" were so good, why can't they spare a moment to thank Our Lord? Say a prayer, at least, on a holy day of obligation? Or even think of, if not pray for or to, the MAJORITY of the Church (Church Penitent and Church Triumphant) before it's too late? The answer Father gave was, they're NOT "good people". And if you were to invite them to Mass, you should duck for all the excuses that are bound to come flying your way. They are NOT good people unless they're in Church with their mouths shut, penitent, and focused entirely on worshiping God.

sedetrad · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2013, 03:27:52 PM »

Quote

Our priest did a 3-mt sermon a few years ago that still sticks with me, about the numbers of the actual "saved" throughout various eras; it had a good, haunting cadence to it.

Who is your priest? What a sermon that must have been.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2013, 03:31:57 PM »

I enjoy Greg's posts. He often offers good salty common sense advice, and I think a lot of folks hate him for that because they failed to enact that sort of advice when they were young, and resent him for it.

So far, he has not said anything modernist in my opinion. If you disagree, please point it out and cite it for me.

Quote from: TCat

...he is stained with great sins and his posts reflect a soul corrupted, grown cold in the faith, unwilling to sacrifice, cynical about the truth, not loving the truth or willing to put himself on the line for it, Greg is just a typical Brit, cold, formal, inhuman, cynical about anything humane and traditional, holding all truth up to the scrutiny of the modern world and its fashions and judging it on behalf of the modern world.

Ha! What a jerk you are.

You claim he is a great sinner.
You claim he is faithless.
Selfish.
Cowardly.
And then you further state that British people are cold assholes.

Please meet Greg in person and say this to his face, and make sure someone videotapes it.

..........

I swear, we have a new trend going on here: ...Attack the rich guy! He's financially successful and not one of us! He didn't screw up his life in his early twenties! Hang him!

:dwarf:

hollingsworth · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2013, 04:23:03 PM »

I don't know who Greg is, unless he's the 'gregh' who used to post over on IA. Anway, I don't come around here that often, but would like to make a few comments on the original topic opener:

Quote

The SSPX did not do a deal with Rome. They rejected it. So what exactly is being resisted?

If you're referring to Fellay's Doctrinal Declaration, "they," meaning the Society did not reject it. Rome rejected it. How many times will that fact have to be pointed out. Fellay rejected nothing. He and his revised Preamble were rejected. What the SG rejected was the revision of his own revision for less than noble reasons, we suspect. He told Levada, I guess it was, that he could not sign it because his confreres would never have agreed to its contents. Since we don't know what was in the revision of the revision, we can't be certain just what it was his confreres would not have agreed to. but we can take a pretty educated guess. He was command by the pope himself earlier to accept all of V2 including the New Mass. Surely that demand was repeated in the revision of the revision.

Quote

It does not make any sense to me that God would allow ABL to spearhead Tradition with the SSPX, make it a relative success for 25 years and then allow +Fellay to destroy it,

It does not make sense to me that you should suppose that ABL could prevent from the grave what +Fellay has since done.

Quote

I think the resistance just like resisting stuff because it makes them feel "special".

Say now, that could be it alright.

We "resisters" didn't get enough attention in the SSPX. So we took to the streets as it were. In my own case I reject +Fellay, because I choose not to follow a little tinhorn dictator, masquerading as a spiritual man and a holy bishop. Other "resisters" may do so for other reasons.

Quote

But even if you are right and the "resistance" are really the only Catholic Church which is "pure and undefiled" left, then what is someone like me to do? Sell my house? Move my children half way across Britain to attend a "pure and undefiled" mass? Tell them and my wife to just "make new friends". I am lucky that I could at least keep my job.

I don't think the "resistance" claims to be the "only Catholic Church," "pure and undefiled."

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2013, 07:23:24 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

I enjoy Greg's posts. He often offers good salty common sense advice, and I think a lot of folks hate him for that because they failed to enact that sort of advice when they were young, and resent him for it.

Pretty presumptuous right there. Aren't you the character who shown your contempt for homeschooling? I think people here despise him because he despises and insults traditional Catholics who aren't liberal as he is, and I think you like him because you're not a particularly sharp poster and have a similar aversion to several posters here.

Quote

So far, he has not said anything modernist in my opinion. If you disagree, please point it out and cite it for me.

"Frankly for the last 20 years I've had serious reservations about what has been taken from the Gospels and leveraged and what has been ignored and left out. Christianity seems to have been heavily influenced by the emperor Constatine who as far as I understand it wasn't even a converted Christian until his deathbed."

Now maybe you're not bright enough to understand the implications of saying something like that.

You know, maybe someone who supports Israel, sends his children to public school, suggests that a little old trad lady's words reminds him of Jihadists, insults the Resistance and answers every argument with a boastful insult as to how he's a successful and prosperous man of the world with an attractive wife and anyone here who isn't well-off is a loser fully responsible for evils that happen to him might be disagreeable on this forum. Crass, disingenuous parvenus tend to be disagreeable.

What is understandable, is that he will win the support of people who find gratification in seeing him insult certain posters here whom those people resent.

It has nothing to do with his laughably condescending "advice." It's because he's a liberal anti-Catholic who admittedly is on this board because he can't stand what people here are saying.