Author Topic: Letter fo Fr Chazal (Read 5496 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2013, 11:33:52 PM »

Quote from: Johnnier

Neil,

Yes, Ab. Lefebvre was fooled, but you are the 'smart' one. Please spare us.

Spare "us?" Who do you think is with you? Are you keeping a ghost
in your pocket? Give me a break.

Quote

You fail to answer any of the basic points I make. If you can't answer just say so, no need to hide behind insults.

Do you think you can pick up tactics in HEBF's Rhetoric 101 and
come in here and get away with it? It is YOU who fail to answer any
of the basic facts of history which you are incapable of denying,
so you go for the wholesale denial of the truth. Does that sound
familiar? Check it out: John viii. 45, maybe for the first time!

Quote

While I have been a staunch resistance follower for the greater part, [?!] I can say honestly, I can now see that they are not correct in their assessment. I think with time is becoming clearer to me and others. They want to combat what they perceive as an error on Part of the SSPX with another error, namely failing to make some of the basic distinctions which the SSPX has always made.

Face it, Johnnier: You're all wet.

Quote

To me it seems like a emotional reaction to a real problem. Just look at how certain people here reaction [sic] to even basic object [sic] errors pointed out to them.

You strain the gnat and swallow the camel, Johnnier. You have
utterly failed to answer the questions, so you say there are no
questions (the primary of the Three Greatest Heresies, which
see), and then you proceed to accuse others of the very thing
that you commit. Did you learn that one from Krah or some
other Jew?

Quote

Fr. Pfieffer is mistaken on trying to claim that Fatima isn't merely a private revelation.

You are wrong, again, or should I rather say, "as usual?" ..

Quote

This point is basic Catholic teaching.

..I think I'll go for the latter option!

Quote

It seems to me, that all people have done is deflect what they persevered as the infallibility of Bp. Fellay to Fr. Pfieffer. [sic] I think this is madness to say the least.

"...what they persevered as the infallibility of" TGO? So you're
either planting time bombs or obfuscating your logical fallacies,
but either way, it's junk, dude.

I'm somewhat relieved to see you recognize your words as "madness."

I won't duplicate the whole post but some of J.Paul's words are a
focus of import:

Quote from: J.Paul

Well, to say the least, you are a Menzingen apologist and that is the weight which must given to your efforts here. It appears that the only 'following' of the resistance which you have done is to continue to harass their supporters.

IOW your human act of "following the Resistance" is more like
stalking, and lying in wait. Both of which contribute to elevate
the seriousness of the crime, BTW. (Cf. Matt. xii. 36-37)

Quote

We have no need to perceive the problems of the progressives in the Society, as they have already been docuмented and are undeniable to a reasonable person who is capable of critical thinking.

And furthermore, you can't argue with a Modernist! All it does is
get uglier and uglier. At some point you have to recognize that his
allegiance is with the Adversary and there is no benefit to the
discussion, only a danger to your principles and perhaps to your
faith.

Quote from: Johnnier

J. Paul,

Who is harrasing [sic] who? - If pointing out the basic facts is harasment [sic] - then what case do you have at all?

News flash for Johnnier:

You haven't pointed out any 'facts' but you have ignored
plenty of them. See below.

And you can't spell very well, either. In both cases you're
consistent: consistently wrong.

Quote

Anyone who points out a basic fact is attacked as a 'Menzingen apologist'.

It appears to me what is docuмent [sic] is the selective reading of things. One can also 'docuмent' the various statements and actions of the Archbishop and interpret them in a liberal light as well, as various Sedevacantist groups have done. As Neil himself wanted to claim that somehow, even the Archbishop was 'fooled', reason being is because he doesn't agree with current resistance ideas. - I find this pure madness.

There is a whole long list of things ABL taught that you are wont to
deny, along with your potentate apostates. I'd call THAT "madness" --
in the objective order, that is.

Quote

Even within the resistance itself various priests view things differently, are they for that reason also 'Menzingen apologist'? [sic] This is becoming foolish.

It's refreshing to see you recognize foolishness, but unfortunately,
you haven't managed to perceive the fact that your posts have been
"foolish" all along.

So, you think I'm crazy, eh, Your Johnnier?
Who is ignoring the facts, you or I?

You have been provided a long list of facts, not one of which you can
refute, nor have you tried, then you come off saying that "it's
all emotion" for us to provide you with objective facts that you cannot
refute nor defend against -- but then it's somehow 'reasonable' for you
to make unfounded (lying) blanket accusations?

Pure madness, eh? Spare us!

Here's a sample list, which you no doubt missed before and that's
why you're invincibly-yet-culpably-ignorant:

New Position on Judaism
Decreasing devotion to Our Lady
Vatican II and Religious Liberty
GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm
Reversal of Novus Ordo outlook
The New Attitude of Priests
Dealings with Rome
Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism,
Their new position on Indultery Masses,
Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes

Etc.

But there's no point in going on with you, Johnnier, because
you can't address even one of these, so why give you more?

P.S. First of the Three Greatest Heresies: "There is no truth."

Johnnier · « **Reply #16 on:** October 04, 2013, 02:04:15 AM »

Neil,

Unless you can't read, I address those issues already. Let's add a few more points on the issues mentioned.

New Position on Judaism - Clearly taken out of context. Read what Fr. Fahey had to say on this issue. Anyone can twist anything that someone says to his own liking, but lets look at the facts.

Decreasing devotion to Our Lady - What a lie. Which SSPX priest doesn't have a great devotion of Our Lady? I would be worried about the resistance 'no spirituality' priests if I were you. - It seems as though they are embracing the Americanist heresy.

Vatican II and Religious Liberty - Yes, which the SSPX rejects. This issue was covered by the SSPX in great detail during the doctrinal discussions, to which non of the resistance priests had anything to say to the contrary at the time.
GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm - Selective reading on part of the resistance. You can read what you want into this.
Reversal of Novus Ordo outlook - Prove your position. The SSPX official position hasn't changed.
The New Attitude of Priests - According to the resistance. But not according to reality.
Dealings with Rome - I guess that excludes the Archbishop from the Resistance.
Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism, - The SSPX has always be hostile to this position. Even the Archbishop himself denounced it as a position of those who lack hope. - A position that is contrary to the true Catholic solution to the Crisis. Angelus Press even has always had books and articles against it for sale. The SSPX.org site has always had article against it. Nothing news.
Their new position on Indultery Masses, - Please cite an official statement.
Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes - No refusal at all, they are just no going to be told how to run things by the resistance. The Archbishop was always criticized by the conservatives for being to hard and by the Sede's and hardliners for not being strong enough. He refused to be pushed either way, and simply continued on his course with worrying about what people though of him.

I think while at first I was a great support of the resistance, I think with time it is becoming clearer to me that this can't be the position willed by God.

In the peace of Christ.

JPaul · « **Reply #17 on:** October 04, 2013, 08:01:16 AM »

Quote from: Johnnier

J. Paul,

Who is harrasing who? - If pointing out the basic facts is harasment - then what case do you have at all?

Anyone who points out a basic fact is attacked as a 'Menzingen apologist'.

It appears to me what is docuмent is the selective reading of things. One can also 'docuмent' the various statements and actions of the Archbishop and interpret them in a liberal light as well, as various Sedevacantist groups have done. As Neil himself wanted to claim that somehow, even the Archbishop was 'fooled', reason being is because he doesn't agree with current resistance ideas. - I find this pure madness.

Even within the resistance itself various priests view things differently, are they for that reason also 'Menzingen apologist'? This is becoming foolish.

If one puts forth Menzingens current interpretations of the Archbishop and his orientation as "basic fact", then that person is rightly suspected as being an apologist for the reformulations of the administration.

We who have followed the Society for years were told and knew that the Archbishop did not intend the meanings which the business office now proposes were always what they now say that they were.

To deny that modernism and progressive thought has now taken hold in the Society is an exercise in self deception.

JPaul · « **Reply #18 on:** October 04, 2013, 08:03:54 AM »

Quote from: Johnnier

Neil,

Unless you can't read, I address those issues already. Let's add a few more points on the issues mentioned.

New Position on Judaism - Clearly taken out of context. Read what Fr. Fahey had to say on this issue. Anyone can twist anything that someone says to his own liking, but lets look at the facts.

Decreasing devotion to Our Lady - What a lie. Which SSPX priest doesn't have a great devotion of Our Lady? I would be worried about the resistance 'no spirituality' priests if I were you. - It seems as though they are embracing the Americanist heresy.

Vatican II and Religious Liberty - Yes, which the SSPX rejects. This issue was covered by the SSPX in great detail during the doctrinal discussions, to which non of the resistance priests had anything to say to the contrary at the time.
GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm - Selective reading on part of the resistance. You can read what you want into this.
Reversal of Novus Ordo outlook - Prove your position. The SSPX official position hasn't changed.
The New Attitude of Priests - According to the resistance. But not according to reality.
Dealings with Rome - I guess that excludes the Archbishop from the Resistance.
Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism, - The SSPX has always be hostile to this position. Even the Archbishop himself denounced it as a position of those who lack hope. - A position that is contrary to the true Catholic solution to the Crisis. Angelus Press even has always had books and articles against it for sale. The SSPX.org site has always had article against it. Nothing news.
Their new position on Indultery Masses, - Please cite an official statement.
Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes - No refusal at all, they are just no going to be told how to run things by the resistance. The Archbishop was always criticized by the conservatives for being to hard and by the Sede's and hardliners for not being strong enough. He refused to be pushed either way, and simply continued on his course with worrying about what people though of him.

I think while at first I was a great support of the resistance, I think with time it is becoming clearer to me that this can't be the position willed by God.

In the peace of Christ.

Point proven. I rest my case.

Johnnier · « **Reply #19 on:** October 05, 2013, 01:30:25 AM »

If you can't answer the points, just admit it. A little honesty would be good for a change :)