Author Topic: Militant Anti-Resistance Sermon in St Paul, MN: (Read 18251 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #30 on:** June 10, 2013, 04:09:31 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

What would be excellent is a debate between a Resistance priest and NeoSSPX preiest.

Wait- even better- between +Fellay and +Williamson!

There's a reason that won't happen -- and it's not because +Williamson is afraid he would lose, let's put it that way.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that would pay money to see that.

It would be worth every dime to see +Fellay get schooled by the Schoolmaster.

Frances · « **Reply #31 on:** June 10, 2013, 04:29:08 PM »

:surprised: Few understand my humor. I am joking. But do you seriously believe Fr. Rostand will allow mere sheep to record him? Is it a sin to do it anyway? I don't know. If he comes to my area, I intend to find an urgent reason to go to Mass elsewhere, maybe London! I've come to the place where I have enough evidence that the SSPX is done for. No need of beating a dead horse.

Marlelar · « **Reply #32 on:** June 10, 2013, 04:53:38 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: magdalena
With regards to the "sermon".... :sad:

Sorry, that's all I have for now.

I guess when you consider that Father Rutledge is 30 years old, has only been a priest for four years, was put into the exalted position of bursar after only two years and is surrounded by all of Bishop Fellay's men, what can one expect? This considered, he has been known for his short, eloquent and charitable sermons. What happened? Once again... :sad:

FOUR years???? :faint:

An SSPX priest I used to know called them "baby priests".

Marsha

magdalena · « **Reply #33 on:** June 10, 2013, 06:45:26 PM »

It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.

Incredulous · « **Reply #34 on:** June 10, 2013, 07:04:23 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:surprised: Few understand my humor. I am joking. But do you seriously believe Fr. Rostand will allow mere sheep to record him? Is it a sin to do it anyway? I don't know. If he comes to my area, I intend to find an urgent reason to go to Mass elsewhere, maybe London! I've come to the place where I have enough evidence that the SSPX is done for. No need of beating a dead horse.

Frances,

I should have given more background to my post.

About 14 months ago, a Frenchman friend of mine met Fr. Rostand who was visiting at the Carson City chapel. In the coffee room, after Mass, he just told Father he had read the 219 unexpurgated sermons of +ABL (three volumes) in his original French.

His point was to suggest that if the SSPX just followed +ABL's tough advise, concerning newChurch, they would have fewer problems.

Father Rostand took offense to the comments and pulled out his tape recorder during this conversation. He he told my friend, his reading of the sermons was "illegal". Illegal, because Bp. Fellay claimed copyrights to the SSPX sermons and had their publication banned in the French courts.

So, that's the basis for poor joke about "dueling tape recorders" in the coffee room. It also explains why I like to make fun of him and his foreign, absurd attitudes.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #35 on:** June 10, 2013, 07:40:49 PM »

.

Dear Incred: please correct me if I'm wrong, but after this:

Quote from: Incred.

Father Rostand took offense to the comments and pulled out his tape recorder during this conversation. He he told my friend, his reading of the sermons was "illegal". Illegal, because Bp. Fellay claimed copyrights to the SSPX sermons and had their publication banned in the French courts.

..my only thought was, how could it be 'illegal' to READ copyrighted
material? The copyright laws only protect the DUPLICATION (that is to
say, 'publication') of the material, not whether it is READ by someone.

Correct?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #36 on:** June 10, 2013, 07:45:34 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.

Interesting observation:

Fr Webber had managed to maintain peace in our parish until Fr Rutledge's visit.

His visit killed it.

Whose sin is greater:

Fr Rutledge's, or those few meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?

Incredulous · « **Reply #37 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Dear Incred: please correct me if I'm wrong, but after this:

Quote from: Incred.

Father Rostand took offense to the comments and pulled out his tape recorder during this conversation. He he told my friend, his reading of the sermons was "illegal". Illegal, because Bp. Fellay claimed copyrights to the SSPX sermons and had their publication banned in the French courts.

..my only thought was, how could it be 'illegal' to READ copyrighted
material? The copyright laws only protect the DUPLICATION (that is to
say, 'publication') of the material, not whether it is READ by someone.

Correct?

Correct Neil.

It was Father Rostand's improper use of the word "illegal".

Incredulous · « **Reply #38 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:02:27 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: magdalena
It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.

Interesting observation:

Fr Webber had managed to maintain peace in our parish until Fr Rutledge's visit.

His visit killed it.

Whose sin is greater:

Fr Rutledge's, or those few meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?

As if we were being cast out of Maxie's ѕуηαgσgυє.

magdalena · « **Reply #39 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:18:07 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: magdalena
It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.

Interesting observation:

Fr Webber had managed to maintain peace in our parish until Fr Rutledge's visit.

His visit killed it.

Whose sin is greater:

Fr Rutledge's, or those few meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?

How true. So much for putting on a kinder and gentler image to attract the faithful.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #40 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:31:45 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Correct Neil.

It was Father Rostand's improper use of the word "illegal".

So Fr. Rostand is attempting to throw his featherweight around by
claiming to make threats when there's no basis for it. This sounds like
the same nonsense that Rome has tried to pull on the Society, on ABL,
on Fr. Gruner, and on all the trad-leaning priests after the bastardmass
was unleashed in 1969.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: magdalena
It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.

Interesting observation:

Fr Webber had managed to maintain peace in our parish until Fr Rutledge's visit.

His visit killed it.

Whose sin is greater:

Fr Rutledge's, or those few meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?

But Fr. Rutledge is way ahead of us -- look at the new website -- there's
no more 'sin.' That's too 'negative' -- much better to focus on the positive.

So you'd have to say, "Whose negativity is greater: Fr. Rutledge's, or
those few meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?"

Hmmm.... :scratchchin:

Seems to me the families did a positive thing by instigating something, no?
I mean, it may have been a BAD thing, but there's no more sin, remember?
So, now it's just positive and negative, like a binary switching system, it's
either off or on,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0 or 1........... everything's digital.

So, Fr. Rutledge must be the winner, because killing is negative -- it takes
life away. He killed the peace in your parish. Very negative.

But you can't say "bad." It's just 'NEGATIVE.'

Next thing you know, that'll be in the new instructions for confession:

"Bless me Father, for I have been negative. It's been two weeks
since my last Confession..."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #41 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:42:38 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: magdalena
It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.

Interesting observation:

Fr Webber had managed to maintain peace in our parish until Fr Rutledge's visit.

His visit killed it.

Whose sin is greater:

Fr Rutledge's, or those few meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?

How true. So much for putting on a kinder and gentler image to attract the faithful.

One almost wonder if causing division was his purpose (I.e., as an excuse to get rid of those "divisive" resistance members)?

magdalena · « **Reply #42 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:45:37 PM »

Interesting thought, Sean. What I think is that a lot of people will leave and never return due to his visit. And they won't necessarily be the "dissidents", as they like to put it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** June 10, 2013, 08:52:09 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

Interesting thought, Sean. What I think is that a lot of people will leave and never return due to his visit. And they won't necessarily be the "dissidents".

You might be right, but I had the opposite impression:

The ignorant, brain-dead masses who remained deliberately ignorant on the issues found him to be quite persuasive.

It was like audible Soma for them.

magdalena · « **Reply #44 on:** June 10, 2013, 09:00:27 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: magdalena
Interesting thought, Sean. What I think is that a lot of people will leave and never return due to his visit. And they won't necessarily be the "dissidents".

You might be right, but I had the opposite impression:

The ignorant, brain-dead masses who remained deliberately ignorant on the issues found him to be quite persuasive.

It was like audible Soma for them.

It was quiet. You could have heard a pin drop. But I think that kind of thing turns decent people away--at least gentler hearts and newcomers. They'll go find an indult parish somewhere, which is what the SSPX is sadly becoming anyhow.

And, of course, it didn't help that he was our former pastor. Father Rostand should have sent someone else. It makes it hurt that much more.