Author Topic: Militant Anti-Resistance Sermon in St Paul, MN: (Read 18441 times)

Sienna629 · « **Reply #60 on:** June 12, 2013, 02:46:28 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote
You are a dissident

The taunts and jeers from the Church of Bishop Fellay drive on the resistance. The resistance is a noble crusade which has the blessing of Almighty God.

Yes, they only serve to intensify our resolve!!

Machabees · « **Reply #61 on:** June 12, 2013, 05:29:58 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

13) Because my beliefs are the same as they ever were, but were never a problem until forced to choose between truth and authority (which are no longer united);

That is a good way to say it.

magdalena · « **Reply #62 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:43:05 PM »

I don't see hostility in Catholics expressing their thoughts about the SSPX being put back under Rome. I see deep concern. And this deep concern is due to love of the Faith, and affection for the SSPX. Campos, the Institute of Christ the King, the FSSP and the Transalpine Redemptorists are examples of what happens when Traditionalists prematurely trust Rome--a Rome who has no love for the Traditional Mass and continues to laud the docuмents and encyclicals of Vatican II to the neglect of anything pre conciliar. If back in the 70's men and women had voiced their objection to missa versus populum, the protestantization of prayers, the change in formula of the consecration, communion in the hand, the use of "extraordinary ministers" of the Eucharist, altar girls and strange teachings--just to name a few--maybe Vatican II would have disappeared into oblivion after just a few years. It's both sad and disturbing to see Traditional Catholics behaving in the same manner as did our predecessors at, and following, the time of the Council. And it's even sadder to see them persecuting those who want to hold and stay true to the Faith. May God have mercy on our souls.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #63 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:46:43 PM »

Quote from: magdalena

I don't see hostility in Catholics expressing their thoughts about the SSPX being put back under Rome. I see deep concern. And this deep concern is due to love of the Faith, and affection for the SSPX. Campos, the Institute of Christ the King, the FSSP and the Transalpine Redemptorists are examples of what happens when Traditionalists prematurely trust Rome--a Rome who has no love for the Traditional Mass and continues to laud the docuмents and encyclicals of Vatican II to the neglect of anything pre conciliar. If back in the 70's men and women had voiced their objection to missa versus populum, the protestantization of prayers, the change in formula of the consecration, communion in the hand, the use of "extraordinary ministers" of the Eucharist, altar girls and strange teachings--just to name a few--maybe Vatican II would have disappeared into oblivion after just a few years. It's both sad and disturbing to see Traditional Catholics behaving in the same way as did our predecessors at, and following, the time of the Council. And it's even sadder to see them persecuting those who want to hold and stay true to the Faith. May God have mercy on our souls. [/

Great post.

But they will not allow that we resist from love of the SSPX.

Precisely because they equate and limit the SSPX to the present will of the superior general.

On that basis, permanent evolution is possible.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #64 on:** June 12, 2013, 09:22:06 PM »

And lest we forget what this is all about (from my post back in May):

They want to drive me out of the parish because I remind them that:

1) There is not going to be a deal -for now- only because Our Lady prevented Rome from accepting Bishop Fellay’s scandalous doctrinal declaration (This was Bishop Tissier's opinion in his recent Chicago Sunday sermon....better kick him out too);

2) However, the 2012 General Chapter Declaration still stands as an open invitation to the Romans as official SSPX policy;

3) And despite the Talleyrand spin represented in Bishop Fellay’s March, 2013 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” in which he seems to be talking traditional again, it is only because he does not perceive a deal to be possible at this time, because of ROMAN disinterest;

4) That 2012 GC declaration mutated the traditional position of the SSPX in dealings with Rome, and gave the green light to a merely practical accord, despite the persevering modernism in Rome;

5) Effectively, this places legal unity over doctrinal integrity;

6) The same General Chapter also produced 6 merely practical (and limp) conditions which, if met, would stand as surrender terms to Rome;

7) All of this is still on the table, but wait…..there’s more!

8) We have also seen, finally, the degree to which Bishop Fellay was willing to go in order to get legal recognition in his scandalous April-2012 doctrinal declaration, in which, among other things, he accepts that Vatican II is traditional (?!?), and all of that garbage must be accepted as traditional…even the heretical Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae;

9) So he accepts that heresy is traditional, in this particular instance;

10) He then writes a letter to BXVI, explaining his commitment to pursuing the path of a practical accord at the expense of considerable opposition within the SSPX, but vows to plow forward.

11) There is therefore a perpetual trust issue in place, so long as his administration remains in power.

12) We have his own words as the source of this distrust, and his own words acknowledging his revolutionary activity as a cause of division, which he dishonestly seeks to deflect to Bishop Williamson (for failing to go along with the revolution?);

13) Menzingen cannot ignore the existence of Bishop Williamson, because the latter is a thorn in their side by continuing to point out the truth; an embarrassment to the lie that is attempting to be justified (just as the SSPX used to be a sign of contradiction to Rome and the false doctrines of V2);

14) They are so afraid of his existence, they feel it necessary to build a new seminary at considerable (and unnecessary) expense, just to escape the ghost of Bishop Williamson in Winona;

15) If there is a new formation of priests (SSPX-SO), it is necessary to preserve the apostolate of the original SSPX, to come to the aid of souls caught in a state of grave spiritual necessity; to preserve a valid priesthood; to preserve the integral corpus of Catholic doctrine; to warn the faithful about the slow-drip poison coming from Menzingen which endangers all these things; this latter is not possible within the framework of the neo-SSPX;

16) And that in itself is justification enough to found a new order which will allow priests to continue to faithfully serve God’s Church.

PS: With regard to the denial of Holy Communion: The neo-SSPX would say that it is justified in denial of Communion to notorious and public sinners. They would be correct. Problem is when they equate public resistance to the weakening of Faith and leftward drift in Menzingen as public sin. I do not know enough about specific instances to apply the rules to the individual cases to opine whether withholding has been justified or not.

NB: But I may be finding out very soon!

magdalena · « **Reply #65 on:** June 12, 2013, 10:01:34 PM »

A Tale of Deception

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/wzJ3fcG9IkY[/youtube]

dwintell · « **Reply #66 on:** June 13, 2013, 12:19:04 PM »

Did you speak with Father Rutledge after the Mass? You would have had an opportunity. He was very open to that. I would guess that instead you were off to your computer to write up the report for your followers.
Also,your remarks about not talking with Father Beck are ridiculous. You tried to imply that he would not speak for truth because of not wanting to risk his position. Unbelievable!!! That man's sole interest is saving souls-including yours.
When you speak of truth-it's only YOUR version that is credible. You are totally lacking in humility-or you would be anxious to speak with Father Beck.
Harry asked you a simple, reasonable question and you pose that as an attack. As one of the "sheeples",and other charitable terms you use to describe those who disagree with you, I chuckle at your drama.
You take yourself way to serious guy.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #67 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:12:56 PM »

Quote from: dwintell

Did you speak with Father Rutledge after the Mass? You would have had an opportunity. He was very open to that. I would guess that instead you were off to your computer to write up the report for your followers.
Also,your remarks about not talking with Father Beck are ridiculous. You tried to imply that he would not speak for truth because of not wanting to risk his position. Unbelievable!!! That man's sole interest is saving souls-including yours.
When you speak of truth-it's only YOUR version that is credible. You are totally lacking in humility-or you would be anxious to speak with Father Beck.
Harry asked you a simple, reasonable question and you pose that as an attack. As one of the "sheeples",and other charitable terms you use to describe those who disagree with you, I chuckle at your drama.
You take yourself way to serious guy.

Fr. Beck is a friend of mine, and the spin you are trying to put on my words regarding why I have avoided contact with him since the publication of the "Letter of the Three Bishops" seems to be a tactic designed to stir up animosity to use as a pretext for justifying banishment.

Sound right?

Meanwhile, the lack of charity manifested by your words and intentions, as well as the cowardice manifested by your anonymity, are on display for all to see.

At least Harry had the courage to use his real name.

Perhaps you should consult with Menzingen's Dutch PR company before posting further?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #68 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:25:07 PM »

It appears Cathinfo now has its own version of John McFarland in the person of dwintell.

Matthew: Will someone please swat this fly?

Columba · « **Reply #69 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:42:26 PM »

Quote from: dwintell

Also,your remarks about not talking with Father Beck are ridiculous. You tried to imply that he would not speak for truth because of not wanting to risk his position. Unbelievable!!!

Indeed! I am shocked, shocked, if anyone could think that Menzingen's policy of putting old-style SSPX priests out on the streets if they break silence has any relevance here.

Incredulous · « **Reply #70 on:** June 13, 2013, 03:34:02 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

It appears Cathinfo now has its own version of John McFarland in the person of dwintell.

Matthew: Will someone please swat this fly?

I suggest leaving him be, so we can pull his wings off.

I hope this little pleasure is not a sin?

magdalena · « **Reply #71 on:** June 13, 2013, 10:11:47 PM »

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/DsUWFVKJwBM[/youtube]

Psalm 73

Understanding for Asaph. O God, why hast thou cast us off unto the end: why is thy wrath enkindled against the sheep of thy pasture? [2] Remember thy congregation, which thou hast possessed from the beginning. The sceptre of thy inheritance which thou hast redeemed: mount Sion in which thou hast dwelt. [3] Lift up thy hands against their pride unto the end; see what things the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary. [4] And they that hate thee have made their boasts, in the midst of thy solemnity. They have set up their ensigns for signs, [5] And they knew not both in the going out and on the highest top. As with axes in a wood of trees,

[4] Their ensigns: They have fixed their colours for signs and trophies, both on the gates, and on the highest top of the temple: and they knew not, that is, they regarded not the sanctity of the place. This psalm manifestly foretells the time of the Machabees, and the profanation of the temple by Antiochus.

[6] They have cut down at once the gates thereof, with axe and hatchet they have brought it down. [7] They have set fire to thy sanctuary: they have defiled the dwelling place of thy name on the earth. [8] They said in their heart, the whole kindred of them together: Let us abolish all the festival days of God from the land. [9] Our signs we have not seen, there is now no prophet: and he will know us no more. [10] How long, O God, shall the enemy reproach: is the adversary to provoke thy name for ever?

[11] Why dost thou turn away thy hand: and thy right hand out of the midst of thy bosom for ever? [12] But God is our king before ages: he hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth. [13] Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters. [14] Thou hast broken the heads of the dragon: thou hast given him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians. [15] Thou hast broken up the fountains and the torrents: thou hast dried up the Ethan rivers.

[13] The sea firm: By making the waters of the Red Sea stand like firm walls, whilst Israel passed through: and destroying the Egyptians called here dragons from their cruelty, in the same waters, with their king: casting up their bodies on the shore to be stripped by the Ethiopians inhabiting in those days the coast of Arabia.

[15] Ethan rivers: That is, rivers which run with strong streams. This was verified in Jordan, Jos. 3, and in Arnon, Num. 21. 14.

[16] Thine is the day, and thine is the night: thou hast made the morning light and the sun. [17] Thou hast made all the borders of the earth: the summer and the spring were formed by thee. [18] Remember this, the enemy hath reproached the Lord: and a foolish people hath provoked thy name. [19] Deliver not up to beasts the souls that confess to thee: and forget not to the end the souls of thy poor. [20] Have regard to thy covenant: for they that are the obscure of the earth have been filled with dwellings of iniquity.

[20] The obscure of the earth: Mean and ignoble wretches have been filled, that is, enriched, with houses of iniquity, that is, with our estates and possessions, which they have unjustly acquired.

[21] Let not the humble be turned away with confusion: the poor and needy shall praise thy name. [22] Arise, O God, judge thy own cause: remember thy reproaches with which the foolish man hath reproached thee all the day. [23] Forget not the voices of thy enemies: the pride of them that hate thee ascendeth continually.

magdalena · « **Reply #72 on:** June 13, 2013, 10:40:49 PM »

Above post copied and pasted from Douay-Rheims Bible Online. Comments in italics did not copy over as such.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #73 on:** June 13, 2013, 10:41:41 PM »

.

Post

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Unless Fr. Beck tells me I can no longer attend, I will continue to do so.

Even after everything that has taken place thus far?

It would be caving in to intimidation.

It would be caving in to injustice.

It would represent surrender.

I cannot choose to deprive myself and my family of the sacraments; it is not a matter in which I consider myself to have freedom to decide.

I was once the golden boy of that parish, running the bookstore as a good public face, and the go-to man for those visiting the chapel who wanted to gain an understanding of what the SSPX was all about.

The priest would send such people my way, because he knew me to have an eloquent and intimate knowledge of the SSPX positions.

Sedevacantists, indultarians, Feenyites, Novus Ordinarians, or those with questions about supplied jurisdiction or our position vis-a-vis Rome were all sent my way for a presentation of what we were all about.

But today I am a subversive traitor for pointing out that Vatican II is not implicitly contained in tradition, contrary to what Bishop Fellay signed.

I am a Judas for objecting to the scandalous agreement he signed willing to accept the new code of canon law.

I am a hyppocrite for being outraged by his acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the new Mass.

I am a dissident for recalling Archbishop Lefebvre's post-1988 position that there be no practical accord without the conversion of Rome to tradition.

Yet 5 years ago, everyone instigating for my banishment held my same position.

Or did they?

It appears now that some did not. They kept it to themselves, and waited
for the time when their subversive ideas would be given the opportunity
for so-called respectability, and what better time for that than when the
ill-fated SG started promoting the very same things!

It should be of no surprise that these things you list were the hit-points of
the unclean spirit of Vatican II in reprise. The spirit of the world has a
myriad of faces but they're all related by these themes.

~ The Newmass was promulgated (a lie) and legitimately so (double lie).

~ Vatican II is implicitly hidden (though not yet formulated) in Tradition (lie).

~ The New Code of Canon Law is likewise good in the light of Tradition (lie).

~ The position of ABL PRIOR to 1988 is all that matters (very big lie).

~ The new Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity of 1989 is good (lie).

~ The 'deal' was not finalized so everything is 'fine' (lie).

Etc., etc.

You have done the right thing, Sean Johnson, and my hat's off to you
for having such calm and resolve. I doubt I would have been able to
suffer quietly the way you have.

Incredulous · « **Reply #74 on:** June 14, 2013, 01:05:02 AM »

Quote from: magdalena

Above post copied and pasted from Douay-Rheims Bible Online. Comments in italics did not copy over as such.

Anyway Magdalena... your post some classy stuff. Thanks!