Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2013, 02:04:09 PM
-
Well, it was so predictable that Kansas City would use the opportunity of our current pastor's vacation to send an accordista to rally the troops, that some of us considered recording the sermon today (knowing it would be a barn-burner), but unfortunately, I am not aware of anyone actually having followed through with a recording.
If such a recording does come to surface, I will let you know, but until then, I supply these bullet points:
1) Fr. Rutledge states he is not undercutting the authority of our pastor (Fr. Steven Webber) by delivering such a sermon, because he was specifically sent by Fr. Rostand to deliver it;
2) The SSPX has not changed in the last 4 years (He even defied, rhetorically, anyone to cite a single change);
3) There is no such thing as the resistance, because there is nothing to resist. Therefore, he will call us dissidents;
4) The secrecy in which the resistance has been working is the method of the devil;
5) The resistance are akin to Judas; they are treasonous; they are hypocrites to bite the hand that feeds them, then present themselves at the communion rail;
6) He recommends the Kansas City conference of Fr. Thiemann to dispel all the resistance arguments and give you the facts;
7) Bishop Williamson is a liberal for his thought that authority is so crippled by the minds of modern men, that hierarchy should be abandoned;
8) Bishop Williamson is a liberal for saying both sides of an argument should be considered before concluding as to which is the truth, because we all know the voice of truth when we hear it;
9) All the arguments of the resistance are based on misinformation;
10) It is ridiculous to oppose talking to Rome about a deal; even Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1970s evinced his desire to be united to Rome;
11) Archbishop Lefebvre was criticized for his desire to be united to Rome by the sedevacantists back then;
12) All the groups that have left the SSPX have disintegrated, and the same can be expected for the resistance;
13) Nothing in the seminary formation has changed; we still have the same courses;
14) I preach the same sermons I preached 4 years ago;
Dear reader, there was much more than this, but I am working from memory; since several other parishioners from St. Paul frequent this website, you may feel free to interject/correct/or add as needed.
These are my brief responses:
1) If it is true, as Fr. Rutledge says, that he was sent to deliver this sermon by Fr. Rostand, then it heavily implies that Kansas City feels the people of St. Paul need to hear something they are not getting from their regular pastor.
This may also explain why we got a milder anti-resistance sermon the last time Fr. Webber went on vacation as well.
Funny thing is, our regular pastor is no resistance supporter, but openly denounces Vatican II on a regular basis.
Apparently even this much is taboo in the neo-SSPX (and perfectly aligns with Fr. Girouard's recent bombshell revelation of Fr. Wegner's hiring of a Dutch PR campaign to remake the public image of the SSPX; more on that later).
Kansas City is misplaying this hand: They are going to end up making a resistance priest out of Fr. Webber, despite Fr. Webber's aversion to the resistance!
2) A book could be written citing all the changes to the SSPX in the last 4 years, contrary to the baseless assertion of Fr. Rutledge (which counts on the ignorance of the laity in order to have them swallow this whopper; remember: stay off the internet! And apparently most have).
On the chance Fr. Rutledge's baseless assertion could gain traction because of the sheeple's refusal to inform themselves, I will begin building a Compendium of Changes in the SSPX since 2000; look for it on this website in a couple weeks.
Meanwhile, here are a few changes from the SSPX that even the most willfully blind will have trouble side-stepping:
A) The 2012 General Chapter Statement contradicts that of 2006, by allowing for a practical agreement without first settling the doctrinal issues;
B) The contradiction of Archbishop Lefebvre's post-1988 consecration position with regard to relations with Rome, highlighted in the oft-cited 1988 Fideliter interview, that there be no agreement with Rome before Rome's conversion to tradition;
C) The continual contradictions of Bishop Fellay himself:
In 2003 (see Letter #63), Campos was suicidal for coming to an agreement with Rome;
In 2012 (see March 2012 Cor Unum) he tried to sell a deal to the priests by telling them the situation in Rome had changed to such a degree, it required a new position/response from the SSPX;
Then after seeing himself snubbed by Rome, and a deal out of reach for the moment with Francis coming to the papacy, he tells us (see Letter #85) that nothing in Rome has changed at all, and we must continue the fight.
Anyone familiar with Talleyrand? He had an uncanny ability to see which way momentum and events were heading, and make sure he ended up on the winning side.
3) Since the examples in #2 above serve as a refutation of this claim as well, I will let it pass, except to observe that Archbishop Lefebvre was also called a dissident by Rome, for refusal to submit to modernism and modernist superiors.
4) I found this the most hypocritical statement of the entire sermon, in light of all the secret dealings and negotiations between Rome/Menzingen. As an afterthought, I will have to add that to the list of changes in the SSPX: Whereas Bishop Fellay effectively told concerned laity to go bug-off because it was none of our business, Archbishop Lefebvre was always very open about his dealings with Rome, and said the faithful had a strict right to know that their priests were not modernists.
5) On the one hand, this comment seems to have been designed to shame resistance communicants away from receiving Communion.
On the other hand, they see the traitors as the ones who will not go along with their marketing revolution designed to get a deal.
In 16th century England, they would have sided with Henry VIII, and made the same accusation against St. Thomas.
But the interesting thing as that Fr. Rutledge's definition of treason seems to be determined by a person's fidelity to authority, not principles.
He seems not to realize (being charitable) this itself is how revolution is facilitated, and he is one facilitating it.
Those of us who have rightly kept our gaze fixed at the level of principle (like Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1988 Fideliter interview!) have become immovable, and like the old SSPX, are a thorn in the side of Menzingen.
No, Fr. Rutledge. If you want to look at traitors, ask yourself who has betrayed the 1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
6) Another hypocrisy, because the Fr. Thiemann conference basically explained why a deal with Rome would be good; apparently, the mindless troops of Menzingen could not keep up with the latest spin coming from Switzerland, because Fr. Thiemann's April 15 conference was contradicted by Bishop Fellay's April 17 Letter #85, in which he says nothing in Rome has changed, and we must hold the course!
The troubling issue here is that this mindlessness implies a desire to back the general regardless of what he says.
Obedience is superior to truth, and is also apparently independent of it.
It matters not whether Menzingen contradicts itself 50 times: We will back the latest position regardless of truth or consequences.
"We have always been at war with Eurasia!"
7) I personally disagree with Bishop Williamson's strategy of the loose confederation. But Fr. Rutledge has misunderstood the strategy, if in it he sees an implicit acceptance of democracy, egalitarianism, or equality, or some other liberal principle.
8) Who can hear this, and not suspect the desire to keep the laity stupid and uninformed? Don't go read the arguments of the resistance, because it is the devil! Yet, whatever happened to "thee truth will set you free?" If it is true, as Fr. Rutledge says, that the people know the truth when they hear it, then why is he so scared that they should be exposed to resistance arguments? Menzingen should triumph easily, should it not?
9) Yet not a single resistance argument was cited for rebuttal. One suspects the intent to discredit without entering into debate. Why? Because debate would bring the very issues to surface that Kansas City wants to dismiss a priori as misinformation.
Meanwhile, the sheeple will make a show of loyalty by outdoing each other in their ignorance on the issues.
Mission accomplished.
10) This is dishonesty. Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with Rome for decades. Yes. But after the 1988 consecrations, he no longer needed approval from Rome in order to perpetuate tradition, and therefore changed his approach with regard to them.
That position, laid out in the 1988 Fideliter interview said no agreement without conversion the of Rome.
Talks were useless (his words).
So to give examples of Archbishop Lefebvre's willingness to talk and negotiate with Rome from the 1970s as proof that there is nothing wrong with Bishop Fellay doing the same in 2000-2013 is deceptive.
11) The tired implication being that thee resistance are closet sedevacantists today?
Or was it just an example which tried to say that there will always be some malcontents opposed to a deal, just as they were opposed to Archbishop Lefebvre talking to Rome back in the 1970s?
If the latter, then I defer to my answer above in #10.
12) More deception!
The groups that left the SSPX and later disintegrated did so not because they left the SSPX, but because they went to Rome!
And now you would have us stay quiet and back a course (laid out in the March 20112 Cor Unum) that would lead us to the same disintegration?
And if we refuse to disintegrate ourselves, we are rebels motivated by misinformation and the devil?
13) Really?
You may still have the same courses and books.
Tell me: Do you still have the same spiritual conferences and sermons?
When I was in the seminary, I heard sermon after sermon, and conference after conference against modernism, Vatican II, the sellout of Campos, etc.
You are telling me you still have all that?
It would seem to contradict the PR firm Bishop Fellay and Fr. Wegner hired to re-brand the SSPX, the primary characteristic of which is the removal of combativeness and opposition to Rome/Vatican II/Modernism in order to gain worldly approval (and the good will of Rome?)
Additionally, the faithful have noticed this lack of combativeness in the priests ordained since Bishop Williamson's transfer.
Sermons on the virtues, but rarely anything against Vatican II.
Fr. Girouard's revelation that Menzingen hired a PR firm which advised him to quit preaching against Rome/Vatican II, and that this course has been executed (as admitted by Fr. Wegner to Fr. Girouard), seems to contradict your statement that the formation is the same as it has ever been.
If so, it could only be so despite the branding campaign paid for by Menzingen, which does not seem likely.
14) Related to my answer above:
What kind of sermons did you preach then and now?
Did you indite Rome, condemn modernism, and preach against Vatican II regularly 4 years ago?
The answer to #13 above makes that seem unlikely, and so you can honestly say that you have not had to change at all n the last 4 years.
Problem is, your whole formation was designed to make sure you were not like the Bishop Williamson priests, who railed against such things.
PS to Cathinfo readers:
Fr Webber will still be on vacation next week, so be prepared for more!
-
Sean, didn't you leave the SSPX?
-
Sean, didn't you leave the SSPX?
Nope.
Don't you remember the whole red light/yellow light thing?
I attend resistance masses when they are in town, otherwise SSPX.
-
Why did you not record the sermon?
Why expect others to do so?
Do you not have a cell phone?
-
Nb: I would remove the final 3 words to my response to item #5 if I could, but the timeframe for editing has expired.
-
Sean,
I don't see what the problem is. Fr. Rutledge is an SSPX priest speaking in an SSPX chapel. If you can't handle that maybe your in the wrong place.
-
Hi Harry-
Thought you might show up here today.
Question:
Was I in the wrong place 4 years ago? Because I haven't changed any positions since then.
How do you explain that?
-
You might be interested in this, Harry?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/BOMBSHELL-Breaking-News-Menzingen-hires-PR-Firm
-
Great synopsis of the sermon, Sean.
I will add only a few points:
- Only the SG has all the facts; only he has the complete picture. The only reliable facts are those issued from the SG. We, the "dissidents" have succuмbed to a well orchestrated campaign of rumor and innuendo initiated by the "dissident" Bishop and his few allied "dissident" priests.
He employed St. Thomas Aquinas' famous statement: "Against a FACT, there is no argument". (Meaning against +Fellay's officially released statements there can be no arguments.)
He repeated the erroneous statement that the SSPX unity is derived from the authority of the Superior General. Obedience to that authority is required.
Those who are in the "dissident" faction are there because of a personal attachment to their favorite "dissident" Bishop and/or "dissident" priest(s).
We are in schism because the "schismatic, dissident" SSPX clergy have skillfully led us into schism.
All of the above can be traced back to the Devil who is a master of sowing confusion, discord, and deception in the form of "misinformation".
SSPX "dissidents" do NOT have all the necessary "FACTS". Because of the malicious misinformation they have sown in "secret" meetings, they are guilty of "destroying the unity of the SSPX, which is tantamount to "treason", a capitol offense in civil law. He also accused all SSPX "dissidents of being gnostics and unwitting accomplices to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. (I must admit that I interiorly chuckled at that allegation.)
I was not rebuked, in spite of his "good" efforts toward that end.
-
Great synopsis of the sermon, Sean.
I will add only a few points:
- Only the SG has all the facts; only he has the complete picture. The only reliable facts are those issued from the SG. We, the "dissidents" have succuмbed to a well orchestrated campaign of rumor and innuendo initiated by the "dissident" Bishop and his few allied "dissident" priests.
He employed St. Thomas Aquinas' famous statement: "Against a FACT, there is no argument". (Meaning against +Fellay's officially released statements there can be no arguments.)
He repeated the erroneous statement that the SSPX unity is derived from the authority of the Superior General. Obedience to that authority is required.
Those who are in the "dissident" faction are there because of a personal attachment to their favorite "dissident" Bishop and or "dissident" priest(s).
We are in schism because the "schismatic, dissident" SSPX clergy have skillfully led us into schism.
All of the above can be traced back to the Devil who is a master of sowing confusion, discord, and deception in the form of "misinformation".
SSPX "dissidents" do NOT have all the necessary "FACTS". Because of the malicious misinformation they have sown in "secret" meetings, they are guilty of "destroying the unity of the SSPX, which is tantamount to "treason", a capitol offense in civil law.
Domitilla-
Thank you for adding these other bits I had missed.
Yes, it was quite an eye opener when Fr Rutledge called us treasonous, and then observed that was a capitol offense!
Of course, Harry still doesn't see what the issue is.
Fr Rutledge is just an SSPX priest giving an SSPX sermon!
-
Hey ya'll listen up: Our ever-so-wise and ever-so-charitable Sup Gen spent a lot of money on this re-branding of the SSPX so they must know what they're doing...Apparently the ArchBp didn't have a clue...Thank goodness for Bp Fellay and Maxie Krah-the point man for the crypto Jєω money that we needed to pay for our re-branding and our new seminary....They're mainstreaming us..making us respectable...Come on, show a little gratitude people.
-
GOD’S WAR
There was a king of Judah, named Jehoshaphat, who ruled with fear of God. It praises him by many holy works, for example, when it is said in Scripture that "he swept the land the rest of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who had been in the days of his father Asa" (3 Rey. 22 47).
On one occasion the Kingdom of Judah was seriously threatened by a powerful alliance of neighboring nations, humanly impossible to beat. King Jehoshaphat, greatly distressed, He begged God’s help in front of all the people. At the end of his prayer, a prophet named Jahaziel, stood up and said: "Listen, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat. The Lord says: do not fear nor dismayed by reason of this such a great crowd; for the war is not yours but God's; Do not fear nor faint. Go forth against them because the Lord is with you" (2 Chron. 20, 15, 17). Full of courage, trust in God, and despising the purely human means, the king marched at the head of his little army against powerful enemies, and they were crushed by God's work. It was not theirs but God's war.
THE ORDER OF BATTLE OF CHRIST
In the Gospel today, the Feast of the Blessed Trinity Our Lord says: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you: and behold I am with you always, until the end of time ".
Since the devil is always opposed to the extension of the Kingdom of God, with this words Christ has given us a real order of battle, for going to conquer for Him to all people, involves marching against all the demons and their human armies. Therefore the Church of the living is called "militant", ie fighter, and St. Eusebius, commenting on this Gospel, says Our Lord, making us army of the Kingdom of Heaven, He arranged us for the fight against the enemies.
St. John Chrysostom said that Christ came to kick off Catholic war and said so from the outset the kind of fight we had to sustain, more terrible than any cινιℓ ωαr. And, meanwhile, St. Jerome says of this Gospel, that Our Lord, promising to be with us, his disciples, to the end of time, indicates that we’ll always win.
If war is God's and not ours, we should not seek human relief, to fight it, but must adhere to the faith entirely. The less we seek the land support -St. Ambrose says- we’ll find more divine assistance.
VATICAN II: THE DEVIL'S PEACE
Well, after almost twenty centuries of war, Church resistance between heavy fightings, the demon finally came with his masterpiece, the Second Vatican Council to convert obsolete the order of battle of Christ: liberalism, baptized in the council, ended the war: finally was signed peace with the devil, the world and the flesh.
If there is right not to be Catholics, freedom of religion and conscience, as taught by Freemasons and the conciliar docuмents; if outside the Church there is salvation, if there is no hell or it is empty, as claimed by the modernists, why to go to baptize and evangelize? Why go to fight? Is best to go to talk to remedy misunderstandings that impede the achievement of world peace, to that unit of men not founded in Christ, that is the new order of the Church, as heretics liberals and modernists. The holy spirit missionary has been destroyed by the council, and his place has been usurped by ecuмenical dialogue, that is nothing other than the continuation of that catastrophic dialogue between Eve and the serpent.
THE LAST BASTION IS RUINED FROM INSIDE
Against this diabolical deception stood our founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, but 40 years later we see that the congregation who fought gloriously against liberalism, is gradually abandoning trench, is gradually leaving combat and is begging for crumbs to the conciliar sect. Lost hope in the conversion of Rome by divine power -which seems impossible to those who who no longer entirely trust in God, and forgetting that this war is not of men but of God’s, is looking for a human aid, an alliance adulterous affair with the moderate liberals, the help of some supposed "new friends in Rome" (Cor Unum 101), intending a peace deal with the enemy (He almost signed last year), is thought to be in the oficial structure, will become the modernists and will restore the Church. But all this is just an horrific illusion, and this illusion is lowering the arms to those who fought valiantly for Christ: "Do not we see in the Fraternity the symptoms of the decline in the confession of the Faith?" said the three bishops to the General Council in his letter of April 7 last year. The combat decreases, increases dialogue. But the conciliator ends "conciliar".
I HAVE NOT COME TO BRING PEACE BUT SWORD
Against those peace dreams so characteristic of liberals, are the eternal words of Christ: "I came not to bring peace but a sword [or division]" (Matt. 10, 34, Luke. 12, 51). One is the peace of the world, another is the peace of Christ."The peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Not your heart be troubled, or afraid" (Jn 14, 27).
There is a good peace and there is a bad peace. And there is a good split and a bad division. Peace as the world is the union of men for good or ill, "the peace of Christ is the union that He establishes between heaven and earth by his Cross (Col. 1)," says St. Cyril quoting St. Paul, adding that peace is bad when separates from divine love. And St. John Chrysostom, speaking of the good sword or division, says, the doctor, in order to keep the rest of the body, cuts which is incurable. He adds a good division ended with bad peace that was in the tower of Babel and that St. Paul, in turn, divided all who had joined against him (Acts 23), because harmony is not always good and thieves also bind [for crime].
Dear faithful: the smoke of Satan, liberalism, has entered the tradition through a crack open from the inside. So now is seeking a peace that is not of Christ. As far as we are concerned, lets live and die in the trenches, because this war is not ours but God's.
GOD HAS DECLARED WAR
Of God, and therefore so is the only war declared by God. Indeed, St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort in his "Treatise on True Devotion" teaches, that "God has not made or formed no more than a sigle enmity, - an irreconciliable enmity-, which will last and increase until the end, and is between Mary and the devil; between the children and servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer. And God said: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Gen. 3: 15). Here is the declaration of war. It is God who has declared war. It is his war, not ours. Our duty is to fight without trying to end this war. We have no right to agree peace. We have no right to surrender. We have a duty to fight. "Soldiers play fight and God gives the victory," said St. Joan of Arc.
Thus, no man should pretend to make a truce with liberals, enemies of Christ, or to negotiate a peace agreement with the destroyers of the Church, nor accept a peace decreed by those -who as modernist heretics- are soldiers of the devil. That has a name: treason. And looking or willing to accept that peace is also a name: traitor.
Through the intercession of our Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, God grant us to follow the footsteps of all the martyrs and all the saints, and receive from heaven the fierce combat resolution to fight until the end, and the grace to die before betraying.
"The Lord says: be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's"
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2013/05/audio-del-sermon-del-rp-rene-trincado.html
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2013/05/sermon-en-la-fiesta-de-la.html
-
I heard today at Mass that Fr. Rostand will say Mass at our Chapel in two weeks. I wonder what his sermon will be about.
-
"He's an SSPX priest, preaching in an SSPX chapel..." That's it, huh? The merits of what he's saying means nothing...The hierarchy of the SSPX can do no wrong...Anyone who disagrees with that is a "liberal" or a "sede-vacantist..." or "imprudent" or "disobedient"..
-
They neo-SSPX are a cult group. Calling Bishop Williamson a liberal is preposterous. Only a cult-addled brain would come up with something like that.
-
The really heartbreaking part is that next week we will have Fr Gerard Beck here.
As I have stated before, he is (with the possible exception of Fr Therion Gaudray, or not) the finest priest I have ever known.
I am at a loss as to understand how a man of his caliber came to accept authority over truth as the principle of unity in the new SSPX.
Certainly he would object to that statement, but then we have the April 15 declaration which he apparently was ready to accept...
We even named our 3rd boy after him.
Almost certainly he will condemn me next week, perhaps not by name, but implicitly as part of the local resistance.
It is not an easy thing for a man to hear himself condemned by those for which he has esteem.
But I will say it again:
None of my principles or positions have changed since when he was here as my pastor.
So if we should now find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence, what is the explanation?
Because I would not budge, I have become the enemy?
My wife's heart is likewise broken.
She would not have come to tradition, but for the influence of Fr Beck.
Sigh..........
It matters not.
If I shall be cast out, at least on the day of judgment, I shall go before The Lord with a clean conscience, and say that I would not sacrifice principle for authority, and if I was wrong not to do so, then I was wrong in good faith.
And if this shall befall my family, I will take solace in the words of our Lord:
"No servant is greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you."
-
The really heartbreaking part is that next week we will have Fr Gerard Beck here.
As I have stated before, he is (with the possible exception of Fr Therion Gaudray, or not) the finest priest I have ever known.
I am at a loss as to understand how a man of his caliber came to accept authority over truth as the principle of unity in the new SSPX.
Certainly he would object to that statement, but then we have the April 15 declaration which he apparently was ready to accept...
We even named our 3rd boy after him.
Almost certainly he will condemn me next week, perhaps not by name, but implicitly as part of the local resistance.
It is not an easy thing for a man to hear himself condemned by those for which he has esteem.
But I will say it again:
None of my principles or positions have changed since when he was here as my pastor.
So if we should now find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence, what is the explanation?
Because I would not budge, I have become the enemy?
My wife's heart is likewise broken.
She would not have come to tradition, but for the influence of Fr Beck.
Sigh..........
It matters not.
If I shall be cast out, at least on the day of judgment, I shall go before The Lord with a clean conscience, and say that I would not sacrifice principle for authority, and if I was wrong not to do so, then I was wrong in good faith.
And if this shall befall my family, I will take solace in the words of our Lord:
"No servant is greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you."
I will certainly pray for you all.
-
Well, it was so predictable that Kansas City would use the opportunity of our current pastor's vacation to send an accordista to rally the troops, that some of us considered recording the sermon today (knowing it would be a barn-burner), but unfortunately, I am not aware of anyone actually having followed through with a recording.
If such a recording does come to surface, I will let you know, but until then, I supply these bullet points:
1) Fr. Rutledge states he is not undercutting the authority of our pastor (Fr. Steven Webber) by delivering such a sermon, because he was specifically sent by Fr. Rostand to deliver it;
2) The SSPX has not changed in the last 4 years (He even defied, rhetorically, anyone to cite a single change);
3) There is no such thing as the resistance, because there is nothing to resist. Therefore, he will call us dissidents;
4) The secrecy in which the resistance has been working is the method of the devil;
5) The resistance are akin to Judas; they are treasonous; they are hypocrites to bite the hand that feeds them, then present themselves at the communion rail;
6) He recommends the Kansas City conference of Fr. Thiemann to dispel all the resistance arguments and give you the facts;
7) Bishop Williamson is a liberal for his thought that authority is so crippled by the minds of modern men, that hierarchy should be abandoned;
8) Bishop Williamson is a liberal for saying both sides of an argument should be considered before concluding as to which is the truth, because we all know the voice of truth when we hear it;
9) All the arguments of the resistance are based on misinformation;
10) It is ridiculous to oppose talking to Rome about a deal; even Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1970s evinced his desire to be united to Rome;
11) Archbishop Lefebvre was criticized for his desire to be united to Rome by the sedevacantists back then;
12) All the groups that have left the SSPX have disintegrated, and the same can be expected for the resistance;
13) Nothing in the seminary formation has changed; we still have the same courses;
14) I preach the same sermons I preached 4 years ago;
Dear reader, there was much more than this, but I am working from memory; since several other parishioners from St. Paul frequent this website, you may feel free to interject/correct/or add as needed.
These are my brief responses:
1) If it is true, as Fr. Rutledge says, that he was sent to deliver this sermon by Fr. Rostand, then it heavily implies that Kansas City feels the people of St. Paul need to hear something they are not getting from their regular pastor.
This may also explain why we got a milder anti-resistance sermon the last time Fr. Webber went on vacation as well.
Funny thing is, our regular pastor is no resistance supporter, but openly denounces Vatican II on a regular basis.
Apparently even this much is taboo in the neo-SSPX (and perfectly aligns with Fr. Girouard's recent bombshell revelation of Fr. Wegner's hiring of a Dutch PR campaign to remake the public image of the SSPX; more on that later).
Kansas City is misplaying this hand: They are going to end up making a resistance priest out of Fr. Webber, despite Fr. Webber's aversion to the resistance!
2) A book could be written citing all the changes to the SSPX in the last 4 years, contrary to the baseless assertion of Fr. Rutledge (which counts on the ignorance of the laity in order to have them swallow this whopper; remember: stay off the internet! And apparently most have).
On the chance Fr. Rutledge's baseless assertion could gain traction because of the sheeple's refusal to inform themselves, I will begin building a Compendium of Changes in the SSPX since 2000; look for it on this website in a couple weeks.
Meanwhile, here are a few changes from the SSPX that even the most willfully blind will have trouble side-stepping:
A) The 2012 General Chapter Statement contradicts that of 2006, by allowing for a practical agreement without first settling the doctrinal issues;
B) The contradiction of Archbishop Lefebvre's post-1988 consecration position with regard to relations with Rome, highlighted in the oft-cited 1988 Fideliter interview, that there be no agreement with Rome before Rome's conversion to tradition;
C) The continual contradictions of Bishop Fellay himself:
In 2003 (see Letter #63), Campos was suicidal for coming to an agreement with Rome;
In 2012 (see March 2012 Cor Unum) he tried to sell a deal to the priests by telling them the situation in Rome had changed to such a degree, it required a new position/response from the SSPX;
Then after seeing himself snubbed by Rome, and a deal out of reach for the moment with Francis coming to the papacy, he tells us (see Letter #85) that nothing in Rome has changed at all, and we must continue the fight.
Anyone familiar with Talleyrand? He had an uncanny ability to see which way momentum and events were heading, and make sure he ended up on the winning side.
3) Since the examples in #2 above serve as a refutation of this claim as well, I will let it pass, except to observe that Archbishop Lefebvre was also called a dissident by Rome, for refusal to submit to modernism and modernist superiors.
4) I found this the most hypocritical statement of the entire sermon, in light of all the secret dealings and negotiations between Rome/Menzingen. As an afterthought, I will have to add that to the list of changes in the SSPX: Whereas Bishop Fellay effectively told concerned laity to go bug-off because it was none of our business, Archbishop Lefebvre was always very open about his dealings with Rome, and said the faithful had a strict right to know that their priests were not modernists.
5) On the one hand, this comment seems to have been designed to shame resistance communicants away from receiving Communion (Great priest, eh?).
On the other hand, they see the traitors as the ones who will not go along with their marketing revolution designed to get a deal.
In 16th century England, they would have sided with Henry VIII, and made the same accusation against St. Thomas.
But the interesting thing as that Fr. Rutledge's definition of treason seems to be determined by a person's fidelity to authority, not principles.
He seems not to realize (being charitable) this itself is how revolution is facilitated, and he is one facilitating it.
Those of us who have rightly kept our gaze fixed at the level of principle (like Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1988 Fideliter interview!) have become immovable, and like the old SSPX, are a thorn in the side of Menzingen.
No, Fr. Rutledge. If you want to look at traitors, ask yourself who has betrayed the 1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
6) Another hypocrisy, because the Fr. Thiemann conference basically explained why a deal with Rome would be good; apparently, the mindless troops of Menzingen could not keep up with the latest spin coming from Switzerland, because Fr. Thiemann's April 15 conference was contradicted by Bishop Fellay's April 17 Letter #85, in which he says nothing in Rome has changed, and we must hold the course!
The troubling issue here is that this mindlessness implies a desire to back the general regardless of what he says.
Obedience is superior to truth, and is also apparently independent of it.
It matters not whether Menzingen contradicts itself 50 times: We will back the latest position regardless of truth or consequences.
"We have always been at war with Eurasia!"
7) I personally disagree with Bishop Williamson's strategy of the loose confederation. But Fr. Rutledge has misunderstood the strategy, if in it he sees an implicit acceptance of democracy, egalitarianism, or equality, or some other liberal principle.
8) Who can hear this, and not suspect the desire to keep the laity stupid and uninformed? Don't go read the arguments of the resistance, because it is the devil! Yet, whatever happened to "thee truth will set you free?" If it is true, as Fr. Rutledge says, that the people know the truth when they hear it, then why is he so scared that they should be exposed to resistance arguments? Menzingen should triumph easily, should it not?
9) Yet not a single resistance argument was cited for rebuttal. One suspects the intent to discredit without entering into debate. Why? Because debate would bring the very issues to surface that Kansas City wants to dismiss a priori as misinformation.
Meanwhile, the sheeple will make a show of loyalty by outdoing each other in their ignorance on the issues.
Mission accomplished.
10) This is dishonesty. Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with Rome for decades. Yes. But after the 1988 consecrations, he no longer needed approval from Rome in order to perpetuate tradition, and therefore changed his approach with regard to them.
That position, laid out in the 1988 Fideliter interview said no agreement without conversion the of Rome.
Talks were useless (his words).
So to give examples of Archbishop Lefebvre's willingness to talk and negotiate with Rome from the 1970s as proof that there is nothing wrong with Bishop Fellay doing the same in 2000-2013 is deceptive.
11) The tired implication being that thee resistance are closet sedevacantists today?
Or was it just an example which tried to say that there will always be some malcontents opposed to a deal, just as they were opposed to Archbishop Lefebvre talking to Rome back in the 1970s?
If the latter, then I defer to my answer above in #10.
12) More deception!
The groups that left the SSPX and later disintegrated did so not because they left the SSPX, but because they went to Rome!
And now you would have us stay quiet and back a course (laid out in the March 20112 Cor Unum) that would lead us to the same disintegration?
And if we refuse to disintegrate ourselves, we are rebels motivated by misinformation and the devil?
13) Really?
You may still have the same courses and books.
Tell me: Do you still have the same spiritual conferences and sermons?
When I was in the seminary, I heard sermon after sermon, and conference after conference against modernism, Vatican II, the sellout of Campos, etc.
You are telling me you still have all that?
It would seem to contradict the PR firm Bishop Fellay and Fr. Wegner hired to re-brand the SSPX, the primary characteristic of which is the removal of combativeness and opposition to Rome/Vatican II/Modernism in order to gain worldly approval (and the good will of Rome?)
Additionally, the faithful have noticed this lack of combativeness in the priests ordained since Bishop Williamson's transfer.
Sermons on the virtues, but rarely anything against Vatican II.
Fr. Girouard's revelation that Menzingen hired a PR firm which advised him to quit preaching against Rome/Vatican II, and that this course has been executed (as admitted by Fr. Wegner to Fr. Girouard), seems to contradict your statement that the formation is the same as it has ever been.
If so, it could only be so despite the branding campaign paid for by Menzingen, which does not seem likely.
14) Related to my answer above:
What kind of sermons did you preach then and now?
Did you indite Rome, condemn modernism, and preach against Vatican II regularly 4 years ago?
The answer to #13 above makes that seem unlikely, and so you can honestly say that you have not had to change at all n the last 4 years.
Problem is, your whole formation was designed to make sure you were not like the Bishop Williamson priests, who railed against such things.
PS to Cathinfo readers:
Fr Webber will still be on vacation next week, so be prepared for more!
Very good analysis Sean. There are a lot of good points to meditate on in there...
-
An SSPX priest just said to me:
"We'll, why don't you just talk to Fr Beck then?"
Answer:
1) Do you really think there could be any beneficial outcome to such an exchange?
2) Better from my perspective, out of esteem for him, to retain any sense of amicability.
3) To me, this is like the stories of the War Between the States, where father and son found themselves on opposite sides of the Mason Dixon;
4) I know Fr. Beck, and he is not going to relinquish his position because of anything I could demonstrate to him;
5) He knows the same of me;
6) No, I would rather retain the friendship than pursue a pointless course which would taint even that.
7) It is for that reason I have not attempted contact with him since just after the Letter of the 3 Bishops came out.
8) I am guessing he understands this.
9) I hope you will too.
-
Father Thierry Gaudray is one of my favorite priests too. I wonder where he stands in this? Do you think perhaps that he was among the 37?
-
With regards to the "sermon".... :sad:
Sorry, that's all I have for now.
-
I heard today at Mass that Fr. Rostand will say Mass at our Chapel in two weeks. I wonder what his sermon will be about.
Put your recorders on, and make sure your batteries are fresh! Eveytime they open their mouths, real beauties tumble out! He's the guy who swore up and down that " Rome isn't asking us for anything"; " Rome wants us as we are!" ; " Only Fellay has the grace of state to decide these matters."
What he meant, of course, is that only Fellay is sneaky enough to arrange a deal with Rome by deceiving them into thinking we all love the novusordo, AND deceiving SSPX priests into thinking we are fighting against the horrible novus ordo bastard mass.
What he meant , of course, is that Rome isn't asking Fellay (or Rostand, or LeRoux, or Schmidberger, et al) to give up anything-- because they had already checked out of tradition and joined the new conciliar church in their hearts back in the late 1990's, as they were playing in the GREC garden of delights! They had already committed the adultery of their faith, they were just waiting to be brought into the harlot's chambers! Ratzinger KNEW that Fellay had his lieutenant's working with, and even coordinating GREC's program to bring all the so-called "traditionalist" groups back into Rome. Ratzinger, Hoyo's, Lavada all knew that the senior SSPX management was pushing hard to re-join rome, at all costs, and so all they had to do was come up with an agreement that was, on the surface, acceptable to the Jєωs(controlling the vatican), the masons ( you remember them, right Bishop Fellay?), the leftist bishops (, like call me whore-hey Brogoglio),and the traditionalist faithful.
They have now supervised the destruction of the SSPX-- they have lost almost one hundred of the best of their priests; they have muzzled their remaining bishops; they lost the only bishop that had the brains and the guts to fight the Vatican Council false religion; They have jumped into bed with the Rothschilds to get money to finance a grand seminary so they could train sodomites and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs from the novus ordo conciliar church; they have lied about the archbishop's warnings to them to not deal with Rome until Rome returns to the true faith; and they have deceived their own faithful , telling them they were not trying to obtain an agreement, even while at the very moment they had sent their doctrinal promises (doctrinal declaration) to Rome specifically for the intention of obtaining an agreement!
And, because they now all belong to the mutual adoration and adulation society, they all trot out and declare how great each other is, how prudent and perfect they all are, to "re-package " and "re-cast" the SSPX in the new world vision, and to exclude any "hardliners" trained by the Archbishop or attentive to his teachings.
So, keep your batteries fresh--it could be a doozy!
-
Sean Johnson said:
"A book could be written citing all the changes to the SSPX in the last 4 years, contrary to the baseless assertion of Fr. Rutledge (which counts on the ignorance of the laity in order to have them swallow this whopper; remember: stay off the internet! And apparently most have). "
Indeed, Sean, a book should be written. DR. WHITE CAN YOU HEAR US!
-
2) The SSPX has not changed in the last 4 years (He even defied, rhetorically, anyone to cite a single change);
Then why, oh why was the reasons for hiring a PR company in the bloomin first place
1) The SSPX didn't need to change or
2) The SSPX haven't initiated the changes of the PR company
If it is the first point then what a waste thousands of dollars and that in its self is not a wise PR Bishop fellay
And if the second we all better pray harder
-
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:
-
Well, it was so predictable that Kansas City would use the opportunity of our current pastor's vacation to send an accordista to rally the troops, that some of us considered recording the sermon today (knowing it would be a barn-burner), but unfortunately, I am not aware of anyone actually having followed through with a recording.
......
Good work Sean. There is something terribly wrong with the SSPX. It has certainly lost its edge. Accommodation to the world is the name of the game.
Priests who were at the forefront of critiquing the modern world have either been muzzled, placed in positions of very little influence, or have left the SSPX.
-
Sean Johnson- Please be assured of my prayers for you and your family. This crisis clearly affects some more than others. Thank you very much for relaying the information you heard and passing it on. And though it is self-beneficial, your posting of the counter-arguments is also very beneficial to read as well!
What would be excellent is a debate between a Resistance priest and NeoSSPX preiest.
Wait- even better- between +Fellay and +Williamson!
:popcorn:
-
I heard today at Mass that Fr. Rostand will say Mass at our Chapel in two weeks. I wonder what his sermon will be about.
Like the cowboys of old, challenge him to meet in the coffee room after Mass.
Then, with everyone watching, you can both square-off and see who is fastest to draw their tape recorder.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9h9duVSOKxpkdDsfq6MPW40AzxwJgpuJBI1vikJBK9NGtMGYc)
Then... that's when you ask him: "Father, please explain to us, where in Church tradition are holy Apostolic orders market branded ?"
-
FYI- Dueling, viewing a duel, or facilitating a duel is "excommunicable."
-
FYI- Dueling, viewing a duel, or facilitating a duel is "excommunicable."
Not if the "gun" is a tape recorder. Then it's completely sinless.
-
What would be excellent is a debate between a Resistance priest and NeoSSPX preiest.
Wait- even better- between +Fellay and +Williamson!
:popcorn:
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.
-
: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.
-
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
-
It's sad. People are there to save their souls, and they are being threatened with expulsion.
-
: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.
(http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/upload/p9657823.jpg)
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.
-
.
Dear Incred: please correct me if I'm wrong, but after this:
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?
-
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?
-
.
Dear Incred: please correct me if I'm wrong, but after this:
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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..."
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Wait until next week.
-
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?
-
The ignorant, brain-dead masses who remained deliberately ignorant on the issues found him to be quite persuasive.
Similar in Ireland with the Bishop Fellay and Fr Pfluger. Some found them both persuasive.
-
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?
After some reflection, I would like to amend the wording of this particular post.
I should not accuse of sin.
Rather, it would be better to say:
"Whose responsibility is greater: Fr. Rutledge's, or those meddlesome families that instigated his arrival?"
Apologies to Fr Rutledge on this particular point.
-
There was not a peace, but tolerance.
A person such as yourself is making that less possible.
You are a dissident, you are a hypocrite. You were not threatened with expulsion, but asked to leave.
It,s an SSPX Chapel and so reasonable that an SSPX priest would express the sentiments of the SSPX there. Why are you still there?
-
There was not a peace, but tolerance.
A person such as yourself is making that less possible.
You are a dissident, you are a hypocrite. You were not threatened with expulsion, but asked to leave.
It,s an SSPX Chapel and so reasonable that an SSPX priest would express the sentiments of the SSPX there. Why are you still there?
Were those "sentiments of the SSPX" Catholic? If not, then a Catholic has the duty to resist those sentiments.
-
There was not a peace, but tolerance.
A person such as yourself is making that less possible.
You are a dissident, you are a hypocrite. You were not threatened with expulsion, but asked to leave.
It,s an SSPX Chapel and so reasonable that an SSPX priest would express the sentiments of the SSPX there. Why are you still there?
dwintell,
What is your opinion regarding the blasphemy of the Mother of God by Bishop Fellay and using the Holy Rosary to deceive both priests and laity?
If you are going to hector SeanJohnson, will you answer that question.
Also should Bishop Fellay face a tribunal?
-
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.
-
Quite suitable for the resistance.
-
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..."
I am firmly resolved, with the help of Thy Grace,
To confess my negatives,
To do penance,
And to remain positive in my life
AMEN!
-
There was not a peace, but tolerance.
A person such as yourself is making that less possible.
You are a dissident, you are a hypocrite. You were not threatened with expulsion, but asked to leave.
It,s an SSPX Chapel and so reasonable that an SSPX priest would express the sentiments of the SSPX there. Why are you still there?
This is a telling post:
1) It acknowledges that under Fr. Webber there was civility;
2) But according to this post, there was hatred under the surface of the accordista civility (which was not always civil);
3) Our existance must be blotted out from the chapel;
4) No thought given to the consequences of depriving others of the sacraments, or bearing responsibility for that instigation, should it occur;
5) Only of snuffing out our voices;
6) Voices which have always been very discrete at the chapel (at least mine);
7) But they have decided no longer to "tolerate" us.
8) So they have preferred open warfare, regardless of the consequences to souls, or division in the parish which they are instigating;
9) Tell me, how is a person such as myself making it less possible for you to act in a manner becomming Catholics?
10) Did you see me single out any parishioner for attack (as Harry Peterson has publicly done)?
11) For the record, I have not been asked to leave, and will continue attending until told to abstain.
12) Why am I still there?
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);
14) Because it is my strict right to be there;
15) Because so long as Fr. Webber remains, the faith is safeguarded, whatever is happening elsewhere in the SSPX;
16) Because I refuse to be intimidated by the attack campaign now apparently organized to drive us from our rightful parish;
17) Because it is you that should be leaving, and not I;
18) Because I have always been discrete at the chapel, arriving precisely at Mass time, and leaving immediately after, and avoiding confrontational situations by staying out of the basement after Mass.
Unless Fr. Beck tells me I can no longer attend, I will continue to do so.
-
There was not a peace, but tolerance.
A person such as yourself is making that less possible.
You are a dissident, you are a hypocrite. You were not threatened with expulsion, but asked to leave.
It,s an SSPX Chapel and so reasonable that an SSPX priest would express the sentiments of the SSPX there. Why are you still there?
Were those "sentiments of the SSPX" Catholic? If not, then a Catholic has the duty to resist those sentiments.
Those “sentiments” included using the name of His Excellency Bishop Williamson and thus resulting in a sacrilege. Being without facts those “sentiments” were just not true.
-
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?
-
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?
-
Sean Johnson- Please be assured of my prayers for you and your family. This crisis clearly affects some more than others. Thank you very much for relaying the information you heard and passing it on. And though it is self-beneficial, your posting of the counter-arguments is also very beneficial to read as well!
What would be excellent is a debate between a Resistance priest and NeoSSPX preiest.
Wait- even better- between +Fellay and +Williamson!
:popcorn:
I seriously don't think +Williamson would want to waste his time. There would be no point. We wouldn't convince the Accordistas, and they certainly wouldn't change our minds!
The Resistance knows where it is at, so we move on, and use our time and resources more wisely.
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
A Tale of Deception
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/wzJ3fcG9IkY[/youtube]
-
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.
-
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?
-
It appears Cathinfo now has its own version of John McFarland in the person of dwintell.
Matthew: Will someone please swat this fly?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Above post copied and pasted from Douay-Rheims Bible Online. Comments in italics did not copy over as such.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=25130&min=55#p3)
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
Sean,
It's embarrassing reading your posts. Remember it's about your Resistance. It's not about you.
-
Sean,
It's embarrassing reading your posts. Remember it's about your Resistance. It's not about you.
Harry-
Thank you for this important contribution, and the charity which inspired it.
Pax tecuм,
Sean