Author Topic: There Is No Red Light (Read 9703 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #90 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:08:57 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

Irish people like 'structures' thats why independent chapels dont thrive, and for a long time, sspx provided some structure, though that has waned in the last few years. Most Irish people, want to be with the pope/popes....... :confused1:

Whilst the SSPX not moving in to cities like Limerick or Galway it was a "gain" for the Institute of Christ the King, a superficial lot, who like to dress up altar boys as little Cardinals. A smells and bells brigade. Popular with TFP people. Tradition, Family, Property like Opus Dei are best avoided.

I would rather the SSPX to them. The FSSP visit Ireland but have never established a chapel.

A problem in Ireland is there has been many conservative Catholics but few Traditionalists. There is a difference.

Personally, I am for the Mass in rural areas and for people to get out of cities.

John Grace · « **Reply #91 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:19:51 PM »

The reality is it is a big crisis for the SSPX. Indult folk haven't the same problem. Many of these would still go to the Novus Ordo also.

If people feel there is no threat then stay going to the SSPX. Whilst I don't believe outside of the SSPX there is no salvation, I still feel it is the best place to be or the resistance of the likes of Fr Pfeiffer.

No matter how tempted people are they should never go to the 'approved' Mass or God forbid that invalid Novus Ordo. It is a mystery as to how Catholics can go to the Novus Ordo.

John Grace · « **Reply #92 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:23:23 PM »

Again it is a personal opinion but I favour a loose network that won't be destroyed by blind obedience.I realise people won't make decisions lightly but are in very interesting times.

Machabees · « **Reply #93 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:33:05 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Machabees
Seraphim said,
Quote
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

please quote the red light.

Again Seraphim,

I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.

Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.

Machabees · « **Reply #94 on:** March 29, 2013, 06:51:49 PM »

s2srea,

I noticed that you lost the context of my post.

I will repeat:

"...As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?"

And,

The SSPX (modernist) Preamble is very "Official" in its contents and in its practice as POLICY within the sspx. You do not punish member priests, who do not accept it, without it already being the "stamp" of policy that the members have to accept and to follow. Very simple...

As one priest pointed out, the only difference between the 9-other traditional groups that have made an agreement with conciliar Rome, is that, AFTER they had made an agreement, they then had punished their members who did not follow the new policy. The SSPX today, is punishing their members for them to follow the new policy BEFORE an agreement!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #95 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:10:51 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Machabees
Seraphim said,
Quote
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

please quote the red light.

Again Seraphim,

I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.

Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.

Glad you agree there is no red light.

Not sure why it took 19 pages.

Machabees · « **Reply #96 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:19:19 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Machabees
Seraphim said,
Quote
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

please quote the red light.

Again Seraphim,

I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.

Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.

Glad you agree there is no red light.

Not sure why it took 19 pages.

Seraphim,

You are acting more like Pablo...with weird posts.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #97 on:** March 29, 2013, 11:30:23 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Machabees
Seraphim said,
Quote
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

please quote the red light.

Again Seraphim,

I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.

Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.

Glad you agree there is no red light.

Not sure why it took 19 pages.

Seraphim,

You are acting more like Pablo...with weird posts.

Glad you took the time to post that.