Author Topic: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread  (Read 5422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23004
  • Reputation: +20147/-243
  • Gender: Male
I have to move some posts here, because I'm only allowing "items" to be posted in that thread. No comments allowed in the thread itself. If you want to post on the CCCC thread, please post here.

Hollingsworth:


Quote
Thank you, X. I have copied all 10 points you made, with the links you provide attached. Subsequently I created a file entitled “Lefebvre vs Fellay,” just for easy rerference. I appreciate your research efforts, and acknowledge the many hours you must have devoted to compiling this data. As time permits, we will go back and try to digest it all, along with the material supplied in the links. 


Members like you make significant contributions to a forum, in which, alas, too many topics, though they may start off legitimately, soon meander off aimlessly in every direction, often going off topic abruptly, and filling cyberspace with seemingly endless stream-of-consciousness drivel and opinionated, emotion-laden nonsense.


Not being a trained scholar or researcher myself, I am dependent upon folks like you who seem to be gifted in this way. So thank you again.


MODERATOR EDIT:

I'm glad you like it, Hollingsworth. I realize the great value of this project as well, which is why I'm collaborating on it. I can't promise I'll leave this post up for more than a day or two, but I did cut & paste your thanks into an e-mail, to make sure X sees it. 

To everyone else: everyone doesn't need to post in this thread with a clapping hands or "way to go" post. Simply thumbs-up the posts if you want to see more like them. Thumbs-up are like CathInfo currency.

UPDATE:
X wrote back to me; he said to "pass on his gratitude for your kind words".



Pax Vobis:


Quote
Excellent points and research, X!  This explains the U-turn in every way.  Unfortunately, the new-sspx commits the fallacy of extremes, instead of the prudent middle.  In battling the errors of V2, you can never have the fight, fight, fight attitude but must balance it with love, love, love.  You must always explain what you are fighting, in the context of what you love, or else your fight is aimless. 

In other words, to get to heaven we must do good and avoid evil.  If you only preach “avoid evil” you are missing the “do good” aspect. The new-sspx is now flip flopped to the other side: they are now preaching the “doing good” but forgetting the “avoid evil”.  Truth is in the middle; its both. 

Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23004
  • Reputation: +20147/-243
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would like to reply in advanced to an objection a fool might bring forward:


    Quote
    "I see you have no evidence for #44. Just a broken link on a German website, which might have never existed. How convenient that The Recusant, a 100% pro-Resistance periodical, is hosting this material which tends to make the SSPX look bad."

    1. First of all, I'm glad this is a fictional objection, because I seriously hope no one is actually that stupid!

    2. Who would suggest that The Recusant can just make up paragraphs of text, which sound like the authors and which are IN LINE WITH their recent positions and other statements, which we DO have paper and electronic evidence (live website links) for.

    3. The Recusant even made up a 4-word German "SEO title" for the article?

    4. But the most important rebuttal: no one in the SSPX has ever accused the Resistance of making up actual fake articles or "fake news". There might be a few low-end, uneducated SSPX parishioners who like to throw out buzzwords like "fake news" which is popular today (2019), but no real, serious, credible accusations have ever been made.

    5. Related to #4, the SSPX has taken down many articles (or had such articles taken down), but it's always done silently and un-officially. Thus far, the SSPX has never gone further and attacked any websites quoting those "memory holed" articles as fabricators, fake news agents, authors of fiction, etc. That would be a new level of chutzpah, even for them!

    6. My conclusion: The SSPX would never try to be so bold, because they know the article existed, and they also know that someone COULD HAVE made a screenshot or PDF of it before it was taken down. If they EVER came out claiming "fake news" against a website or person linking to a memory holed article, and a screenshot comes out proving the article existed -- what would they look like? They'd look like complete liars and frauds. They don't want to risk this.

    7. Two words: Internet Archive. Or, "Wayback Machine". Or "Google Cache". Archive services keeps many a website owner honest...
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew,

    Thank you for digging the link to the original DGW article out of the cache, and supplying in the post.

    Not sure how you found it, but much appreciated.

    -X

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2420
    • Reputation: +2625/-298
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • X: #46
    Quote
    But the SSPX realizes Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican, and the latter cannot accept to "regularize" a group perceived as anti-semitic.  So Fr. Fahey had to go. 
    I'm still not sure that this is the right thread in which to comment on the Catalog of Compromise.  But here goes anyway:
    Yes, X, obviously Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican.  But I would contend that Judaism has just as tight a grip over SSPX.  In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23004
    • Reputation: +20147/-243
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • X: #46I'm still not sure that this is the right thread in which to comment on the Catalog of Compromise.  But here goes anyway:
    Yes, X, obviously Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican.  But I would contend that Judaism has just as tight a grip over SSPX.  In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.
    1. Yes, this is precisely the thread for commentary. Comment away!
    2. Agreed. The Conciliar Church's soft position on the Jews, Freemasonry, Communism, etc. shows who was behind it. Likewise, the SSPX's new stance on the Jewish question, Fr. Fahey, +Williamson, shows who is behind the move. All the moves are in the same direction!
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2420
    • Reputation: +2625/-298
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another author, who used to be found on the shelves of SSPX bookstores, is Solange Hertz. I think her books have become a bit scarce, as well. Hertz wrote extensively about the Americanist church, built upon Freemasonic ideas and principles. She severely attacks America’s first bishop and a few other Americanist bishops, who ruled the church in this new republic at its very inception. She does not have kind words, either, for eminent early statesmen like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. She accuses them of helping to spearhead the French Revolution. I doubt that her writings made Fellay & Co. very happy. But you can’t sue a dead woman, who never belonged to SSPX anyway.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17812
    • Reputation: +9973/-4471
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • In fact, the influence of incipient Judaism was probably the main reason that SSPX has fallen so quickly over the last two decades.

    Yes, that's very likely the case.  +Williamson was railroaded for his anti-Semitism, and then there's always the ominous figure of one Maximilian Krah.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do my eyes deceive me, or did the CNS interview of Bishop Fellay on religious liberty in post #22 just get "memory holed?"

    If so, the timing of it could indicate we are being watched.


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The link to the SSPX mercedes Benz giveaway has been memory holed:

    http://stas.org/en/giveaway

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2029
    • Reputation: +1146/-164
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just a general comment regarding the whereabouts of da nile.  It ain't just a river in Egypt.  It seems to permeate the mindset of many of the SSPX priests while at the same time often serving as a part of their ever ready defensive mechanism.

    It certainly makes it especially hard for the layman to get anywhere in conversations with them concerning all the changes in the SSPX.  Your attempts at discussion -- and you as the layman will almost always have to initiate the discussion -- will often be met with quick responses such as, "You don't understand the real situation," "You are mischaracterizing things," "You can't believe everything on the Internet" "Nothing of the faith has changed; you should not be so alarmed and negative in your judgments," etc., etc., etc. It is rather hard, if not impossible, to discuss things with an SSPX priest if any of your attempts at constructive criticism or even questioning are met with such generalized assertions.  The effect of those repeated assertions seem to have the desired effect of quickly bringing to an end any meaningful conversation.

    It certainly can be a very sad situation for some.  You don't want to risk alienating the very priest that you confess to and whom you may want to rely on for spiritual counsel!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23004
    • Reputation: +20147/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
    « Reply #10 on: March 11, 2019, 04:35:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meg said:


    Quote
    Bp. Fellay went to great lengths to show that the SSPX should participate in Francis' Jubilee of Mercy, so that they can make use of the indulgences granted from it. Thanks for posting all of the information.

    I think you're right about the concession that was made. The SSPX received ordinary jurisdiction in exchange for going along with the Jubilee. What bothers me is that Bp. Fellay tries to make a case that it's fine to participate in the Year of Mercy Jubilee for indulgences, because the SSPX participated in the Jubilees for the years 1975 and 2000. In reference to the 1975 Jubliee. Bp. Fellay says:

    "The 10th anniversary of the Council did not prevent Archbishop Lefebvre and the seminary of Econe from travelling to the great pilgrimage organized in Rome that year, May 25-25, 1975."

    However, the Dominicans of Avrille, in their article that you linked to regarding the Jubilee, states that the Jubliees of 1975 and 2000 were ordinary Jubilees, as those regularly held to celebrate the anniversaries of the incarnation, and that they were not tied per se to the anniversary of the Council or to a false conception of Mercy. 

    Pope Francis Jubliee was an extraordinary Jubilee, which was definitely tied to his false conception of mercy. And yet the SSPX went along with the indulgences aspect of it anyway. 

    There's another issue that I have regarding Bp. Fellay's reference to the SSPX pilgrimage to Rome in 1975, but I'll explain it in another post. 
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1495/-2317
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
    « Reply #11 on: March 11, 2019, 04:50:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2

  • It looks like we're supposed to put our comments, reactions, etc., about the CCC thread on this thread instead. That makes sense. 

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23004
    • Reputation: +20147/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
    « Reply #12 on: March 11, 2019, 05:49:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It looks like we're supposed to put our comments, reactions, etc., about the CCC thread on this thread instead. That makes sense.
    You got it. :)
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2420
    • Reputation: +2625/-298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
    « Reply #13 on: March 13, 2019, 06:49:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #65 in the Catalogue of Compromise is one the most important, to date, IMO.  It was compiled not by X, but by a guy with user name 'William of Norwich' on the old defunct Ignis Ardens site.
    I can accept as gospel almost 100% of it, except, perhaps, for one assertion by WON, that "Maximilian Krah is Jewish."
    Did 'William' really know that at the time?  Krah has affirmed on several occasions that he's not Jewish, but Catholic.  He looks like a jew.  He certainly seems to act and behave like one, and his zionist sympathies are indisputable.  However, Is he an ethnic Jew, i.e. Khazar or Ashkenazi?  That we can not be sure of even to this day.  If X has some information in this regard, I would certainly appreciate receiving it.
    Krah is a despicable character, IMO. But there are despicable Catholic goy, as well.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Reactions, Comments for SSPX Change - Compromise - Contradiction thread
    « Reply #14 on: March 14, 2019, 06:02:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Regarding Mr. Paul Chaussee (whose 42 page critique of Fr. Celier's 2007 book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists") is attached to the CCCC thread (#69):

    It may add to the credibility of his critique that Mr. Chaussee is a known and respected writer in the French-speaking world, and a noted expert on the Shroud of Turin.

    I mistakenly noted that he was a Frenchman, whereas he was apparently born in Belgium.

    He has written the following books:

    http://www.chire.fr/article-2419.aspx

    A little blurb about him from the same website:

    "Paul Chaussée was born on November 20, 1932 in Walloon Belgium. He has had a long career as a self-taught engineer designing, building, selling and developing papermaking machines and systems. Educated in the Catholic religion, he lost his faith in the 1950s by believing in the generalized evolution and the theses of Teilhard de Chardin. The necessities of the profession made him travel extensively, especially in North America and the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East where, from 1975 to 1983, he discovered Judaism, Islam and Christianity of the first centuries at the same time. A comparative reading of the New Testament and the Koran convinced him of the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion and brought him back to the Church. In 1981, the history and enigma of the Holy Shroud of Turin aroused his scientific curiosity. What he gradually discovered made him return, around 1985, to traditional Catholicism faithfully maintained by [Arch]Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.
    In 1989, he participated in the founding of the International Centre for Shroud Studies in Turin (CIELT), whose symposiums in Paris (1989) and Rome (1993) established with certainty the authenticity of the Holy Shroud."

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16