"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment."

It was a great blessing and grace given to me when Bishop Williamson visited St. Paul for confirmations and conferences last April, as it was on that occassion that I asked him his thoughts on anonymous internet posting reletive to the crisis in the SSPX.

His response prompted me to forego the use of a moniker, and the spiritual benefits have not ceased since the day I stopped posting as Seraphim:

1) I am less uncharitable;

2) I make fewer rash judgments;

3) I am more able to render the benefit of the doubt;

4) I reflect more on the things I am about to post before doing so.

Because of all this, I sin less frequently in this regard.

I wish this habit of premeditation on the things we are about to say, as members of the Resistance, were more prevalent among us.

It reflects poorly upon us when those associated with us post presumptions, instincts, half-truths, ad hominems, and even outright factual errors.

In another thread, I was asked (reletive to my response to Fr. Simoulin), why, if I acknowledge him to have embraced the writing style of the modernists for his equivocation and ambivalence, I refrain from calling him a modernist.

The question provides a good example of precisely what I am trying to exhort others away from.

There are several reasons why it would violate Catholic morals to have done so:

1) Because to exhibit a trait used by the modernists does not necessarily mean one is a modernist in belief; the two things do not necessarily imply eachother.  Equivocation is a sign inconclusive in and of itself.

2) Because Fr. Simoulin may very well believe there to be no equivocation: It may be that I have misunderstood his argument (as I said at the beginning of my letter);

3) Because to accuse one of being a heretic on the basis of a single (or even several) equivocations would be completely rash;

4) Because I am not aware of Fr. Simoulin having denied any article of the Faith;

5) Because at issue in my letter is a disagreement on the prudence of the path Fr. Simoulin is advocating; it is not a doctrinal matter (though doctrine will be affected, I believe, indirectly by the path he is advocating as a consequence).

6) Because it is no small thing to blurt out to the world that a priest is a heretic (without any evidence to support the charge, save an equivocation on a matter of prudence)!

7) Because Catholic morals oblige us to render the benefit of the doubt, and think the best of others until such time as it is no longer intellectually possible to do so.

8) Because instinct is an insifficuent justification to clear one of rash judgment.

9) Because my letter is written in good faith, in the hopes that I have misunderstoof Fr. Simoulin;

10) Because it is highly unlikely that Fr. Simoulin would respond to one calling him a heretic.

I could continue, but the point, I think, is well made.

For all these things, we will render an account to God at our judgment.

Hopefully, if I can exhort people to reflection before they post, I will gain merit in heaven.

And if that results in being bombarded with accusations of "going soft," so be it.

Soulguard, you silly little dreamer.  How do you dream this stuff up?  "Hate filled, secret cult"???  REALLY??? You make me giggle!  I thought April 1st passed two weeks ago!  You already know that Resistance Masses are not a secret and you can attend any and all that you like.   Go.  Have your fill.  You have been told dozens of times where the Mass schedule is posted, no need to repeat.

I also don't understand how CMRI can be called a cult. SGG and SSPV are, as far as a I know, the only sedevacantist groups that refuse Holy Communion to Catholics who don't meet their criteria (i.e., non-attendance at una cuм Masses). I do, however, donate monthly to Bishop Sanborn's seminary, because I believe we need all the priests with which God will bless us.

I dont believe a word of it.

I dont believe that all of a sudden the resistance is able to calmly and with humility explain its position.

Your priests dont even act the way you claim you have done after changing your ways.

Fr Pfeiffer for example claims that Pope Benedict 16th was a child murderer who sacrificed babies to the devil.

Surely now, in good conscience, you cannot have anything more to do with Fr Pfeiffer after these remarks IF what you say is true about your sudden conversion to charity.

It appears to me that SeanJohnson is speaking in his own name. Your reply makes no distinction between SeanJohnson and 'the resistance' in general.

Why do you speak of a 'sudden conversion to charity' ?  Maybe you should read his post again, and try and apply it to yourself. Have you ever read anything of SeanJohnson that you found uncharitable ? Are you being fair and charitable yourself ?

Look, I am not against the Resitance in theory, but in practice it is becoming a hate filled secret cult who are tearing apart Catholics and who have made my local SSPX chapel an edgy cold subtle warzone. Everyone sees enemies everywhere else and I dont like it, this is not Catholic.

You never gave me the impression that you resist the new direction of the SSPX, not even in theory. And what good is your theory if in practice you can only moan and try to discredit others when they have the courage to act. Show us by example, how would you then resist the new direction of the SSPX ?

Whose fault is it that your local SSPX chapel has become a warzone ? Would you rather sit in a circle giving hands and sing 'kumbaya' ? Since when are Catholics supposed to be 'lovy dovy go with the flow' ? Could it be that the culprit of this division are those who are chasing the illusion of recognition and acceptance by Conciliar Rome ? Did you also blame the Archbishop for causing division in the Novus Ordo parishes ?

I notice that your resistance priests, who I am not convinced I should "support" financially or any other way, say that people should stay away from any mass that is not a resistance mass. I also notice that the prolific resistance poster neil obstat has more than once called the SSPX and Bishop Fellay "apostates".

Please do not equate one person for the whole. You may not have noticed, but there has been opposition to the 'style' of this one person you mention.  Again, the resistance is not to be equated with one person. Why do you always make such silly generalizations ?

You remind me of a Jehova's Witness. When they have a bad experience, meet a bad Catholic or hear some silly story about one, all of a sudden each and every Catholic becomes evil. What poor reasoning !

I was previously banned from this forum for calling the SSPX a cult, but apparently calling them "Apostates" does not offend Matthews sensibilities as much as calling them a cult does. He knows, as you and everybody else also know but wont admit it publicaly, that IF the resistance is seen as a cult it will never get off the ground, and yet why the false charity?

I don't know your past history and experiences, but from what I hear from you now, I am not surprised. You seem to sling a lot of mud around, without any effort to be objective and charitable. Maybe you can learn something from the post you are replying to !

Why the phariseeism? Why have people think that all you need is to be an expert in doctrine to go to Heaven? It does not work like that. The second commandment of the new law is to love thy neighbor as thyself. Can the resistance supporters claim to do this, honestly? No. At the moment it is a paranoia filled cult which is tearing apart the SSPX. This is what the devil has done to the SSPX.

No, you don't need to be a theologian and canon lawyer to get to heaven, but you do need to know your Faith and have the courage to act upon it. If indeed you are against the new direction in the SSPX, have you spoken out yet, have you told your parish Priest, have you written to the Bishop, have you done anything, except moan about others who have tried to do something ?

I am really surprised that you can speak of 'paranoia filled cult' with regards to the resistance. Did you ever stop to think why the local SSPX priest tells the sheeple : don't listen to them, don't read anything else apart from what we give you, don't go to their talks, trust us, pay, pray and obey ! None of these things I have heard from any resistance priest. Can you pease explain your accusations, or are they just an easy way for you to vent your frustration ?

Whether the resistance are right or not is not clear yet, because no deal has been made with Rome, but I can see the resistance going down the sedevacantist path, and when that happens it will be another group like the CMRI and SSPV, who have no chance of influencing the Catholic church major, and who will believe that outside their own sect there is no salvation, which is wrong.

How can you agree with the resistance 'in theory' if you don't even understand the basics. Forget about  'the deal', it's unimportant, trivial, irrelevant. Because the SSPX has already changed, the damage is done, the fight is over, Rome has won and already had a big party to celebrate. Have you ever seen a cat play with her prey before finaly eating it ? Rome is the cat, the SSPX is the prey. Do you get the picture yet ?

Why don't you deal with the basics first ? Why do you keep fighting shadows ? Why distract those who are fighting for you ?

.


aaaaahhhhhhh - at last, a breath of fresh air in a stuffy room.  thanks hugeman.

Gee,  i really don't know anymore,,,, the kool aid is tasting so good these days, But I thought it was a great or famous pope or some other personage who told us that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies? Maybe not.

Oh well, it's so wonderful now knowing that if ABL had only attended Cardinal Canizare's mass,

DING!
I'll take The Recusant #15 for $4,000 Alex!  ............. PAGE SIX!!  

Alex Trebek:  THAT'S CORRECT!

the Archbishop never would have founded a seminary, never would have consecrated bishops;  schmidberger would probably be working in a men's store, Fellay would have been swallowed up by (cardinal "i've always been a Jєω") Lustinger; Rostand would be hawking videos somewhere in France. If only the ABL had searched high and low he would have found that one Cardinal, hiding deep in Italy, and he and Bp de Castro Meyer could have joined up with Canizares forty years ago; they each would have risen to the cardinalite, and the enemies of Christ would Have thrown in the towel-- being soundly defeated!

NOT!

A modernist talks out of both sides of his mouth. Like Fellay and the marketers of cola, they say whatever the traffic will bear. The message is fine-tuned to the audience.

Somebody has been reading TheRecusant #11 ------- see below.

A modernist will show great umbrage at the audacity of the Romans to play with God's  command: "What God has joined together, let no man tear asunder" ; yet will think nothing of Accepting the false and phony Novus Ordo annulments, and then even telling their attendees : "we can't marry you, because you've been married before-- but go down to "Father" X at the indult-- he'll marry you-- then come back here as husband and wife!"

Maybe the good Lord really didn't say, "let your speech be Yes,yes or No, no-- anything else is of the devil" or maybe He really didn't mean it that way?? How could I possibly know what was in His head? Maybe He said that only because He thought some of the men standing right there wanted to hear it-- that's all! And really, do we have any idea of what  "yes, yes" really means?

So the modernists say whatever is necessary to obtain their objectives, and Fellay's, Rosandt's, LeRoux', Schmidberger's, Pflugger's (and their co-conspirators') objective is to water down the SSPX faithful until they willingly join the modernist conciliar church.

So can you call them all modernists? Yes. Should you label them as modernists? Yes. You can also call them traitors. Past popes of the Catholic Church have clearly declared that anyone who even cooperates with these Communists  and subversives, in any way, are to be shunned and put outside the Church (the Catholic Church).

The Recusant #11, p.2:


We have before us a Genuine Modernist!

The actual discourse of Bishop Fellay makes for interesting reading and reflection, if you have the constitution for it. Elsewhere in this issue, the reader will find an analysis and commentary on some of the things he said. Somewhat hastily put-together and written more with an internet audience in mind, we nonetheless feel confident that it will stand the test of time.

The lesson to learn is not that Bishop Fellay is pro- or anti-modernist Rome, rather that he is capable of being both or either, of changing his position without hesitation and with never so much as a blush, according to whatever his own short-sighted goals require. Take heed.

Once again, as if it were needed, he has provided us with startling evidence of how his own words are as good as useless in indicating what he will do or say next. When he talks, he does so in order to create an impression in the mind of the listener, not to communicate something objective from one mind to another, much less to lay out or establish anything for which he will feel bound to give an account in the future should someone remind him of his own words. His dictum that nobody can criticise the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration because they don’t necessarily understand what he himself meant by it, and his complaint that we “are not in [his] head!” ought to be truly frightening to anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy. It amounts in practice to a denial that words have any objective meaning or that statements or sentences can be understood by a third party without reference to their author. If that is not the very last word in modernist thinking, then I don’t know what is. Consider the implications for one moment: if that were true, then nobody could ever know the teaching of the Church.

There could be no Catholic teaching, since any writing from the more recent Popes down to the Church Fathers and even Scripture itself would depend upon “being inside the head” of the author. If, on the other hand, words do have objective meaning, a meaning which stands alone and is not dependent on any intellectual caprice of their author, then what Bishop Fellay wrote and offered to bind himself to last year cannot be defended by any Traditional Catholic worthy of the name.



.

Neal/Hugeman-

The ease with which you dismiss any call for restraint, reflection, and prudence in the damaging of reputations is scandalous.

Now Bishop Fellay is communist???

Thank you for providing perfect examples of how NOT to be Catholic on the internet.

You now give readers an easy alternative:

They can either choose to temper their writings in light of Catholic morals, as I am advocating.

Or, they can follow your example, and go the way of presumption, ad hominem, rash judgment, and falsehood.....because it feels good.

Either way, they will give an account to God for it.

Soulgard said:

"People can down thumb me all they want, but it does not change the facts that the big picture is on my side, and that no one, except the most convoluted weirdo will be drawn to the resistance, with all of its cօռspιʀαcιҽs and hatred of the SSPX "apostates and communists and modernists". Surely this whole thing is ridiculous. It is truly obscene. The SSPX are now "modernists" according to your friends??

Let me ask those who down thumbed me: What right have you got to contradict a validly consecrated Catholic Bishop who spent a life time promoting tradition? You think he has just lost the faith or something? But where is YOUR faith?

I speak of course of Bishop Fellay. ( the "weasel" according to Bishop williamson)

We are just lay people. We cannot question the hierarchy. The church does not work like that.
To think otherwise shows that traditionalists are becoming infected with the protestant spirt. "


Soulgard, your arguments are now party line of the SSPX.  We have all heard them before.  Let me tell you something, my friend, treating one Bishop like a godlike creature while throwing another out in the street is not something to be proud of nor is it a virtue to lead by.  Which is more virtuous:  Discarding priests like trash because they call out warnings to the faithful (at great cost to themselves) or keeping quiet under a false sense of obedience that has led the decrepit Society to where it is today, a luke warm association of priests too scared or apathetic to say anything to their Superiors and a dumbed down laity crawling back into the world.    

Traditional Catholics are fighters.  It is in their nature to be fervent in their faith, question anything or anyone who tries to change their faith or weaken it, and they don't back down, they defend.  They are not meek limp wrist lambs sclepping off to a NO mass to hold hands and be huggie during it.  Ok?  

The SSPX approach to Tradition has changed, period.  I picture the SSPX leadership taking a curve in the road while the resistance keep going straight.  The curve leads to Rome, the straight road leads to heaven, in my mind.  Rome is the visible church to me, the Church, well, we have never left it.  

We don't follow Bishop Fellay, the man.  He has no authority over the laity.  Those who just happen to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel do so to receive the sacraments.  To the extent they used to support the Society, it grew because of their offerings.  Folks can leave at their discretion and support those whom look after their souls as they see fit.  They should not need to defend themselves for this.  They do have every right, and duty, to call out warnings that the bus has turned on the road, deviating from its path of Tradition.  

Resistors becoming more like protestants?  Not much I can say about this absurd comment, but to point the finger to Rome, Assisi, and the dancing Bishops.  Who now is more like the protestants??  And you and Bishop Fellay want to go there and you want to take others with you?  

.


Are you having fun sticking your foot in your mouth, SeanJohnson?  

Neal [sic] /Hugeman [sic]-

The ease with which you dismiss any call for restraint, reflection, and prudence in the damaging of reputations is scandalous.

Now Bishop Fellay is communist???

If I were forthright I'd use a stronger term, but what you're accusing us of, is false.  You are the one who said "communist," not I nor hugeman.  For the record.  Chalk up another falsehood for the 'moral superior' who needs to read Matt. xxiii. 12.

Thank you for providing perfect examples of how NOT to be Catholic on the internet.

Feelings would be mutual.  

You now give readers an easy alternative:

They can either choose to temper their writings in light of Catholic morals, as I am advocating.

...by weakly cowering and bowing and scraping to the pseudo-authority of the Menzingen-denizens who presume jurisdiction when they don't have any, when they need to be CALLED OUT on it instead of your conspicuous penchant to submit to their non-existent authority...

Or, they can follow your example, and go the way of presumption, ad hominem, rash judgment, and falsehood.....because it feels good.

There you go again with your rash judgment.  Who said it "feels good" anyway?  How do you know it feels good?  Just because it would feel good if YOU had the gumption to do it, doesn't mean it feels good for someone else.  "Grudge not, brethren, one against another, that you may not be judged.  Behold, the judge standeth before the door" (Js. v. 9).

Do you take some demented pleasure in criticizing others who have the courage of their convictions if you can't seem to muster it for your own sake?  What is that, coveting something?  I know, it's the least of the 10 Commandments, the bottom of the list, but did you ever think about Luke xiii. 30?

Either way, they will give an account to God for it.

Speaking of ducks, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."


.

What color is the sky in your world?