To Neil Obstat



....and  we can see in your behaviour what the demon is referencing with regard to the violation of love of neighbour!


...and the same in my statement about Trads and religious snobbery. Because, at heart, that often is what the objections are about, not love of God and truth!


As the demon said:

"There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.”


You are one such.

Quote from: andysloan

To Neil Obstat



....and  we can see in your behaviour what the demon is referencing with regard to the violation of love of neighbour!


...and the same in my statement about Trads and religious snobbery. Because, at heart, that often is what the objections are about, not love of God and truth!


As the demon said:

"There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.”


You are one such.

Andy,


I don't think I know you, and I don't know Neil Obstat--
but I think you're both on the same side!

Sometimes we have to hold
our fire and take a better aim, less we, in trying to get the enemy, we
scatter-shoot our own comrades. We don't (or might I say Christ doesn't)
have so many soldiers that we can just willy-nilly shoot each other up. Lets leave the
tearing down of the Traditionalists to the masters in the new SSPX-- they're doing a great job.

With respect to every apparition, or many apparitions, or some apparition, it is not required by Catholics that they  be accepted as s matter of faith. Where reports, of course, dovetail with what the Church, Our Lord, and the Blessed Virgin have always taught, I think you will find most
honest ( eg: not pawns of Rostand and Co) members of these forums do accept them. Many reported visions,however, especially some proliferating the last twenty years or so, contradict 2,000  years of Church teaching and tradition-- even though on the surface they appear good and holy.

As a punishment for its sins, the Catholic Hierarchy has been taken away from mankind (do we really expect Almighty God to do nothing as we slap Him in the face every day with abortions, birth control, men marrying men and other perversions?); until such time as a semblance of a hierarchy assembles once again, valid judgements on many of these apparitions will have to be put off.

Quote from: andysloan

Beelzebub: "... We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor ..."

I almost forgot you were quoting a devil here.  That was a close one!  

Of COURSE the devil hates the condemnation of error.  That's a GIVEN!

.

...and the clear resolution to the problem is that Popes John XXIII and John-Paul II are true saints.

And providentially, the sound perspective of Fr Malachi Martin and the text from the 1970's exorcism have been presented on CI.


   

Matthew 13:9

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."



The situation has never been as black and white as many have thought.





(Listen All)




(Listen 7-8 mins)


...and the reason God has hidden this from the eyes of some Trads (not all it should be noted!) is because of their abominable religious snobbery. How many Trads do you hear saying "we must pray for our brothers and sisters in the Novus Ordo" or such like? Ironically, there are some in the Novus Ordo who are far more saintly than in the Trad movement!



TRADITIONALISTS

Exorcist: In the name...!

Beelzebub: There are numbers of “traditionalists”, as many lay people as priests, who are full of self-righteousness, who are steeped in a kind of new phariseeism. They say, and sometimes they preach: “We are the good ones, we are the just, the rest are not worth much any more. We will go to Heaven.” That is pretty close to the sects: they say the same thing. Those up there (he points upward) do not like this behavior at all.. They do not love men very much who are righteous in their own eyes.

If, in this book, it has been necessary to speak about the Mass and about the Church, and amongst other things, the Mass of Saint Pius V, that does not mean to say that certain “traditionalists” should exalt themselves above the modernists, as if they were the only ones who know how to make a sound judgment, in a suitable way, and with all the necessary competence.

We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circuмstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. We are obliged to say that as part of this... and everything we have just said about the Sacraments and other subjects..."



   

Psalms 24:10

"All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, to them that seek after his covenant and his testimonies."

This is a sad, sad, letter of Father Scott's!
  I am saddened because I thought that, after his many years of devoted work in the vineyard he, at least, would have learned and remembered his Catholic faith.
I am saddened because I thought that he, of all the superiors of the Society, would have had the manhood to stand up to Bishop Fellay and tell him "Your Excellency--you are wrong!-- And to continue in this path of lying to the faithful and joining the heretics in Rome will send you to hell!"

   But alas! Apparently, Father Scott either has forgotten all that he learned the last forty years, or he really never knew his faith, and he did a great job of faking it.

   It is impossible for the Vicar of Jesus Christ to declare a notorious heretic, a promoter of sodomy, a promoter of false one-world religions, and a protector of those who kill the souls of Christians-- it is impossible that such personages be declared by the Vicar of Jesus Christ as Saints of the Living God!

   There is no amount of dancing around this issue. There is no way to sugar-coat this obscene bowing down to the devil and the god of the world.

   Archbishop Lefebvre said it very clearly to Fr. Ratzinger himself "Your excellency-- we can have no dealings with you-- you are for the destruction of Christianity; we are for the building up of Catholicism…". The Archbishop never said Ratzinger was not pope; The Archbishop never said (as fas as we know) Ratzinger wasn't a Bishop; we know Ratzinger was at least ordained a priest, because he was at the Vatican Council battling Lefebvre, deCastro-Meyer, Ottaviani, Bacci and the other 200 good guys (even though he was disguised in a suit and tie). But Archbishop Lefebvre DID SAY he was not Catholic!

  Obviously, Archbishop Lefebvre had no secret knowledge of Ratzinger's baptism, or of his First Holy Communion, or of his Confirmation, or of his Ordination. The Archbishop Lefebvre, who battled animists, heretics, non-believers  and voodoo worshippers in the African nations, was making a judgement based on what Ratzinger was doing to the Body of Christ: He was deliberately destroying it,
 "tearing it down" is the term Ratzinger, himself, used to describe what needs to be done with traditional Catholicism.

  Ratzinger authored the instruction to the Bishops to "hide" all the perverted pres-by-ters from the police, and to "move them around", sending them into different diocese' and institutions so the faithful will not know; Ratzinger championed all the great Assisi meetings of every perversion and sick belief system; Ratzinger authored the screed clamoring for a "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr", run by the masters of deceit, with teeth to keep all the nations of the world under control; Ratzinger was the brains behind the scam to get all the Ecclesia Dei groups into Rome, to con them and convince them that Rome really was friendly to tradition; Ratzinger was the Cardinal who proclaimed that " He", ( Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) is the most dangerous man in the world!!!" And Ratzinger is behind these canonizations--canonizations designed with one major purpose in mind: Show the stupid Catholics that "see, anybody, even a pervert, a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, a liar, a fraud, and a fake can be declared a saint! That's why we had to get rid of your "Saint Christophers"-- that's why we eliminated their memories-- because all those "saints" of the Catholic Church are fakes!"

   Yes, Marcel Lefebvre was a dangerous man. He posed a mighty danger to the heretics and anti-Catholics gathering steam in Rome. He was a great danger to the Bugninites' plans to eradicate the Catholic Mass and the Catholic priesthood.

  And now,Ratzinger's nemesis is passed on. And his protege,  Bergolino, is now ensconced in Rome. Berg "Who am I to judge" has at least admitted to those with eyes to see and ears to hear that he is NOT the  Vicar of Christ. Berg "here, Monsignor--you wear it-- the carnival is over", has at least let those who open their eyes see that he has no pretense of being Catholic. Berg is simply continuing the job of John XXIII, Paul VI, Wyjtola and Ratzinger-- and that is the destruction of the Catholic faith.

   Now that the Archbishop has passed on, one would naturally expect that his successor was now the "most dangerous bishop in the world"--right? Wrong!
Fellay has joined the modernists. He just hasn't publicly said as much. He certainly has told those in Rome. In 2000, Cardinal Hoyos stated that "Msgr Fellay has told us he accepts the Vatican Council."

  So, who is  "the most dangerous man in the world" now?  Fellay gave up the ghost; DeMallerais has gone AWOL; deGallaretta, after a great warning, has gone mute. Now the most dangerous man in the world is your SSPX pastor, trained under the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who knows the truth, who has the brains to discern the truth, but keeps his mouth shut for fear of reprisals from Rostand
and Fellay.
 
   And, sadly, although I personally like Father Scott, and respect him for all the works he has done, this letter shows he has become one of the most dangerous men in the world.



 

Huge, you keep throwing it out there, that Father Scott has deliberately mislead

Catholics for decades...you are making desperately grave accusations about a very

holy priest.


 Can you actually prove that Fr. Scott has

 committed gross sacrilege for decades, without dressing it up alongside of a page

of emotionally charged rhetoric about the crisis in the Church?  



   

Quote from: Elizabeth

Huge, you keep throwing it out there, that Father Scott has deliberately mislead

Catholics for decades...you are making desperately grave accusations about a very

holy priest.


 Can you actually prove that Fr. Scott has

 committed gross sacrilege for decades, without dressing it up alongside of a page

of emotionally charged rhetoric about the crisis in the Church?  



   

I don't know anything about Father"committing gross sacrilege for decades",
so obviously cannot comment.

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Elizabeth

Huge, you keep throwing it out there, that Father Scott has deliberately mislead

Catholics for decades...you are making desperately grave accusations about a very

holy priest.


 Can you actually prove that Fr. Scott has

 committed gross sacrilege for decades, without dressing it up alongside of a page

of emotionally charged rhetoric about the crisis in the Church?  



   

I don't know anything about Father"committing gross sacrilege for decades",
so obviously cannot comment.

Dear Hugeman,

First you wrote:

"But alas!  Apparently, Father Scott either has forgotten all that he learned the last forty years, or he never really knew his faith and did a great job of faking it."

Next:

"By extension, this statement by Fellay, and Fr. Scott's endorsement thereof, is an implicit admission, that he, Father Scott, did not know what he was doing for twenty some years, OR he deliberately misled the Catholic people in the United States and Canada.

If you do not know anything about Father committing gross sacrilege for years, then why have you taken the liberty of suggesting such evil motives to Fr. Scott?

You are obviously intelligent enough to know what you are doing by suggesting that Fr. Scott is yet another [choose your own boogyman] infiltrator of the holy priesthood.  You carefully craft Trad grandstanding speeches (we are assured you know your Trad History and your Trad credentials), using all of the same methods (window dressings) you accuse Fr. Scott of doing.

  You went a step further and stated that this priest is one of the most dangerous men in the world.  This method encourages the gullible to use their imaginations and form the picture of a superior demonic intelligence (after all, he was an M.D. before entering the seminary) to give fake (mortally sinful sacrilege) sacraments to the people, and deliberately mislead Catholics, hoodwink Abp. Lefevbre, etc.

  I object to dragging Fr. Scott's good name through the mud by suggestions that you have made about the state of his soul.  You may not have it both ways -- if you are talking "by extension" then it most certainly applies to you.

 
Elizabeth,

   If you are not just wasting our times, please let me know
It is not a waste of my time to defend the good name of a holy Catholic priest.  
    a) What of my above posts constitutes  details sacrileges Father Scott committed ?
I asked you for proof that Fr. Scott could have been faking knowing the Faith; you never provided anything but anecdotes about other clergy and the crisis in general.
   b) Of that which you deem constitutes such sacrilege, what did Father Scott not do, that you say I am charging him with.
You said he implicitly admits to have deliberately mislead the Catholic people of the U.S. and Canada over the course of 20 years, that he never knew his faith but faked it.  Can someone like that confect the Sacraments and discharge any grace?

   c) Where does any priest , either in the SSPX or out of it, or any Bishop of the Catholic Church get the power to decide that a pope's declaration of sainthood is false, and not to be followed;

Anybody is safe in not believing JP2 to be a saint.  The V2 men had the gall to abolish ST. CATHERINE of ALEXANDRIA and others, but somehow reversed their abomination.

   d) Where does Father Scott get the justification of charging the man  whom you say is the Vicar of Christ with surreptitiously and secretly, and invalidly he asserts,changing the standards and actual definition of sainthood, so as to come up with "Saints of the pre-Vatican Council", "Saints of the post--Vatican Council", "Saints of the twelve hundreds", and , maybe, " saints of the post-Bergoglio" era?
When did I call Franciscus the Vicar of Christ?
Maybe Fr. Scott read The Devil's Final Battle?
   e) How Bishop Fellay can say he "accepts 95% of the Vatican Council?
Fr. Scott is not Bp. Fellay.  Fr. Scott is the author of the letter, right?

   f) How is it possible for Bishop Fellay to accept religious Liberty?
Again, this is about Fr. Scott.
 
   g) Where did Archbishop Lefebvre say he accepted 95% of the Vatican Council and Religious Liberty?
Way off the topic, sorry.

    h)What evil motive did I ascribe to Father Scott? How does "forgetting what he learned for twenty some years" constitute an evil motive?
Deliberately misleading the Catholics of U.S. and Canada is evil.
 
    I) Where did I say Father Scott "Infiltrated the Holy priesthood?
If he has been faking it, he'd have to be an infiltrator of some sort.

    J) Was it true or false that (Cardinal) Ratzinger called Archbishop " The most dangerous bishop in the world?"  If it was true that cardinal Ratzinger said that, Was the archbishop, in fact, the "most dangerous bishop in the world?"
Huh?

    K) If he was Not the "most dangerous Bishop" in the world, , yet Cardinal Ratzinger did, in fact, say such a thing-- then did you correct him for that great "grandstanding speech?". And if you did, where? If you did not correct the cardinal, why not?
I can't understand what you are getting at, but it was you who called Fr. Scott one of the most dangerous men in the world.

   L) If Cardinal Ratzinger did say such a thing of Archbishop Lefebvre, were you similiarly aghast about the possibility of "the gullible to use their imaginations and form the picture of a superior demonic intelligence"
I sincerely hope you are not identifying too closely with the above two clerics when you pronounced Fr. Scott to be one of the most dangerous men in the world.  

   M) Where did I ever mention Father's Medical training? Does that have any bearing whatsoever upon this entire discussion?
Oh yes it does indeed.  He obeyed his parents and became a doctor, then became a priest.  This shows the his love of Christ and His Blessed Mother, patience, humility, charity, purity, along with other virtues.

   N)Where did I say that Father gave fake sacraments to the people?
If he's one of the most dangerous men in the world, wouldn't he be sacrilegious if he is faking it?

   O) Where did I say father Scott Hoodwinked Archbishop Lefebvre?
   P) Do you support the AFD of Bishop Fellay?
   Q) Are the Novus Ordo masses "bastard Masses" as the Archbishop said, or are they the same worship of Almighty God as the Tridentine Mass?
    R)Do you agree that Archbishop Marcel Lefebre did not "understand  the docuмents of the Vatican Council"?
    S)Do you agree with Paul VI, John XXIII, JPII, Ratzinger, Bergoglio that "all religions are salvific", or is there One True Church-- and which one is it?

The above questions are not about Fr. Scott's good name.



Elizabeth, Father chose to distribute his  letter on the internet so that readers could be  convinced  of the correctness of his foolish position-- and that of the controllers in Menzingen-- that the person in Rome could name heretics and protectors of sodomites as Saints of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. If we can't discuss things from an equal playing field, using terms that everybody agrees upon, there is no sense continuing the discussion.

 Thank-you.

You are most welcome.  I pray that the remainder of your Lent is extremely profitable to your immortal soul.  
Fr. Scott is urging us to run to the Queen of Saints and Angels during this Apocalyptic, 'making war with the saints' time before April 27.
He is one of the good priests, in a time where there don't seem to be so many good guys left.