Author Topic: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary  (Read 1840 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JPaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3562
  • Reputation: +3509/-221
  • Gender: Male
Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2017, 10:21:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The modifications made are more a matter of housekeeping changes. The underlying weakness of the SSPX is untouched in that they still conditionally accept Vatican II, still believe in the error of "read in the light  of Tradition", and conditionally accept the conciliar ritual, and sacraments.  As such they do not represent anything new, they are not objectively a counter revolutionary force, but a re-creation of the status quo faction of the SSPX.

    This declaration proves that. And any priests that they form will be of the same mind and orientation.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3293
    • Reputation: +3343/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #16 on: November 26, 2017, 12:58:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The modifications made are more a matter of housekeeping changes. The underlying weakness of the SSPX is untouched in that they still conditionally accept Vatican II, still believe in the error of "read in the light  of Tradition", and conditionally accept the conciliar ritual, and sacraments.  As such they do not represent anything new, they are not objectively a counter revolutionary force, but a re-creation of the status quo faction of the SSPX.

    This declaration proves that. And any priests that they form will be of the same mind and orientation.

    Leaving aside the fact that at certain points you seem to be confusing the SSPX with the SAJM, and at others using the acronyms interchangeably, your allegations directed towards the SAJM are completely gratuitous:

    1) The Statutes fundamentally curtail the authority and power of the Superior General, and make a deal with unconverted Rome impossible (see the commentary just posted on SP).  No reasonable and unbiased person would call those changes merely cosmetic;

    2) Please back up yor baseless assertion that the SAJM accepts the hermeneutic of continuity (or, if you were referring to the SSPX, then please explain the relevance);

    3) Same with the rest of your list of accusations.

    The weakness of the SSPX is that all the symptoms of compromise you mention were embraced in order to secure canonical recognition from unconverted Rome, whereas the SAJM has precluded any possibility of a deal with unconverted Rome (and thereby pre-empted the weaknesses and compromises you mention).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline Franciscan Solitary

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 242
    • Reputation: +156/-129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #17 on: November 26, 2017, 02:14:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The modifications made are more a matter of housekeeping changes. The underlying weakness of the SSPX is untouched in that they still conditionally accept Vatican II, still believe in the error of "read in the light  of Tradition", and conditionally accept the conciliar ritual, and sacraments.  As such they do not represent anything new, they are not objectively a counter revolutionary force, but a re-creation of the status quo faction of the SSPX.

    This declaration proves that. And any priests that they form will be of the same mind and orientation.
    Must take the strongest exception to the above understanding of this crucial new development in the world of Roman Catholicism.  None of the weaknesses listed are "still" present because they never were present in the mainstream Resistance.  (Fr. Pfeiffer is obviously off on some other planetary object somewhere.)  What these Statutes indicate to this blogger is that the incredibly painful and traumatic Fall of the Neo-SSPX has at least had some major consolations for the faithful remnant:  The woeful Jesuitical corruptions to which the Neo-SSPX has fallen have been, so to speak, beaten out of the surviving Resistance clergy and laity.  Meaning that this resurrected SSPX is actually and objectively now become truly Counter-Revolutionary for the very first time.  The wheat has been at last separated from the chaff, and good riddance for it.

    Bishop Williamson is not too good to be true, and it would actually be wiser for us to be grateful for that.  The good Bishop Williamson has to speak words beyond counting all the time endlessly for the remainder of his days.  Were he always some ideal of oracular perfection, we would probably have some kind of Bill Clinton on our hands and some such slick Tartuffe is exactly the last thing the Catholics need at present in our few remaining still-legitimate bishops.  It ought to be reasonably easy for us to agree that Bishop Williamson is clearly the most courageously honest man currently prominent in public life in the entire Western World, bar nobody.  (Public honesty about gas chambers, anyone?  Anyone at all??)
     
    There is a subtle yet profound reversal in direction from the old SSPX to the new SAJM.  Archbishop Lefebvre always assumed that the Novus Ordo would right itself in a few years, probably by about the mid-1990s.  Evidently the good Archbishop was terribly mistaken about that.  In any case the new SAJM has the more normative (not Jesuitical) apocalyptic view of Catholic history and is therefore also genuinely open to the possibilities of the Catholic Counter-Revolution, aka Catholic Pan-European Nationalism, aka contemporary Romanity.  The standard Catholic apocalyptic view of history makes our loyalty to the Catholic Kingship of Our Lord real and therefore the SAJM's true humble obedience to the high ideal of Roman Catholic Kingship is very real indeed.

    This blogger can't help but notice that many Catholic laymen are terribly impatient with the existing legitimate Catholic clergy's refusal to lead the temporal fight for the miraculous Restoratio, or resurrection, of Christendom from the mystic death of the past 40 some years.  But the sacred duty of our bishops is to serve as the "Pilot Light" for such radically impossible events.  The actual turning of the existing world completely upside down on its head is not the bishops problem, or responsibility.  That is the rather heavy and burdensome responsibility of precisely the Catholic laymen themselves.  Therefore Catholic laymen ought not to be griping against our Catholic clergy for not performing the sacred duties that rightly and justly belong to the laymen instead.  Time for our often much too grumpy laymen to get to work, praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

    As they say in N'Orleans:  "Laissez les bons temps roulez!"

    Or, to quote the Bard:

    “Politics”, by William Butler Yeats

    “In our time the destiny of man presents its meaning in
    political terms” - Thomas Mann

    How can I, that girl standing there,
    My attention fix
    On Roman or on Russian
    Or on Spanish politics?
    Yet here’s a travelled man that knows
    What he talks about,
    And there’s a politician
    That has read and thought.
    And maybe what they say is true
    Of war and war’s alarms.

    But O that I were young again
    And held her in my arms!”

    Offline Prayerful

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 401
    • Reputation: +144/-24
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #18 on: November 26, 2017, 02:21:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I scrolled down, but cannot find the english translation. Help.
    Second, after the French, begins:

    TRANSLATION OF THE STATUTES TO ENGLISH


     
     STATUTES OF THE PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF THE APOSTLES OF JESUS AND MARY


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3293
    • Reputation: +3343/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #19 on: November 26, 2017, 02:22:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What these Statutes indicate to this blogger is that the incredibly painful and traumatic Fall of the Neo-SSPX has at least had some major consolations for the faithful remnant:  The woeful Jesuitical corruptions to which the Neo-SSPX has fallen have been, so to speak, beaten out of the surviving Resistance clergy and laity.  Meaning that this resurrected SSPX is actually and objectively now become truly Counter-Revolutionary for the very first time.  
    That's what I think, anyway.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3641
    • Reputation: +4687/-169
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #20 on: November 26, 2017, 03:34:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Williamson is not too good to be true, and it would actually be wiser for us to be grateful for that.  The good Bishop Williamson has to speak words beyond counting all the time endlessly for the remainder of his days. Were he always some ideal of oracular perfection, we would probably have some kind of Bill Clinton on our hands and some such slick Tartuffe is exactly the last thing the Catholics need at present in our few remaining still-legitimate bishops.  


    But wait... this is brilliant idea FS!   "Bishop Bill Clinton"



    A man of vision and action to lead the Resistance.

    If he'd convert, it's not too late to fast-track through seminary and be consecrated.


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline kiwiboy

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 482
    • Reputation: +184/-357
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #21 on: November 26, 2017, 03:38:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The modifications made are more a matter of housekeeping changes. The underlying weakness of the SSPX is untouched in that they still conditionally accept Vatican II, still believe in the error of "read in the light  of Tradition", and conditionally accept the conciliar ritual, and sacraments.  As such they do not represent anything new, they are not objectively a counter revolutionary force, but a re-creation of the status quo faction of the SSPX.

    This declaration proves that. And any priests that they form will be of the same mind and orientation.

    Accepting vatican II has nothing to do with the structure per se of the SAJM and SSPX. However it can lead to it. But if each the SAJM respects independent priests then there won't be a problem. Sadly the behaviour of some SAJM members leaves much to be desired...
    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017

    Offline John XYZ

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 24
    • Reputation: +24/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #22 on: November 26, 2017, 04:05:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Williamson certainly approves what Bishop Faure does.

    Here is what he said in France on October 2017 (translated by google) :



    "Archbishop Lefebvre miraculously managed to build a classical congregation, a small pyramid below the Great Pyramid, while the Great Pyramid did everything to crush the small pyramid. He held. This is a "tour de force" of Archbishop Lefebvre. Could Archbishop Lefebvre do that today, would he try to do that today? Probably. Myself, I did not try to do a seminary, I would not have had the courage that Bishop Faure had to form a seminary, because I do not believe in the young people of today. But I have just visited the seminary [of Bishop Faure] and I think that I give myself wrong. I believe that Bishop Faure was absolutely right, it is necessary. And he also formed an association - the SAJM - I think he was right. "

    Original in French

    « Mgr Lefebvre a miraculeusement réussi à construire une congrégation classique, une petite pyramide en dessous de la grande pyramide, alors que la grande pyramide a fait tout pour écraser la petite pyramide. Il a tenu. C'est un tour de force de Mgr Lefebvre. Est-ce que Mgr Lefebvre pourrait faire cela aujourd'hui, est-ce qu'il essayerait de faire cela aujourd'hui ? Probalement. Moi, je n'ai pas essayé de faire un séminaire, je n'aurais pas eu le courage qu'à eu Mgr Faure de former un séminaire, parce que je ne crois guère dans les jeunes d'aujourd'hui. Mais je viens de visiter le séminaire [de Mgr Faure] et je crois que je me donne tort. Je crois que Mgr Faure a eu absolument raison, c'est nécessaire. Et il a formé aussi, une association - la SAJM - je crois qu'il a eu raison. »



    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3562
    • Reputation: +3509/-221
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #23 on: November 26, 2017, 05:14:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Leaving aside the fact that at certain points you seem to be confusing the SSPX with the SAJM, and at others using the acronyms interchangeably, your allegations directed towards the SAJM are completely gratuitous:

    1) The Statutes fundamentally curtail the authority and power of the Superior General, and make a deal with unconverted Rome impossible (see the commentary just posted on SP).  No reasonable and unbiased person would call those changes merely cosmetic;

    2) Please back up yor baseless assertion that the SAJM accepts the hermeneutic of continuity (or, if you were referring to the SSPX, then please explain the relevance);

    3) Same with the rest of your list of accusations.

    The weakness of the SSPX is that all the symptoms of compromise you mention were embraced in order to secure canonical recognition from unconverted Rome, whereas the SAJM has precluded any possibility of a deal with unconverted Rome (and thereby pre-empted the weaknesses and compromises you mention).
    1) This curtailing of authority is an administrative correction, one that was needed but nevertheless a matter of process.
    2) Does the SAJM reject the false council?  Do they cling to the idea that it can be seen as Traditional?
    Do they see the Novus Ordo as a work of the Church or as the non-Catholic ritual that it is?
    3) To secure canonical recognition from an entity which they have defied for over fifty years?  Whereas the new group sees no need for it?
    Now this begs the question, were they wrong all along?
    If the SSPX held these compromised positions as a matter of strategy to secure approval, then we fall back to the questions raised in number 2. If they still hold these positions now, how then, have they removed their weaknesses?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3293
    • Reputation: +3343/-79
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #24 on: November 26, 2017, 06:06:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1) This curtailing of authority is an administrative correction, one that was needed but nevertheless a matter of process.
    2) Does the SAJM reject the false council?  Do they cling to the idea that it can be seen as Traditional?
    Do they see the Novus Ordo as a work of the Church or as the non-Catholic ritual that it is?
    3) To secure canonical recognition from an entity which they have defied for over fifty years?  Whereas the new group sees no need for it?
    Now this begs the question, were they wrong all along?
    If the SSPX held these compromised positions as a matter of strategy to secure approval, then we fall back to the questions raised in number 2. If they still hold these positions now, how then, have they removed their weaknesses?
    JPaul-
    It seems your real beef has nothing to do with the SAJM, but with your objection to the recognize and resist position.
    Effectively, you are anti-Resistance.
    I would be curious to know whether you think Archbishop Lefebvre engaged on half-measures?



    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1847
    • Reputation: +1956/-77
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #25 on: November 26, 2017, 06:29:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I, for one agree with Bishop Williamsons independent pockets prediction, although I don't agree with everything he says. It is absurd to claim that seminaries are the only "catholic" option.

    People want them because they want to sit back and have everything done for them. Priest on a plate.

    I agree with +Williamson's independent pockets prediction as well. But I don't understand why you think that means they have to be formed individually. The other half of his perspective is that these independent priests will form a loose network. Wouldn't a seminary or two be a critical aspect of this loose network? If they are working together, why not work together on a seminary?

    What "people" are you referring to who want to sit back and have everything done for them? If you mean us, what difference does it make in our workloads if the priests are formed individually or in the seminary? We are not the ones forming them either way. And either way we provide prayer and financial/material support. Maybe I am lacking in imagination but I am curious about your vision and what practical differences would be so onerous. 


    Offline Franciscan Solitary

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 242
    • Reputation: +156/-129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #26 on: November 26, 2017, 10:13:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with +Williamson's independent pockets prediction as well. But I don't understand why you think that means they have to be formed individually. The other half of his perspective is that these independent priests will form a loose network. Wouldn't a seminary or two be a critical aspect of this loose network? If they are working together, why not work together on a seminary?

    What "people" are you referring to who want to sit back and have everything done for them? If you mean us, what difference does it make in our workloads if the priests are formed individually or in the seminary? We are not the ones forming them either way. And either way we provide prayer and financial/material support. Maybe I am lacking in imagination but I am curious about your vision and what practical differences would be so onerous.
    This blogger should note here that Bishop Williamson is simply being factual when he refers to "independent pockets".  We are going against the tide of every existing Armed Forces and government leadership on earth.  Wall Street and the City loathe us above all things.  The Vatican and Jerusalem Rabbinate are out to get us.  (Sometimes paranoids have the very worst enemies.)  So "the loose network" wouldn't be anything easy to achieve.  It would not happen spontaneously or in Boston, Kentucky.  Nothing personal, but we're up against some incredibly stiff odds against us.  Often the most severe persecutions are not the most obvious persecutions.  But the most savage persecutions always make for the essential ecclesial reality of the catacombs -- loose networks.
      
    Catholic Rome in the reigns of Decius and Diocletian certainly had "loose networks".  That isn't any advocacy of looseness, just stating the painfully obvious.  Catholics are being pounded by the hammers of persecution faster than we can count, so we had best get used to some "loose networks" for a while.  That is what Bishop Williamson is referring to when he mentions the inevitability of loose organisation for a while to come.
      
    On the other hand, persecution on the Grand Apocalyptic scale also increases the value of whatever structure that can be achieved.  No wonder Bishop Williamson was surprised to see the success of Bishop Faure's seminary!  A true miracle from God, no doubt about it.  (There weren't any Catholic seminaries operating during the reigns of the Emperors Decius and Diocletian, and the current persecution is unspeakably worse than anything then.)

    At present the legitimate Catholics have two true-blue seminaries, one in France and the other in the Philippines.  Should we accept and value them?  In the humble opinion of this blogger, that must be the most ludicrous question in the entire long history of Catholicism.  Catholics should be praying so hard for a few such seminaries that we sweat blood to get them.  And that is a great understatement, to be sure.  We Catholics seriously need to get one thing straight:  We do not "deserve" 100% legitimate Catholic seminaries.  We do not "deserve" 100% legitimate Catholic bishops.  That we now have some small number of both is... an absolute and utter miracle on the true scale of the Parting of the Red Sea in ancient times.  What can be said?  In our own time these seminaries and bishops are practically "the Parting of the Red Sea" before our eyes in the post-modern era.

    We are being blessed absolutely beyond all human comprehension and some slightly silly Catholics grouch and quibble that nothing is good enough for them.  Not wanting to offend anyone in particular, but perhaps it would be best to mail in those seminary contributions to Bishop Faure and Father Chazal sooner rather than later.  

    Because true miracles on this scale don't happen any too often.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 20922
    • Reputation: +18521/-86
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #27 on: November 27, 2017, 12:59:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Franciscan Solitary:

     Time for our often much too grumpy laymen to get to work, praise the Lord and pass the ammo.


    I know this is an expression, but I think "many a truth is said in jest" in your case. Again, you seem to be alluding to some kind of lay activism, along the lines of what is most commonly associated with radical Muslims -- i.e., terrorism, blowing things up.

    As I've said before, just out with your plan. If you mean terrorism, just say terrorism. You can't describe terrorism without using the term. That's not going to fly. For the sake of honesty and clarity, please don't beat around the bush.

    I'd like to know how a few, impatient, deeply principled but vastly outnumbered laymen are going to "radically change the world" without some kind of "asymmetrical" tactics.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Franciscan Solitary

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 242
    • Reputation: +156/-129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #28 on: November 27, 2017, 03:46:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Franciscan Solitary:

     Time for our often much too grumpy laymen to get to work, praise the Lord and pass the ammo.


    I know this is an expression, but I think "many a truth is said in jest" in your case. Again, you seem to be alluding to some kind of lay activism, along the lines of what is most commonly associated with radical Muslims -- i.e., terrorism, blowing things up.

    As I've said before, just out with your plan. If you mean terrorism, just say terrorism. You can't describe terrorism without using the term. That's not going to fly. For the sake of honesty and clarity, please don't beat around the bush.

    I'd like to know how a few, impatient, deeply principled but vastly outnumbered laymen are going to "radically change the world" without some kind of "asymmetrical" tactics.

    Thank you for asking, Mr. Matthew.  This blogger will try to put this in terms laymen should understand.  No clerical niceties for this audience:

    Actually the direction of the use of force in human society is the main function of the State.  Catholic laymen should abandon the prevailing Anarchist mind-set and think more seriously about mastery of the State by Catholics.  As Catholics we would instantly and effortlessly know that this is entirely a question of elites and we would notice that the existing non-Catholic elites consist entirely of the various Marxist factions derived from the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of a century ago.   Then we would remember that these Marxist factions are also Judaic heresies, that Catholicism aims its force against said heresies and therefore those Marxist factions are in a very bad way, thanks to the Catholic elite of the past two centuries or so having generally continuously blasted them to Kingdom Come.  Communism meets Anti-communism and that should be a very pleasant thought for Catholic laymen.

    The above should indicate to us that what is being referred to is not shadowy terrorism, but rather what is known as "the Armed Forces". True enough, those are the actual reservoirs of terror in the human race, but nevertheless they are also the height of respectability.  As the total disintegration of the Marxist factions (caused by us) is felt more and more, the Armed Forces become spiritual orphans.  And there is only one elite left functional and standing:  the Catholic Nationalists.  Hence the Armed Forces (aka N.A.T.O.) are stuck with us.  We are the only elite available to them and they must have an elite to lead them.  It will dawn on them that, as always, "Paris is worth a Mass". Such is the institutional reality of the Armed Forces of Europe and the Americas.  The Catholics have successfully destroyed every rival elite.  Day by day the Catholic laymen are more free to do whatever they damn please. Because who is going to tell them "No"?  Only the elites the Catholics have destroyed, which is to say only the dead.

    The Catholics enjoyed some major victories in the Second World War.  The Catholics won the Cold War.  The anti-Catholic Bush, Clinton and Obama regimes have been monumental flops of historic proportions.  These things have consequences that are very favourable to the Catholic Nationalist elite.  Politics favours the Nationalists more and more, the Nationalists must move more and more to the Right for lack of any Marxist elite to stop them and the ever-more successful Nationalists need the Catholic Nationalist elite more and more for lack of any alternative to lead them.  The rise of Catholic Caesars is already unstoppable.
      
    In laymen's terms, it pays to be the only game in town and the Catholic Nationalist elite is in elite terms the only game in town, or in N.A.T.O.  So it is basically us or Al-Qaida, which is not a serious option. Their global strength has been wasted in the sands of Syria and the region we know as the Holy Land.  The winners of the wars in the Middle East (aka the historic Battle of Armageddon) have been first of all the Catholics of Greater Syria.  In terms of actual power relations the Catholics (and especially our elite Nationalist formations) are doing quite well, thank you very much.

    This lack of alternative non-Catholic elites is the power situation in which the Roman, French and German Republics fell, in which Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Adolf Hitler rose to the supreme Roman power.  Thus the Roman and Holy Roman Empires were born; thus Christendom was born and has gone steadily forwards through the centuries.  Catholics have never won the popularity contest; we have invariably achieved State power because our elite is the best, and beyond compare, actually.  

    So this is the worst of times for timid Catholic laymen, but the best of times for every layman with the sense to appreciate a good opportunity when it is there to be taken -- which is exactly what the Catholic layman exists to do.

    Is this terrorism?  No!  It is the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and none other.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3562
    • Reputation: +3509/-221
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Statutes of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary
    « Reply #29 on: November 27, 2017, 10:38:19 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • JPaul-
    It seems your real beef has nothing to do with the SAJM, but with your objection to the recognize and resist position.
    Effectively, you are anti-Resistance.
    I would be curious to know whether you think Archbishop Lefebvre engaged on half-measures?
    Effectively anti-resisitance well, I am not anti-anything, because I am not for any sectarian faction.
    I have withdrawn from this turmoil over who is right and who is  wrong because it does not matter.
    One would have to be for something in order to be against something else. I am free to observe both sides of the argument without fear or favor.

    The "resistance" is against Bishop Fellay is rather small potatoes when posed against the whole of the Church apostatizing.

    The Archbishop's position was a wait and see position which came of age a long time ago. It has now been superceded by events on the ground. Why he did not change it, I could not say.
    That is the question isn't it?  He cannot tell us now so it is a moote point.

     

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