The only hot air in [this] thread came from you[,] Neil.
Thank you, Zenith. I deserved that!
Good morning Neil.
I hope you are having a glass of orange juice, and cheers! I would ask that you read it again. That is not what this is about. I'm sorry that you missed the context. That conference in Postfalls is huge.
Perhaps I should have entitled it: Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle., and that would get readers to look at more of what he said in the recordings than just on "Cannon Law" itself.
This would be the second time I've been accused of taking someone, who sounds
important, out of context. The last time, Fr. Rostand scolded me via the Internet!
..........Wait a minute..................... how did you know I like orange juice?
I've never mentioned that here.................... (it isn't going to work ever
, Fr. Rostand, so if you're reading this, the cat's out of the bag!) :judge:
Okay, back up. Let's try this again.
My apologies for "shooting from the hip." My excuse is, I used to be a big Chuck
Connors fan (The Rifleman). But now I know where he's buried, and I think I'm the
only one who puts flowers on his grave.. But I digress..................
And how did you know that I'm a stickler for thread titles?
Oh, wait.. I guess
Matthew could have told you. HAHAHAHAHAHA
But seriously, you have some excellent observations. I hope you can be aware
that there have been a lot of fancy-sounding members around here who start off
their track record sounding pretty Kosher (pardon the pun) and then later on they
show their true colors.. BTW: you've already passed your first test..
Orange juice, eh?
That's one for the record. I'm sorry. Tell me, was I wrong when I was so bold as
to presume that "Dominus tecum"
in context may mean something slightly different
means "with thee," not "with you?"
There I go, digressing again. Please: try to have patience with me!
You say, "That conference in Postfalls is huge."
I presume you meant Post
Falls. (Does a nit-picker irritate you? I'm just detail-oriented, to a fault. Is it a
Okay, then, my stock response is, "HOW HUGE IS IT?"
(Cf. Johnny Carson show! -- *rim shot* -- )
But before you scratch your head and try to answer that one, shall I do as you
ask, and re-read "it?" Or should I say, "read it again" ? -But then I'd have to ask,
"HOW HUGE IS IT" ? Catch my drift?!?!
Okay, now that I'm warmed up, let's turn on the lights and start the camera,
because now, I mean action.
You have asked the open-ended question (which I appreciate BTW):
So, what is the “practical agreement” for, if there is still a state of emergency ?
It seems to me that, if they were honest, the Menzingen-denizens would answer,
that the practical agreement's purpose is for the Society to achieve either ordinary
jurisdiction, or else some ersatz version of same so as to deceive, if it were
possible, even the elect
(!) - only, they would leave out the exclamation point.
And I would like to thank you for this sentence:
Fr. Rostand’s back peddling wishes us to believe that the agreement is to be what the SSPX always does… and speak out… like modernist Rome will take them in with loving ecumenical arms and will not “touch” them –such was the fantasy of the other groups who said the same thing (…).
... because, not only is it spelled
correctly, but it contains a lot more than it reads,
If I may be so bold, I would like to offer a mock-up of a gross simplification of this:
With the above being true, that when the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement with conciliar Rome, the SSPX “loses for itself”, and all of the faithful under them, the protection of the Cannon Law of “universal” supplied jurisdiction -Regardless of the set-up of agreement. So, when the SSPX signs a “practical agreement” with conciliar Rome, you cannot say that the SSPX has “supplied jurisdiction” anymore when in fact, it doesn’t? By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is now legally absorbed in the conciliar structure Like Campos and the others that have been effectively shut down and compromised = modernist’s win . That’s what conciliar Rome really wants! Go play chess. Sometimes for a strategy, you can give something up –so then you can come back to “check-mate” your opponent.
Simplified, it says, "When the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement
with conciliar Rome, the SSPX loses “universal” supplied
jurisdiction. By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is then like
Campos and the others, that have been effectively shut
down! That’s what conciliar Rome really wants!!
Go play chess. Sometimes for a strategy, you can
give something up – so then you can come back to
check-mate” your opponent.
Sorry, but the chess example is just too good to delete. Perfect,
I'd say, just
perfect. Problem is, too many readers don't play chess, or, if they do, they're not
proficient enough to understand this most powerful strategic advantage, which
translates into a mere tactical exercise once your opponent has "taken the bait."
But I digress.. again..
Now, I have a problem with this sentence, or, rather - I mean to say, that Fr.
Rostand is the one who should
have a problem with this:
Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.
.. because, he really, really, really
relishes the prospect of refusing
Communion to anyone who, like me (!), would dare to present himself at the
Communion rail after having made Internet posts that question a, b, or c (items
relating to his presumption of 'authority' in 'prudential matters of discipline').
After your A, B, C, D, E, F, "And so on," (I'd like a few more letters filled in if it
isn't too much trouble!) you then have this:
If you do follow the NSSPX into the danger of the conciliar mechanisms of the conciliar Rome -then you are in real schism to the true faith. Bluntly said! NOW
..if we could just get a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur on that sentence and the
"letters" preceding it, I know a few ninnies who I'd like to see cringe when I wave
it in their faces! .................. HAHAHAHAHA