At the risk of quoting myself I'm going to quote myself.
But there is a purpose to this madness! This is a report of
my first foray into the
land of Accordism with
The Exercise Card. I took The Card (described below) to a meeting of a dozen
people, all trads, all getting together for sharing the Faith of
Catholics.
Two of them are known to me to be Accordistas. I didn't
want to upset them so I left them for last, but one by one, I
shared The Card with everyone in the group...............
..guess what happened?
Okay, you'd never guess. And after I tell you, you're not
going to believe it.
This tells me that what we have here, with the indubitable help
of The Recusant is,
We Have Hit Pay Dirt!!First, you have to read my earlier post to know what I'm
talking about........
From PAGE 7 of The Recusant, Issue #7:
Here is a great quick exercise for you to show an Accordista
who just can't seem to "get it." Write these two paragraphs out
on two sides of a 3 x 5 index card, with "Spot the Difference!" on
the top of both sides. Make it look the same, that is, so that it is
not so easy to notice the extra single word in the second paragraph.
======================
"Spot the Difference!"
1988:
“We declare that we recognise the
validity of the sacrifice of the Mass
and the Sacraments celebrated with
the intention to do what the Church
does according to the rites indicated
in the typical editions of the Roman
Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals
promulgated by Popes Paul VI and
John-Paul II.”
=======================
"Spot the Difference!"
2012:
“We declare that we recognise the
validity of the sacrifice of the Mass
and the Sacraments celebrated with
the intention to do what the Church
does according to the rites indicated
in the typical editions of the Roman
Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals
legitimately promulgated by Popes
Paul VI and John-Paul II.”
========================
Give the card to your Accordista friend and say, "Can you tell me
what the difference is?" After you get that point made, probably
including the 'experience' that the Accordista could not notice the
difference right away, and maybe you had to point it out before
they go "Oh, yeah." -- but that's a good thing, because an "oh,
yeah moment" can be an open door for comprehension.
But don't lose momentum. Move immediately into the question:
"So, with that one word added, do you know what the difference is?"
They'll say, "What do you mean, what the difference is?"
This is also good, because it's a second open door, where you can
step in and say, "Without that one word, as in 1988, THIS CHAPEL,
and all the SSPX mass centers all over the world have a reason to
exist." Wait for them to recognize what you mean. Be sure that
they know what you're saying. Without that word, they are going
to Mass every week or perhaps more often, and they can do that
because that one word is missing.
Then go for the close.
"When you add that one word, "legitimately promulgated,"
none of the SSPX mass centers, chapels, or independent Mass
chapels have a right to exist. You should be going to your local
NovusOrdo parish instead."
Let that sink in, and their response will be definitive.
If they are shocked, that's a good thing. You have something to
work with. You can step up to the next level, like the rest of the
AFD, for example, because now you have established a point of
reference, to which you can repeatedly revert whenever the
trainee becomes doubtful or starts slipping back into Accordism.
If, however, they are ambivalent about the implications such as
that this one word being present means they're wasting their time
going to a TLM, or, if they want to change the subject because
they're bored with this one, then pick up your sandals, knock the
dust off, and leave town, because you have lost them.
Now, I took this card, as described above, to the meeting of me and
the others.
First, I showed it to our priest, who perhaps was a little tired, and it
took him three times reading it, before he noticed the extra word,
and it was only after I had given him the "hint" that there was an
entire word extra in one of the versions. But immediately, he said,
that he recognizes the import of this one word, for it is precisely the
issue of the sermon that +F gave on Feb. 2nd 2012, in which he
admonished priests (not literally specifying only the priests of the
SSPX) not to go off on their own after ordination because then they
would not have supplied jurisdiction, and their sacraments would
not be valid, and they would not be able to give absolution.
He agreed that because of that one word, no independent chapel in
the world would have a right to exist, for there would be no state of
necessity, and that everyone would be obliged to assist at Mass at an
Indult chapel or an FSSP or even a NovusOrdoNewmass.
Bottom line: our own priest was very appreciative of this little
exercise, and I suspect he is going to carry it on to additional work.
You can take that as you will, but there are immediate implications,
and those are the reasons that some independent priests were not
happy with that sermon, and if they wrote to +Fellay they likely did
not expect to receive any reply, and I have yet to hear of any priest
in the world who has received any reply from him on this question.
My only conclusion from this fact is that apparently +F thinks himself
invincible or unapproachable on this topic, and that he is not obliged
to answer such questions. He is above that, and he presumes
himself to be master of all he says, such that anything he is asked is
"as if he were the authority and thou art the subject," and
"Yours
is not to question why -- yours is but to do or die." Cannon Fodder Is Thy Name -- And
Obedience Thy Game.
I passed the card around, and got some interesting responses.
Everyone had to read it twice, some three times, a couple several
times, and one took about 10 minutes, over and over and over,
perhaps 20 times, but finally got it. Everyone else in the group got
the answer without any hints, except for Father, who was a bit tired,
so he had an excuse.
One person said
that one word could be here or there, but you know
lawyers, and how they go into detail -- it would come down to how
much you want to pay for the argument, but you never want to go
into court, because that's always more expensive; you want to
settle out of court but you don't really know if you're going to win or
lose. This was a bit disappointing to me, because I don't think
you're going to find any decent lawyer who would recommend that
any trad group would propose this 2012 text to Rome, in lieu of the
1988 version.
The key point is, that ABL rescinded his signature on the 1988
version the next day, because it (and other things on the docuмent)
was
unacceptable. What would any thinking person say the
chance is that ABL would have approved the 2012 text instead?
About the same chance as 'evolution' being true? (--Which is
something like 1 : 10^250, i.e., statistically zero?)
Now for our prime suspects. I gave
The Card of Controversy to the Accordistas last, after everyone had gone and they were
delaying their own departure. They had no distraction. But they
could not get it. They read it over and over and over and could not
see anything different.
Riiiiight.. Who are they or rather, what would be their qualifications? They
are both professionals, one of whom is a university professor of
linguistics. Now, you tell me:
What's the chance that such a 'pro'
would be unable to "Spot the Difference!" when all the other
people in the room had spotted it okay, one with a little 'hint'?
Any statisticians out there? Something like 1 : 1,000,000? (That says "one in a million" to the uninitiated.)
Well, they couldn't get it. I gave them a hint, same as Father. Still
no dice.
Key principle at work here:
This Is Not A Matter Of Intelligence. We are talking about the WILL. It's a matter of cold, hard will.
I said, "It's a word near the end." Still no go. Remember, this is a
pro, whose job it is to teach college level students in language the
meaning of words, and how important words are in context. They
could not find this word. FINALLY, I pointed at the word. What did
they say?
"Oh, well, that. Well, you have to remember that there was no deal,
and that is very fortunate." I asked them if they know where this
came from. They said they knew. Just to be sure, because they had
no interest in pronouncing the source or the situation, I said the 1988
text is what ABL signed on May 5th and then on May 6th, 1988 he
took back his signature.
They agreed they knew that. But note: they would not say it them-
selves, but only agreed that's what it was after I pronounced the fact
of its identity for them, very respectfully, and very slowly, in a soft,
smooth voice, not loud, not with an "attitude." And then the 2012
version is +Fellay's, the proposal that he sent to Rome, and he is the
one who added the word, "legitimate" to the text.
They replied, "Well, he has since rejected this." I corrected them,
"It was Rome who rejected it, not +Fellay."
The thing that really gets me is, we had just been talking as a
group together how Protestants jump topic when you get them into
a corner and they know they have no reasonable answer, so they
run off to another subject that they're more "comfortable" with.
We just talked about that.. More later (
at the end* of this post).
They said, "No, +Fellay has since taken this back." I asked them to
please tell me when he did so, and on what occasion and how do I
find a copy of that anywhere that I can read? They replied that it
was some other priest who was commenting on the letter of
+Williamson who said that this AFD "SHOULD" be taken back by
+Fellay. I replied, "Well some other priest saying he 'should' take it
back is not the same thing as +Fellay taking it back, is it?"
"The priest said that the wording was deficient, and it should be re-
worked, but for now, there is no agreement, so we should be over
this." [I guess it was Fr. Laisney saying "especially paragraph 7" and
all that, which is his comment on the +W letter - correct me if I'm
wrong.]
I asked, "Do you know what the importance of that one word is?"
Their response: "You have to remember that Bishop Fellay retracted
this whole thing." I told them we just talked about that, and it is not
something that +Fellay has done but someone else has said that
he should do it, correct?
Their reply? "You are just so hostile." This is what liberals always
do, when they find themselves in a disproven point, and cannot give
a satisfactory answer, they resort to
ad hominem. Most of the others in the group were very happy to find the different
word, and they reported their find with a smile. I told them,
"Congratulations! 100%!" And they were pleased.
Now I am sure that whatever other exercises I come up with, I'll
have to be sure to avoid the Accordistas, because they are not going
to want to play this game. Anyone who enjoys learning the truth is
"against +Fellay" or "difficult" or "hateful of the Society" or
"disobedient," etc., etc.
At the risk of quoting myself again I'm going to quote myself again:
If, however, they are ambivalent about the implications such as
that this one word being present means they're wasting their time
going to a TLM, or, if they want to change the subject because
they're bored with this one, then pick up your sandals, knock the
dust off, and leave town, because you have lost them.
What happened to me today was, the Accordistas got more chance
than anyone else in the room and are FAR MORE QUALIFIED to be
able to SPOT THE DIFFERENCE! --but were unable to do so. Once
I spilled the beans and told them what the word was, they were
ambivalent 'ALL GET OUT.' They were not so much as interested in
what the implications of this one word are. They did not want to
"debate." I said, "Debate? Who's asking to debate? I would like
to know if you are aware of the implications of this one word, and
you are unwilling to talk about it, and you were unwilling to even
acknowledge its existence."
We did not even get to the point of going to any TLM, which is what
they do. Actually, I don't really know, perhaps they also go to their
friendly neighborhood NovusOrdoNewmass AS WELL AS the TLM. I
doubt they would be willing to admit it if they do. They did not want
to change the subject. They simply did not want to have any further
conversation. They would not respond when I waved goodbye. They
have in the past shared with me the fact that they are Divine Mercy
fans and they really appreciate St. Faustina Kowalska.
They made sure not to be present on Divine Mercy Sunday, when
our pastor took a few minutes to give a scathing fact sheet of why
the DMS is not part of our routine, so I guess they don't want to
know about that, either, FWIW.
Now to review the excellent post of Wessex, for if you did not see
the deeper meaning of what his words offer, perhaps after reading
the above description, you will know what he meant. When Wessex
makes a post, it's not the sandbox version. You need to be in the
advanced class to see the light................
Post
Menzingen has been eroding the act of necessity to the point of making one feel guilty being estranged from Rome and the diocesan establishment. This means ABL's 'badge of honour' must now be a 'symbol of shame' and only a programme of reparation will enlighten the Society ready for its ultimate conversion.
Professionals in the art of subtlety have been busy on behalf of the leadership; the question being how [easily] are the rank and file to be fooled. The priest-members to their shame are overlooking fundamental issues, proving that they are followers and not leaders. Surely, they must know they are in for a steady stream of instructions in the remaking of the Society, reminiscent of the conciliar changes half a century ago.
Let's take this in parts.
"Menzingen has been eroding the act of necessity to the point of
making one feel guilty being estranged from Rome and the
diocesan establishment."It seems to me that they would have said to ABL,
"Don't you
feel a little guilty being estranged from Rome and the
diocesan establishment?" If you were a devil sitting on ABL's
shoulder, wouldn't you give that one-liner a shot?
Wouldn't you ??????
"This means ABL's 'badge of honour' must now be a
'symbol of shame' and only a programme of reparation will
enlighten the Society ready for its ultimate conversion."A SYMBOL OF SHAME. I've got to write this down. I hope that
Wessex can pitch in and give Ed a hand. I'm sure he could use
the friendship. Birds of a feather, you know.............
Only a programme of reparation will SHINE THE LIGHT OF TRUTH
on the Society, such that it would be
all dressed up and somewhere
to go! You know, like getting the Paschal Lamb ready for the
ceremony, "Leading the Lamb to Slaughter."
BTW, we should be aware that "conversion" is now re-defined to
mean "a burnt offering" or "
libation" or "h0Ɩ0cαųst" --- wait --- I
think that one is already copyrighted. Sorry. And we can't say
"sacrifice" because that has been VERBOTEN since the unclean
spirit of Vat.II flapped it's wings into the Sanctuary, you know,
at Econe or whatever. How "hateful" of me. Shame, shame.
"Professionals in the art of subtlety have been busy on
behalf of the leadership;"That one speaks for itself. Just give it a moment to sink in.
"..the question being: How easily are the rank and file
to be fooled?"With the help of The Recusant, it's going to be pretty dern'd tough.
An' Wessex don't hurt none, neither.
"The priest-members to their shame are overlooking
fundamental issues, proving that they are followers
and not leaders."You know folks, this really looks to me like we're seeing the stuff
of legend happen before our eyes. If Jeremiah Himself were here
today, he would have to stay up pretty late, and get up pretty early
to get a leg up on some of these words. Just sayin'..........
The punch line should be heard round the world:
"Surely, they must know
they are in for a steady
stream of instructions in
the remaking of the Society,
reminiscent of the conciliar
changes half a century ago."
Of course, to any Accordista worth his salt, anyone who dares to
make this observation "is so hateful of the Society." Never mind
that
true LOVE of the Society would lead one who knows these
things to at least try to
warn someone. Never mind. Love has
been re-defined, apparently. Now, it's "hate."
Many thanks to Wessex. I might be slow, but I'll get there.................
At least I don't have to wonder where I'm going!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
*At the end:Tele, Incred, and the gang will be pleased to know, that a certain topic
had come up during our group meeting, when the fact that the modern
Jєωs celebrate Chanukah, but they do not recognize the Scriptural
value of the Macchabees. They say those two books are "apocryphal."
At that point, our two resident Accordistas chimed in with a defense of
our "elder brothers in the faith" (not using that term, though) and said
that Jєωs consider the roots of Hanukkah an historical fact, but they do
not treat it as a "religious" event. I pointed out to them that the "fact"
they MUST recognize is none other than a MIRACULOUS event, since
it was the oil not running out for 8 days (nine altogether which is why
they have 9 branches on ALL the MODERN menorahs), and this
undeniable miracle could be nothing other than a RELIGIOUS event.
Our Accordistas had to back off, for they were stuck. And they could
not "jump topic" because we were on a scheduled discussion so the
next item was not to be of their choosing. So they went mute. It was
most edifying to see. They had tried to say that "We Catholics have
lots of miracles that are not part of Scripture." I said, okay, like the
miracle of Lepanto or the miracle of the sun at Fatima or all those of
Padre Pio or St. Anthony of Padua, the list can go on and on, but those
are all things that happened after Scripture was written. The miracle
at the root of Chanukah happened hundreds of years before the time
of Jesus, and there are two books written about it that the Church has
declared are of Scripture, but the modern Jєωs who rejected Our Lord
also rejected these books, as do the Protestants because the contain
the basis for the doctrine of Purgatory, but the most CONSPICUOUS
fact is that Protestants take sides with those who committed deicide
and do so in defiance of the authority of the Church that God gives us.
IOW: how 'hateful' of me. Imagine that, insisting on the truth? God
forbid!
Topic: The Recusant - Issue 7 - MayJune 2013 (Read 3182 times)