CathInfo.com

What a lot of fuss.

Sean Johnson, I apologise that we are a little late getting the March/April issue out. It is late because we're not Angelus Press, we don't charge people, we don't make lots of money (we don't make any money!), I don't draw a nice handsome editors salary (in fact I don't get any salary, not a single penny), and in the meantime real life occasionally gets in the way. It's free because it's a work offered to Almighty God, not a business.

I'll take this thread as a compliment, however. It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated now and then.

And now, if you don't mind, I haven't really time for much more discussion, interesting though it no doubt would be.

You can perhaps rest assured, Ed., that SeanJohnson is only interested in Issue #15 because he suspects that someone has falsified the names of the Dominicans of Avrille on the list of signatories to the January Letter to the Faithful.  He is all worked up into a tizzy over finding out that something untoward has taken place, and he hopes he can find a clue in this new Issue.  

Apparently TheRecusant has become known as "a periodical" and you've been "publishing."  Another feather in your cap, that?  

.

.
Dear Nobody,  

You are making no sense here.

Neil Obstat,

Why are you treating SeanJohnson like that ?

Like what?

You sound so hot headed and full of bitter zeal.

I'm sorry I must have missed that.  Can you provide one example, or two?

And you  are wrong too. On this thread, you made at least one false accusation against SeanJohnson

So I'm wrong, am I?  I made two typos and I corrected them.  Are you referring to something else?  If so, it would be informative for you to identify it so I can have some clue what in the world you're talking about.  

and your posts came across as very proud and insulting.

And yours don't?  You're proudly insulting me with no evidence, and what, that's okay?

I don't care on which side of the fence you are,

What "fence" are you dreaming up now?  Does it have a name?

but I wish you were not part of the Resistance. I'd be ashamed of associating with you.

What is the Resistance, anyway?  Do you have a definition?  Are you telling me I should not be Catholic, or, are you saying I should not use any logic, to be more like you, for example?

Did you notice that SeanJohnson did NOT return the insults and bitterness ?

Do you need a list of those as well?

If you have not charity, you have NOTHING !

I come here to stay informed and occasionally engage in a respectful and objective discussion, not to be witness to someone ranting and raving about trivialities !

Gosh, I wish I could understand what you're specifically accusing me of.  

Should I make a list?  Because I doubt you could make one.  

He repeatedly questioned that there would be any more issues, and demanded someone to prove him wrong.  That's like saying, can you prove you have stopped beating you wife?  Or can you prove that they will not build a bridge over this river? Now that we have confirmation that the new Issue #15 is in process, and SeanJohnson was wrong, and I was right, you're defending his insolence and suspicions?  And that's what you think means charity?

I called him on it and he went nuts.  Is that my fault?  We even had a post from another member testifying to the copies being in process, but he wouldn't believe that -- not convincing enough for him.  So what's the big deal?  

What false accusation did I make, anyway?  Can you name it, or are you just happy with blanket statements like that?  

What bitterness are you referring to?  Is fact and logic foreign to your thinking?  

Sometimes logic can seem rough, but that's usually when you're on the erroneous side of the dividing line.  It seems to me you're pretty confused as to what charity means.  


.

 :applause: :applause: :applause::
Lent is long...  We needed a respite, thanks!! :)

.


If you take a few minutes to work with what you've got, there is plenty to do even without the issue #15 in your mailbox, yet.................................




It helped me to make that previous post, because putting it all together in one place like that, it becomes more obvious that the "official clarification" of +F doesn't mention anything about what Cardinal Canizares was talking about, even though +F was claiming to provide the "context" of his words and "what he actually said."  

There are several things that now fairly jump off the page:  

1)  If the Cardinal had been under the impression that there was any such context, he would likely have made some mention of that, but he did not.  He gave not a single hint of any such 'context' at all.  

2)  The so-called context proffered by +F does not even make sense in regards to the statement of the Cardinal.  See Below.  

3)  What +F provides in his so-called clarification talks about a different topic for 4/5 of the words, and then suddenly at the end he jumps to a side issue regarding the seminarians that only vaguely perhaps possibly is in the remotely distant similar topic, but not really.  See Below.  

4)  If what +F provides as a clarification were really what he had said to the Cardinal, the Cardinal probably would not have given him the time of day, because that is not anything the Cardinal would have wanted to hear.  Therefore, it is neither the context nor the actual words that +F had used, even if it were what he had in mind at the time, which I highly doubt was the case.  




Had +F said these things when he had met with the Cardinal, it would have been like this (the bold covers direct quotes from +F's so-called clarification):

Cardinal Canizares (CC):
Hello, Bishop Fellay, it's nice to see you today!  Welcome! Come right in to my office!

+Fellay:
Thank, you, your Eminence!  It's great to be here.

CC:
So, what do you have for me today, some good news?

+F:
Oh, I have great news.  Here are a few things I've had on my mind for a long time and I thought you would do well in knowing about it.  Firstly, I have to provide some context.  The abuses in the liturgy have caused a major reaction amongst us.  This is still the case today, in the sense that the abuses and sacrileges in the sacred liturgy have helped the faithful and even priests to quickly and more fully understand the profound defects and danger of the Novus Ordo - because there is a link between the New Mass and the abuses. The abuses have helped to prove that our position is the right one: that is, the New Mass is not good in itself.

CC:
Wait a minute.  I thought you said there was some good news.  Do you recall who I am or where you are?  This is my office.  I am Cardinal Canizares.  Are you losing your grip on reality, Bishop Fellay?

+F:
Please, forgive me, you Eminence!  I was just trying to provide some context so that later on, like next year or the year after, I can give my eager audience some snippets of some tough talk that we exchanged today.  It's all for internal management, you see.

CC:
Oh, I guess then it's not what I thought it was.  All right then, proceed.  Get on to the good news, now, would you, please?

+F:
All right, then.  This having been said, from the beginning and before the abuses took place, Archbishop Lefebvre had already refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Because the serious omissions and the whole [conciliar] reform, done in an ecuмenical spirit, gives it a Protestant savor.

CC:
Now just one minute here.  You just told me again that you have some GOOD NEWS for me, and here you go saying that the ORDINARY ROMAN RITE of MASS has a quote, "protestant savor?"  Are you and I from the same PLANET, Bishop Fellay?  Protestant Savor, does it?  Are you saying I am a protestant, your Excellency?

+F:
Oh, no, Your Eminence.  I wasn't saying that at all.  It's just that the New Mass puts at risk the Catholic Faith and the numerous examples of faithful and priests who have lost the Faith directly linked with the celebration of the Novus Ordo are quite blatant.

CC:
That's it.  I'm calling security.  You are flat-out nuts, man.  You're off your rocker.  I can't afford the insurance premiums I'd have to pay letting you stand here and spout your insanity like this.  Here they are.  Officer, conduct this man to the front door and bid him farewell, because he is a threat to our security here.  

+F:
But Your Eminenece!  You haven't heard the best part yet! Nevertheless, for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass.

CC:
That's right, show him the front door!  (Armed secrurity guards have +F by each elbow and are pulling him down the hallway as +F shouts over his shoulder toward the office of Cardinal Canizares.)

+F:
It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s va-a-a-ca-a-a-a-tio-o-o-o-o-ns!  (+F's voice fades away as Security turns the corner toward the front door.)



Now, according to this version of +Fellay's, where does the Cardinal arrive at his own version which says the following? (As reported by Rome Reports on January 16, 2013 in an article entitled, “Cardinal Canizares: The most urgent reform is liturgical formation”):  

Quote from: Rome Reports

Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated to the press on January 15th:

On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just came from an abbey that is near Florence.  If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.

Maybe I'm not quite imaginative to do it, but try as I may, I cannot find any place in +F's so-called clarification where this version of Cardinal Canizares can fit -- AT ALL.  

Anyone else who would like to give it a shot  ----- BE MY GUEST!!  


.