Author Topic: There Is No Red Light (Read 10628 times)

s2srea · « **Reply #75 on:** March 29, 2013, 03:57:24 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

I could have easily gone to the Good Friday liturgy today and remainder of Holy Week via the 'approved' Trad chapels. This is compromise.

I think you are letting the devil deceive you here JG, and have yet to see a logical reason for your stay-at-home Catholicism. I will pray for you, please do the same for me.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #76 on:** March 29, 2013, 04:00:03 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Even a few days ago, I had SSPX people tell me Pope Francis is a good pope.

Seems like many of Bishop Fellay's supporters are fond of him. A few of them do realize the truth about him, such as Rorate Caeli, but there are still pro-Fellay SSPXers who think he's wonderful. It's sad.

I've yet to encounter one supporter of Bishop Williamson who thinks Francis is a good Pope. Speaks volume.

Machabees · « **Reply #77 on:** March 29, 2013, 04:04:35 PM »

Seraphim said,

Quote

The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,

Quote

(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,

Quote

Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.

Quote

"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

s2srea · « **Reply #78 on:** March 29, 2013, 04:54:05 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Seraphim said,
Quote
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

No responses after Seraphim's last post, no.

Quote

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Stop being dramatic. Re-read what I wrote: "He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- "

Even then, I go on to argue why your "Red Light" argument fails. Nowhere is he advising everyone to abandon ship but, rather, encourages his Prists to tell, and thereby remain a part of the Society, their laity what is going on.

Quote

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Quote

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy,

And this was rejected. (<-that little dot there is a period)

Please, don't lead yourself to believe I somehow excuse or 'believe in' Bishop Fellay. I have spoken out against his actions not only here- but also to those who attend my chapel.

Quote

PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

See my response just above this one. It was rejected- it is not official policy. It is not what is official promoted by the Society. The point I'm trying to make is that when it is, and I pray that the Grace of our Blessed Lord does not let that be so, I will change my position. For now, I see the hand of God at work here, one way or another. If He is simply stalling, for the benefit of souls, things that are to come, then so be it. But there is not sufficient reason to deprive my family of the sacraments.

Now- this may be an situation not all are privileged to be in; I am fortunate in that the priest I have assigned to my chapel is a holy and humble man. (Fr. Cooper). Do I wish he would react and respond different? To be sure! If, however, I had a +Fellay worshiping, Fr. Rostand rear-end kissing mongrel, I can see the need to stay away! But this isn't the case for the majority of people here.

Quote

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Yes, it is a crisis of Faith. Did not Archbishop Lefebvre do all he could before he finally Consecrated the 4 Bishops? The issue is, largely, with the hierarchy, in my opinion (Menzengen and those in power, thanks to Bishop Fellay). Sadly, most of the laity are oblivious to what is going on. Yet there has been no quieting of discussion of the Faith at my chapel. No holding back by my priest on preaching against the errors and evils of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and the NewChurch establishment. So, for me, there is not sufficient reason to stop attending. You, apparently feel differently. I see error in your thinking in that everyone should stop attending; it isn't so for 'everyone'.

Quote

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected;

This may apply to you; please realize, however, that you have no authority with your opinions, nor are you infallible.

Quote

it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

Agreed! And I hope that Our Blessed Lord intervenes and obtains the expulsion of Bishop Fellay and his cohorts.

Quote

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Again- you are drawing your own conclusions from the facts that Bishop Williamson here presented! Do you not realize that he (and not Seraphim, as you implied) still, with this quote in mind, gave a "yellow light" for attendance at Society Masses??? Do you believe the Doctrinal Preamble was news to him as it was to us when it was released? Please... Think!

Quote

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

I have no attachment, by God's Grace, to anything but the will of our Blessed Lord. I can see you are trying your best to do the Will of God; I am trying as well. Please pray for me and my family. A Blessed Easter to you as well.

John Grace · « **Reply #79 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:05:57 PM »

Quote

I think you are letting the devil deceive you here JG, and have yet to see a logical reason for your stay-at-home Catholicism. I will pray for you, please do the same for me.

I will certainly pray for you. As for me staying at home, I don't have to explain myself. Where could I attend Mass? I certainly reject the point about being deceived by the Devil.

John Grace · « **Reply #80 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:10:56 PM »

Though there is little difference between the neo SSPX and the Institute Christ the King. Perhaps I should have gone to them today.

For Greater Glory · « **Reply #81 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:12:15 PM »

Machabees
Seraphim said,
Quote:
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote:
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote:
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote:
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

:applause:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #82 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:21:38 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Seraphim said,
Quote
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).

s2srea said,
Quote
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.

s2srea said,
Quote
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...

No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.

Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?

Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.

Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?

As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?

Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!

What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!

Bishop Williamson said.
Quote
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."

Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.

How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.

Blind leaders are a punishment from God.

People who WANT to see the ~~red~~ light will FIND the ~~red~~ light.

It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.

Have a Blessed Easter...

please quote the red light.

John Grace · « **Reply #83 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:22:26 PM »

I see where people are coming from as it might vary from chapel to chapel but I am inclined to agree with Fr Pfeiffer. I prayed about it and decided never to attend the SSPX again. Move onwards after Easter.

John Grace · « **Reply #84 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:26:25 PM »

In reality it is a matter for SSPX clergy and not laity.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #85 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:40:41 PM »

If an SSPX Mass were all I had access to, then unless attending it was a danger to my faith, I would continue to attend it. Even Bishop Williamson says we may do this.

John Grace · « **Reply #86 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:48:31 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

If an SSPX Mass were all I had access to, then unless attending it was a danger to my faith, I would continue to attend it. Even Bishop Williamson says we may do this.

I can accept this view. I have no way of getting to Sunday Mass. I was offered a lift several times to the 'approved' Mass but in principle decline. Now in principle I won't attend the SSPX. It varies but how are they any different to the 'approved' groups?

It's what God wants and not Bishop Williamson. Ideally new chapels need to be established with visiting priests.

Ireland has suited both Indult and SSPX and the SSPX have never expanded so when there is a regularisation of the SSPX, laity will have two choices, the Indult or the SSPX. Unlike other countries, Independent chapels have not flourished here.

s2srea · « **Reply #87 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:52:02 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

I see where people are coming from as it might vary from chapel to chapel but I am inclined to agree with Fr Pfeiffer. I prayed about it and decided never to attend the SSPX again. Move onwards after Easter.

Though its not impossible, I see no reason not to receive the sacraments during this Paschal Tide time from those validly ordained.

Quote

In reality it is a matter for SSPX clergy and not laity.

Agreed.

John Grace · « **Reply #88 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:57:11 PM »

Quote

I see no reason not to receive the sacraments during this Paschal Tide time from those validly ordained.

In a cynical move by Indult folk, they brought in the Institute Christ the King to one Irish Diocese for a Sunday Mass as some attending opposed it being a Diocesan priest offering a Traditional Mass. Naturally soft line types were happy with this.

I certainly won't commit indultry.

stgobnait · « **Reply #89 on:** March 29, 2013, 05:59:40 PM »

Irish people like 'structures' thats why independent chapels dont thrive, and for a long time, sspx provided some structure, though that has waned in the last few years. Most Irish people, want to be with the pope/popes....... :confused1: