Author Topic: Worst enemies of the American brand of resistance. (Read 25037 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2014, 12:39:10 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: hollingsworth
I think ggreg was against the "resistance" long before Fr. Pheiffer's insinuations were ever made. I think he has been basically anti-Williamson and pro-neosspx from the beginning. In other words, if memory serves me correctly, ggreg never stood in opposition to Fellay & Co. on any level. If I'm wrong, ggreg, please correct my earlier perceptions. I encountered you on IA from time to time, and these are the impressions I came away with from your extensive commentary there. Or am I getting my "gregs" mixed up?

Regardless, I think GGreg is right. The Resistance's worst enemy is itself, which is why I believe it will be absorbed into sedevacantism eventually. Additionally, I agree with Greg that Fr Pfeiffer's comments about Pope Benedict cannot be undone in today's media.

As for where GGreg has stood on the issues, as I have said in the past, his substance and style are the closest thing to Michael Davies that I have seen since Davies passed away.

Translation:

Pete Vere would very much enjoy seeing the Resistance absorbed into sedevacantism, because the Resistance makes Vere uneasy. He is plagued with disquiet seeing an uncompromising adherence to Apostolic Tradition without any excuses. He wishes it would just go away.

A lot of Modernists for hundreds of years have been wishing that uncompromising adherence to Apostolic Tradition would just "go away."

Freemasons have been in the forefront of such wishes, but you don't have to be a Freemason to be doing the work of one.

.

Magna opera Domini · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2014, 12:46:32 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: hollingsworth
I think ggreg was against the "resistance" long before Fr. Pheiffer's insinuations were ever made. I think he has been basically anti-Williamson and pro-neosspx from the beginning. In other words, if memory serves me correctly, ggreg never stood in opposition to Fellay & Co. on any level. If I'm wrong, ggreg, please correct my earlier perceptions. I encountered you on IA from time to time, and these are the impressions I came away with from your extensive commentary there. Or am I getting my "gregs" mixed up?

Regardless, I think GGreg is right. The Resistance's worst enemy is itself, which is why I believe it will be absorbed into sedevacantism eventually. Additionally, I agree with Greg that Fr Pfeiffer's comments about Pope Benedict cannot be undone in today's media.

As for where GGreg has stood on the issues, as I have said in the past, his substance and style are the closest thing to Michael Davies that I have seen since Davies passed away.

Translation:

Pete Vere would very much enjoy seeing the Resistance absorbed into sedevacantism, because the Resistance makes Vere uneasy. He is plagued with disquiet seeing an uncompromising adherence to Apostolic Tradition without any excuses. He wishes it would just go away.

A lot of Modernists for hundreds of years have been wishing that uncompromising adherence to Apostolic Tradition would just "go away."

Freemasons have been in the forefront of such wishes, but you don't have to be a Freemason to be doing the work of one.

.

Magna opera Domini · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2014, 12:48:02 AM »

Meant to nominate the post by N.O. as his best post ever.

Wessex · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2014, 06:30:27 AM »

One may say that any act of 'disobedience' puts one on the road to SVism. Like compound interest it builds up dramatically over time. Lefebvrism may be a slow version in that it reaches a stage when it has to decide whether it is serious about being 'disobedient' or simply knows better than a church it recognises. Equally, Lefebvrism may be a slow version into the arms of conciliarism when stubborn thought processes soften and out of fatigue land on an outcome that is most feared. Ecclesia Dei is such a monument to conquered heroes!

Menzingen wants a cushy niche inside Rome even if it means rubbing shoulders and being in communion with some awful companions. There one literally sups with the devil. Restoring a church (without restoring a pope) used to be a declared ambition, now discarded for Fr Pfeiffer to salvage. I doubt whether there is much yardage in the 'two popes' technical glitch, enough to suspend belief in Ratzinger's past and present transgressions. So, I would cheer Fr. Pfeiffer on and hope he finds himself after years inside the SSPX straight-jacket. Prudence, that much overrated virtue, would frustrate his obvious and much-needed dynamism. We have suffered from too many talkers from the Michael Davies camp!

Francisco · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2014, 09:10:57 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

One may say that any act of 'disobedience' puts one on the road to SVism. Like compound interest it builds up dramatically over time. Lefebvrism may be a slow version in that it reaches a stage when it has to decide whether it is serious about being 'disobedient' or simply knows better than a church it recognises. Equally, Lefebvrism may be a slow version into the arms of conciliarism when stubborn thought processes soften and out of fatigue land on an outcome that is most feared. Ecclesia Dei is such a monument to conquered heroes!

Menzingen wants a cushy niche inside Rome even if it means rubbing shoulders and being in communion with some awful companions. There one literally sups with the devil. Restoring a church (without restoring a pope) used to be a declared ambition, now discarded for Fr Pfeiffer to salvage. I doubt whether there is much yardage in the 'two popes' technical glitch, enough to suspend belief in Ratzinger's past and present transgressions. So, I would cheer Fr. Pfeiffer on and hope he finds himself after years inside the SSPX straight-jacket. Prudence, that much overrated virtue, would frustrate his obvious and much-needed dynamism. We have suffered from too many talkers from the Michael Davies camp!

Michael Davies once compared the TLM to a Rolls Royce and the NOM to a Mini Minor. Maybe he made similar comparisons concerning popes. A Mass is a Mass, a Pope is a Pope, a car is a car. So many people have put so much money into this "Traditionalist" venture, and have been taken for a ride.

JPaul · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2014, 11:24:27 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

One may say that any act of 'disobedience' puts one on the road to SVism. Like compound interest it builds up dramatically over time. Lefebvrism may be a slow version in that it reaches a stage when it has to decide whether it is serious about being 'disobedient' or simply knows better than a church it recognises. Equally, Lefebvrism may be a slow version into the arms of conciliarism when stubborn thought processes soften and out of fatigue land on an outcome that is most feared. Ecclesia Dei is such a monument to conquered heroes!

Menzingen wants a cushy niche inside Rome even if it means rubbing shoulders and being in communion with some awful companions. There one literally sups with the devil. Restoring a church (without restoring a pope) used to be a declared ambition, now discarded for Fr Pfeiffer to salvage. I doubt whether there is much yardage in the 'two popes' technical glitch, enough to suspend belief in Ratzinger's past and present transgressions. So, I would cheer Fr. Pfeiffer on and hope he finds himself after years inside the SSPX straight-jacket. Prudence, that much overrated virtue, would frustrate his obvious and much-needed dynamism. We have suffered from too many talkers from the Michael Davies camp!

I don't think the finding of one's self is possible when the formative indoctrination within the Society was so deeply rooted.
Even Bishop Williamson is still floating about in the deflated raft of his Society formation.
As demonstrated by the recent spate of mortar fire into the sedevacantist camp, it appears that they are clinging to the raft all the more tightly.
And though they have been separated from the Society, they adamantly refuse to separate themselves from it, choosing to navigate close to the SSPX shoreline, reluctant to head for the dangers and opportunities of open waters.

bowler · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2014, 11:25:04 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Since we all know that the American brand of the resistance, which is not confined to the US, has became extremely comfortable with the Novus Ordo sect just as my last thread showed (even allowing their immorality to enter within the flock where women attend Mass wearing immodest clothing (you've passed by a Novus Ordo parish and seen the immodest near prostitute like garb they enter in the church with we know you have), I have to ask: Who is the worst enemy for the American brand of the resistance?

Is it the sedevacantists?

Or

Is it the SSPX?

Which group does the resistance hate the most and why?

We know they are not concerned with the Novus Ordo sect, since most admit they are coming from it bringing all their confusions along with them. All of the energy and efforts are spent on slamming and spreading rumors about the SSPX in order to justify their existence in the first place and then attacking sedevacantists as if to prove that that is not who they are or to rebut any accusation of sedevacantism. Have they forgot that the original modernists (those of the Novus Ordo sect) are the actual problem?

This opening thread above and what entails from it, is a perfect example of what I said in another thread:

Quote

Quote from: bowler
I have found that there are not a few troubled people here on CI, and it would appear that they represent the a good percentage of the postings (quantity over quality) in threads that do not discuss specific doctrines, in other words in threads that anyone can post their personal opinions.

In real life, if I were face to face with these troubled people, I would likely not even discuss the subjects with them because I would SEE their real situation. One can see a troubled person by their appearance and actions, one can't see that over the internet.

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: crossbro

Could you expand and elaborate on this part of your quote ? I think it needs clarifying and would be of some help:

Quote from: bowler

In real life, if I were face to face with these troubled people, I would likely not even discuss the subjects with them because I would SEE their real situation. One can see a troubled person by their appearance and actions, one can't see that over the internet.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2014, 11:32:22 AM »

Says the heretic who thinks that no one can get into heaven without literal water being poured on their head...to believe in invincible ignorance, he should be thankful it exists as it is his only chance of making it.

Wessex · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2014, 01:40:52 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Wessex
One may say that any act of 'disobedience' puts one on the road to SVism. Like compound interest it builds up dramatically over time. Lefebvrism may be a slow version in that it reaches a stage when it has to decide whether it is serious about being 'disobedient' or simply knows better than a church it recognises. Equally, Lefebvrism may be a slow version into the arms of conciliarism when stubborn thought processes soften and out of fatigue land on an outcome that is most feared. Ecclesia Dei is such a monument to conquered heroes!

Menzingen wants a cushy niche inside Rome even if it means rubbing shoulders and being in communion with some awful companions. There one literally sups with the devil. Restoring a church (without restoring a pope) used to be a declared ambition, now discarded for Fr Pfeiffer to salvage. I doubt whether there is much yardage in the 'two popes' technical glitch, enough to suspend belief in Ratzinger's past and present transgressions. So, I would cheer Fr. Pfeiffer on and hope he finds himself after years inside the SSPX straight-jacket. Prudence, that much overrated virtue, would frustrate his obvious and much-needed dynamism. We have suffered from too many talkers from the Michael Davies camp!

I don't think the finding of one's self is possible when the formative indoctrination within the Society was so deeply rooted.
Even Bishop Williamson is still floating about in the deflated raft of his Society formation.
As demonstrated by the recent spate of mortar fire into the sedevacantist camp, it appears that they are clinging to the raft all the more tightly.
And though they have been separated from the Society, they adamantly refuse to separate themselves from it, choosing to navigate close to the SSPX shoreline, reluctant to head for the dangers and opportunities of open waters.

True, a layman can walk away but a member has invested his heart and soul in the SSPX project ..... and like the mafia you cannot leave without there being some consequences. However, so many priests have done it and lived to pursue a career elsewhere. I guess one has to have a strong constitution to take on the Society because you will be running the gauntlet between the chain of command and a family of fellow priests. And, yes. there may be a tendency to backtrack a little and resurrect a common bogeyman in sedevecantism when they discover the 'outside' is a little lonely and very different from before. But Fr. P and Bp. W must surely realise there is no going back. They may claim to be the authentic heirs of ideological Lefebvre but it is his institution that the pragmatic laity prefer to engage with. They should establish a new mission with a more positive goal than resistance before they fade from memory.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2014, 03:07:26 PM »

ggreg:

Quote

One does not need to attack the resistance. Simply wait for Fr. Pfeiffer to say something crackers and the whole thing begins to lose credibility.

I see. "(S)omething crackers," says greg. So, when Fr. Pfeiffer lends possible credence to the story that Card. Ratzinger attended an event, (a black mass) at which a child was sacrificed, this indicates that he has gone over the edge, thus showing all who will listen that Fr. Pfeiffer is not to be trusted, much less followed. I guess that's what greg is driving at, right, greg?
Greg, will you go on record to deny that Ratzinger was ever present at, or participated in one of these dark ceremonies? I want you declare openly to all the members of the forum that you are certain beyond any shadow of doubt that he never was; and that even to consider or think for a moment, that the cardinal might have witnessed one of these events is totally crazy. There is absolutely no possibility that alleged "eyewitnesses" may be telling the truth. How about it, son.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2014, 07:19:42 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Translation:

Pete Vere would very much enjoy seeing the Resistance absorbed into sedevacantism, because the Resistance makes Vere uneasy. He is plagued with disquiet seeing an uncompromising adherence to Apostolic Tradition without any excuses. He wishes it would just go away.

A lot of Modernists for hundreds of years have been wishing that uncompromising adherence to Apostolic Tradition would just "go away."

Freemasons have been in the forefront of such wishes, but you don't have to be a Freemason to be doing the work of one.

.

Here'e a more direct translation:

The Resistance is dead. As a rear-guard action it still has some pockets here and there. However, these will fragment and die within a decade of Mgr Williamson's death.

Mgr Williamson's recently commentary is not so much lobbing mortar rounds into the sedevacantist camp as it is negotiating the Resistance's terms of surrender to sedes.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2014, 07:28:14 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

ggreg:
Quote
One does not need to attack the resistance. Simply wait for Fr. Pfeiffer to say something crackers and the whole thing begins to lose credibility.

I see. "(S)omething crackers," says greg. So, when Fr. Pfeiffer lends possible credence to the story that Card. Ratzinger attended an event, (a black mass) at which a child was sacrificed, this indicates that he has gone over the edge, thus showing all who will listen that Fr. Pfeiffer is not to be trusted, much less followed. I guess that's what greg is driving at, right, greg?
Greg, will you go on record to deny that Ratzinger was ever present at, or participated in one of these dark ceremonies? I want you declare openly to all the members of the forum that you are certain beyond any shadow of doubt that he never was; and that even to consider or think for a moment, that the cardinal might have witnessed one of these events is totally crazy. There is absolutely no possibility that alleged "eyewitnesses" may be telling the truth. How about it, son.

Not sure about GGreg.

But yes, I will go on record as morally certain Pope Benedict never participated at an occultic ceremony where a child or anyone else was sacrificed to Satan.

Matto · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2014, 07:29:07 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

The Resistance is dead.

So speaks the Vatican II believing indultarian annulment lawyer (marriage desecrator) who wrote a book against traditional Catholics. Don't you believe in Vatican II? I thought you did but am not sure.

JPaul · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2014, 09:02:07 PM »

Pete Vere.

Quote

Mgr Williamson's recently commentary is not so much lobbing mortar rounds into the sedevacantist camp as it is negotiating the Resistance's terms of surrender to sedes.

It is simply Bishop Williamson returning to true SSPX format, but at the same time attempting to provide a softer cushion for them to land on.
Neither he nor the resistance will exceed the limits of their programming.

ggreg · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2014, 07:01:26 AM »

video removed

Obviously someone does not want to stand by their own words.

Perhaps he thinks he was wrong.