Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Centroamerica on February 21, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
-
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?
-
The worst enemy is the resistance themselves.
Compared to the damage they do to themselves by their nuttiness, the outside forces are insignificant.
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. That statement about Ratzinger can never be withdrawn. It is out there now and will be found by a Google search for the next 10 years.
Anything he says in the future, people will simply say, "Oh, yeah? Like that time you said Pope Benedict killed a child in a Satanic Ritual?". His credibility is done, toasted to a crisp. The only way for him to keep the loons who stay happy is to repeat the mistake and get even more crackers. Which is exactly what will happen.
Collecting a lot of hot headed people in one place is never a good idea. To be stable organisations need balance and calm heads. This is one reason that after a revolution the new dictator has to kill a lot of the original hot headed people because they keep destabilizing things.
-
We need Archbishop Lefebvre...
:pray:
-
ggreg, I think you must have momentarily forgotten that Fr Pfieffer is not 'The Resistance'. He has played an integral part in it, but he is not it's sum total. I wish he hadn't mentioned the Bohemian Grove story. Not because it impossible and crazy, but because he should have had solid proof first. But, I think it is a bit soon to write off the whole resistance as doomed to failure because of it. There are many good priests in the resistance, including Fr Pfieffer, and more trickling in all the time. If we spent half the time praying for them that we do nit-picking for reasons to give them black eyes, I think we would all be in much better shape.
-
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?
-
Hate? REALLY? HATE? I don't speak for any "Resistance".but I can say that the people I know who are fighting to keep the mission of ABL alive don't HATE anyone. If anything, they feel sad for them. They offer sacrificesfor them. They pray for them. But hate them? Never.
-
ggreg, I think you must have momentarily forgotten that Fr Pfieffer is not 'The Resistance'. He has played an integral part in it, but he is not it's sum total. I wish he hadn't mentioned the Bohemian Grove story. Not because it impossible and crazy, but because he should have had solid proof first. But, I think it is a bit soon to write off the whole resistance as doomed to failure because of it. There are many good priests in the resistance, including Fr Pfieffer, and more trickling in all the time. If we spent half the time praying for them that we do nit-picking for reasons to give them black eyes, I think we would all be in much better shape.
What priest's name is most commonly typed on this forum when discussing the Resistance?
Which other resistance priest has more sermons and speeches posted on youtube?
Who else has a seminary set up on his family's land?
Fr. Pfeiffer is a figurehead.
-
Celebrity priests are always hard to take seriously.
-
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?
Centroamerica, what is your actual intent with such an inflamatory post? Are you trying to divide, inflame "hate" as you assert exists in the Resistance? Just what are your intentions? Yours is a very strange post and appears to be meant to stir up strife amongst Traditional Catholics. Is that what we are to be about with our limited time here? I do not believe so.
-
This is what happens when one is careless or reckless in speaking. His enemies will always seize upon his lapses and try to ruin him.
The resistance should be exceedingly careful in their actions, as they are a new entity which has not had the time to build up a sufficient reserve of goodwill which might stave off the effects of the occasional bout of self immolation.
-
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?
Catholics shouldn't hate anyone.
-
We need Archbishop Lefebvre...
:pray:[/quote
We need God and our Blessed Mother. We need the true Catholic faith.
-
Catholics don't hate anyone
-
Catholics hate ~ SIN!
-
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.
-
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.
.
-
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.
.
-
Meant to nominate the post by N.O. as his best post ever.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
Could you expand and elaborate on this part of your quote ? I think it needs clarifying and would be of some help:
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.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y209/andywayne/Misc/Far%20Side/08-09-07-3.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
ggreg:
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.
-
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.
-
ggreg: 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.
-
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.
-
Pete Vere.
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.
-
video removed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WswPqcXcUhM
Obviously someone does not want to stand by their own words.
Perhaps he thinks he was wrong.
-
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.
It's more than "possible credence".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB52nfmACVo at 25 mins in.
Sorry, but that is Calumny by any sensible measure. When a priest speaks from the pulpit he needs to be very careful what he is saying. When he suggests that witnesses saw a Cardinal involved in a ritual murder, the onus is on that priest to make sure that the witnesses are credible and reliable. You can always find some loony who claimed to witness something which never took place. You cannot simply pass off repeating their calumny as lending "possible credence".
Your "possible credence" defence is simply displaying your sickening syncophancy and cultish following. Basic natural justice would have any mentally well balanced person, let alone a Catholic, horrifed by the idea of a cleric being falsely accused of a dastardly crime of child murder. I would not want my worst enemy accused falsely.
But for cult members and loons the end justifies the means when push comes to shove.
-
Sadly, what Father Pfeiffer said was nothing more than third or fourth hand heresay of gossips and possible calumnies.
It is far below the desired priestly dignity by any measure and entirely unacceptable in a public sermon and without unshakable proof in hand.
On this hand he will tell you that Benedict is a Satanist and in the next sermon he will tell you that of course he was the pope.
This is the dual mindedness of the SSPX. The SSPX has left the resistance but the resistance has not left the SSPX.
Adding that it is the same mind as the Conservative Conciliarists and the Indultists, save that these are a milder expression of that thinking.
-
On this hand he will tell you that Benedict is a Satanist and in the next sermon he will tell you that of course he was the pope.
This is the dual mindedness of the SSPX.
:applause: x 1000
-
I've come to the conclusion that the stress of seeing the visible Church collapse and orient itself towards a completely new faith has made a lot of Trads, a minority but a sizeable minority, go somewhat insane.
They are seeking answers to a VERY confusing situation and it is hard to maintain ones sanity when the thing you love is collapsing.
It's not dissimilar to your wife or husband getting Alzheimers disease.
-
.
There are a couple of errors here:
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30061&min=20#p4)
ggreg: 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.
Fr. Pfeiffer didn't say "black mass" but rather a ritual child sacrifice -- it sounds like he's talking about the Bohemian Grove effigy of Moloch that is held annually with lots of security and restricted entry, a place where they say all our recent presidents have attended since around WWI or so -- that if you don't go there, you won't be elected president. The implication seems to be that if you don't go there you won't be elected pope -- but Fr. did not SAY that, I'm speculating here (there is nothing about any of the other popes going to Bohemian Grove, and curiously, some think that Ratzinger has been the only VALID pope since erstwhile Cardinal Siri, after Pius XII!)
Also, when a priest talks like this from the pulpit and especially when he knows he's being recorded for all the world to hear, it's more than "possible credence." There is a pretty serious issue with credibility. This could be actionable by legal means, if it is not true, but even if there is no evidence for it. He said in a couple of weeks this will be reported by someone -- what if it doesn't get reported? Then Fr. Pfeiffer has taken a pretty big risk, I would think.
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 [to] 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. [And that] There is absolutely no possibility that alleged "eyewitnesses" may be telling the truth. How about it, son.
It isn't incuмbent on a questioner (ggreg) to prove he's correct in doubting the veracity of the original accusation about erstwhile Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The burden of proof is on the speaker (Fr. Pfeiffer) to show evidence of what he's saying.
I'm not sure what to make of this whole thing, but it's drawing some pretty bad attention to the Resistance, and ggreg could be correct that the Resistance will suffer for many years because of this. As bad as other groups might act from time to time, I haven't seen the SSPX or Newchurch or sedevacantists or Orthodox or anyone else accusing Resistance priests of ritual child sacrifice. Also, Fr. P. mentions as a source Fr. Malachi Martin in his claim that a black mass was held in two places (Rome and America) at the same time to accomplish a particular purpose with the devil. That is not the same topic as the Ratzinger accusation, however.
We should have a transcript of the 24-26 minute segment. Otherwise, it's a pretty good sermon, and as usual, has a lot of strong points, things you won't hear in any diocese sermon.
.
-
I've come to the conclusion that the stress of seeing the visible Church collapse and orient itself towards a completely new faith has made a lot of Trads, a minority but a sizeable minority, go somewhat insane.
They are seeking answers to a VERY confusing situation and it is hard to maintain ones sanity when the thing you love is collapsing.
It's not dissimilar to your wife or husband getting Alzheimers disease.
:dancing-banana:
Very occasionally, I agree with Gregg. See my post on Bp. Sanborn thread. BTW, Fr. Pfeiffer addressed the matter in his sermon of Feb. 22 from Jersey City, NJ. I don't know if it has been posted online yet.
-
I've come to the conclusion that the stress of seeing the visible Church collapse and orient itself towards a completely new faith has made a lot of Trads, a minority but a sizeable minority, go somewhat insane.
They are seeking answers to a VERY confusing situation and it is hard to maintain ones sanity when the thing you love is collapsing.
It's not dissimilar to your wife or husband getting Alzheimers disease.
This is a very reasonable assessment -- even though I don't normally appreciate ggreg's posts! HAHAHAHAHA
.
-
.
I heard a priest admonish a group of Catholics not to be worrying about matters outside our control, and then went on to say that our wealth and comfortable lives are not what we can rely on, but rather our treasure is our Faith in God. Then he spoke about this sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer, and its accusation against then Cardinal Ratzinger (1987). And he repeated that we shouldn't let this be a cause of concern for us, because it couldn't be true.
So there are lots of lines in the sand over this. And ritual infanticide is a hot-button issue, that is, among those who have not yet lost all sense of morality, what with the ritual child sacrifice of abortion being "legal".
Perhaps Fr. P. was just trying to wake people up, but this is a pretty extreme way to do that.
.
-
Let's not forget the fact that the entire Ratzinger family had their name dragged through the mud in the sermon, not just pope Benedict. Do his parents who according to existing accounts were devout Catholics deserve that? Look at the marriage ad (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404487/Popes-shocking-secret-His-parents-met-newspaper-marriage-advert.html) through which his father came in contact with his mother and ask yourself whether that sounds like a Satanist.
-
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.
The Novus Ordo sect is spiritually dead and can offer no sanctifying grace.
The "priests" of that sect that Pete Vere praises are laymen.
-
Pete Vere.
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.
Well, Bergoglio is the best recruiting sargeant for SVism. No need to agonise over papal nuances. People outside the religious sphere are worried about his globalist intentions. (http://www.infowars.com/pope-francis-and-the-emerging-one-world-religion/).
I dare say the SSPX programming you speak of did not reckon on things going this far. But I suspect the Society is now well and truly trapped while the resistance does at least have some freedom to respond to Vatican excesses.
-
You may all treat greg as you please, and give him the argument on this point. However, I will concede nothing to him or to Pete Vere. Benedict could very well be a Satanist. Is it hard to believe that a pope who has known for decades all about widespread clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse among chilren, rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity involving hundereds, maybe thousands, of priests and religious, perversion at the highest levels in the church; who knows to this day where probably most of the bodies lie, and does vitually nothing to expose this horror or to move against guilty clerics in any way, is it so hard to believe that such a one could not be a Satanist? Is it so difficult to believe that one who knows and has covered up these monstrous deeds throughout much of his career might not at one time have taken it to the next level? Who would have believed that some of the tribal descendants of the Chosen people coming out of Egypt might one day sacrifice their own children to Moloch and to Ashteroth? I don't mind being called a nut or crazy by the likes of greg, believe me!
-
Pete Vere.
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.
Well, Bergoglio is the best recruiting sargeant for SVism. No need to agonise over papal nuances. People outside the religious sphere are worried about his globalist intentions. (http://www.infowars.com/pope-francis-and-the-emerging-one-world-religion/).
I dare say the SSPX programming you speak of did not reckon on things going this far. But I suspect the Society is now well and truly trapped while the resistance does at least have some freedom to respond to Vatican excesses.
What response can the resistance have that does not violate their fundamental R&R orientation?
And I certainly agree that their programing was never meant to address todays situation or even to have retained any measure of effect after this prolonged period of time.
Agreed that the Society is imprisoned by its own policy. The resistance is in the same position unless they break out of the like policy which they still maintain along with Menzingen.
But from what we have heard from Bishop Williamson and the other resistance leaders, they will not consider altering the course of the last five decades.
-
You may all treat greg as you please, and give him the argument on this point. However, I will concede nothing to him or to Pete Vere. Benedict could very well be a Satanist. Is it hard to believe that a pope who has known for decades all about widespread clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse among chilren, rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity involving hundereds, maybe thousands, of priests and religious, perversion at the highest levels in the church; who knows to this day where probably most of the bodies lie, and does vitually nothing to expose this horror or to move against guilty clerics in any way, is it so hard to believe that such a one could not be a Satanist? Is it so difficult to believe that one who knows and has covered up these monstrous deeds throughout much of his career might not at one time have taken it to the next level? Who would have believed that some of the tribal descendants of the Chosen people coming out of Egypt might one day sacrifice their own children to Moloch and to Ashteroth? I don't mind being called a nut or crazy by the likes of greg, believe me!
hollingworth,
ggreg and Peter are latching on to Father Pfeiiffer's error as an opportunity to forward another agenda.
This is precisely why these priests should be disciplined enough to hold their thoughts and tongues on such serious and inflammatory matters until the have proof and the need to expose them. They give the folks like ggreg and Peter all the raw material which they need to make hay and lay a shadow over all of serious Traditional resistance.
-
You may all treat greg as you please, and give him the argument on this point. However, I will concede nothing to him or to Pete Vere. Benedict could very well be a Satanist. Is it hard to believe that a pope who has known for decades all about widespread clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse among chilren, rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity involving hundereds, maybe thousands, of priests and religious, perversion at the highest levels in the church; who knows to this day where probably most of the bodies lie, and does vitually nothing to expose this horror or to move against guilty clerics in any way, is it so hard to believe that such a one could not be a Satanist? Is it so difficult to believe that one who knows and has covered up these monstrous deeds throughout much of his career might not at one time have taken it to the next level? Who would have believed that some of the tribal descendants of the Chosen people coming out of Egypt might one day sacrifice their own children to Moloch and to Ashteroth? I don't mind being called a nut or crazy by the likes of greg, believe me!
hollingworth,
ggreg and Peter are latching on to Father Pfeiiffer's error as an opportunity to forward another agenda.
This is precisely why these priests should be disciplined enough to hold their thoughts and tongues on such serious and inflammatory matters until the have proof and the need to expose them. They give the folks like ggreg and Peter all the raw material which they need to make hay and lay a shadow over all of serious Traditional resistance.
This has been the point I've been making and attacked for it all along.
-
J. Paul:
This is precisely why these priests should be disciplined enough to hold their thoughts and tongues on such serious and inflammatory matters until the have proof and the need to expose them. They give the folks like ggreg and Peter all the raw material which they need to make hay and lay a shadow over all of serious Traditional resistance.
Don't make me laugh! Greg and Pete can make all the hay they want. They're both toothless. Just like you and me, they are nothing but members of a chat forum. Nothing that they say will have widespread repercussions. Ratzinger is an evil man. How far he carried his evil inclinations may soon, hopefully, come out in the wash.
-
Just like you and me, they are nothing but members of a chat forum. Nothing that they say will have widespread repercussions
Well stated. :applause:
-
J. Paul: This is precisely why these priests should be disciplined enough to hold their thoughts and tongues on such serious and inflammatory matters until the have proof and the need to expose them. They give the folks like ggreg and Peter all the raw material which they need to make hay and lay a shadow over all of serious Traditional resistance.
Don't make me laugh! Greg and Pete can make all the hay they want. They're both toothless. Just like you and me, they are nothing but members of a chat forum. Nothing that they say will have widespread repercussions. Ratzinger is an evil man. How far he carried his evil inclinations may soon, hopefully, come out in the wash.
Wasn't trying to entertain you, but if I did, we need some humor in this grim situation.
Greg and Pete are unimportant, but what these priest's say can indeed have widespread repercussions and effects.
The issue with these fellows is integrity, both personal and priestly.
Are we not tiring of hearing Truth! Truth! the Truth! from them and then being presented with half baked versions drawn from heresay and gossip?
Little militarized tidbits casually dropped to stimulate ructions among the faithful and gain a few more itching ears.
When the Faithful support and stand behind these men we take to ourselves a co-responsibility for what they say and do, and when they scrape the slime from the bottom of the conversational punchbowl, it usually ends up splashed upon all of the serious resistance within Tradition.
With the great gift of the Catholic priesthood comes a terrible responsibility to Charity, to integrity, and to the Truth.
-
J. Paul: This is precisely why these priests should be disciplined enough to hold their thoughts and tongues on such serious and inflammatory matters until the have proof and the need to expose them. They give the folks like ggreg and Peter all the raw material which they need to make hay and lay a shadow over all of serious Traditional resistance.
Don't make me laugh! Greg and Pete can make all the hay they want. They're both toothless. Just like you and me, they are nothing but members of a chat forum. Nothing that they say will have widespread repercussions. Ratzinger is an evil man. How far he carried his evil inclinations may soon, hopefully, come out in the wash.
Wasn't trying to entertain you, but if I did, we need some humor in this grim situation.
Greg and Pete are unimportant, but what these priest's say can indeed have widespread repercussions and effects.
The issue with these fellows is integrity, both personal and priestly.
Are we not tiring of hearing Truth! Truth! the Truth! from them and then being presented with half baked versions drawn from heresay and gossip?
Little militarized tidbits casually dropped to stimulate ructions among the faithful and gain a few more itching ears.
When the Faithful support and stand behind these men we take to ourselves a co-responsibility for what they say and do, and when they scrape the slime from the bottom of the conversational punchbowl, it usually ends up splashed upon all of the serious resistance within Tradition.
With the great gift of the Catholic priesthood comes a terrible responsibility to Charity, to integrity, and to the Truth.
What!! No clapping hands or cheerleaders fresh from the novus ordo sect claiming their poor formation instilled them with better insight???
I couldn't have said it any better. I attend Mass with resistance priests but have been very critical of the "celebrity" priests in the resistance because they are making the actually reputable priests with integrity look bad and in effect undermining the resistance.
What you have laid out in eloquent language are the very details that have irking me since this slander campaign for those itching ears began.
-
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.
Someone made a comment here not so long ago, I can't remember who, that Bp. Williamson would not be so adversarial towards SVism had "the eight" incident not occured. I think there is alot of truth in that.
He can at least see the resistance falling into SVism, hence is attempted rebuttal series in EC; and one only needs to read at the backlash from that to see that they are. But the acussation that the resistance are SVists is true at least on a practical level. What differentiates Bp. Williamson from Bp. Sanborn? Bp Willaimson inserts Francis in the Canon? That's a bit like I'm not a racist because I have a back friend or I'm not an αnтι-ѕємιтє because I once invited a rabbi to the seminary.
The resistance are practical sedevecanists; there is no difference. When the question was asked a while back about the SSPX consecrating a bishop, I asked the question Would Bp. Williamson like Bp. Fellay seek the popes permission to consecrate a bishop? The response said it all: That would be pretty funny, if +F were to ask permission of the Holy See to consecrate another bishop. Why would he waste the effort?
-
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.
Someone made a comment here not so long ago, I can't remember who, that Bp. Williamson would not be so adversarial towards SVism had "the eight" incident not occured. I think there is alot of truth in that.
He can at least see the resistance falling into SVism, hence is attempted rebuttal series in EC; and one only needs to read at the backlash from that to see that they are. But the acussation that the resistance are SVists is true at least on a practical level. What differentiates Bp. Williamson from Bp. Sanborn? Bp Willaimson inserts Francis in the Canon? That's a bit like I'm not a racist because I have a back friend or I'm not an αnтι-ѕємιтє because I once invited a rabbi to the seminary.
The resistance are practical sedevecanists; there is no difference. When the question was asked a while back about the SSPX consecrating a bishop, I asked the question Would Bp. Williamson like Bp. Fellay seek the popes permission to consecrate a bishop? The response said it all: That would be pretty funny, if +F were to ask permission of the Holy See to consecrate another bishop. Why would he waste the effort?
And clearly you have no idea what your are talking about.....nearly every detail is incorrect starting with the "eight"....they were nine. And everything else after that also confirms how little you know about the subject you are speaking.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30061&min=35#p3)Let's not forget the fact that the entire Ratzinger family had their name dragged through the mud in the sermon, not just pope Benedict. Do his parents who according to existing accounts were devout Catholics deserve that? Look at the marriage ad (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404487/Popes-shocking-secret-His-parents-met-newspaper-marriage-advert.html) through which his father came in contact with his mother and ask yourself whether that sounds like a Satanist.
I don't know why I missed this post before, but the linked story is pretty nice. It has wide appeal, and no date. Apparently the "Daily Mail" likes to display older articles on its website as if they are from the day's current issue. Look at the dates inside the text and see the article refers to Joseph Ratzinger as "the pope" and he is said to be "79." That was about 6 years ago, therefore (meaning the article probably was new about 6 years ago).
His mother had been Maria Peintner before her marriage at age 36, and she bore Joseph at 44, in 1928. She had two other children, Georg (now 89) and a girl, Maria, who died in 1991, but her age or birth year is not mentioned.
It's a cute story, and one of interest to history buffs. The erstwhile Fr. Ratzinger's father died the year after John XXIII was elected and before Vat.II got started. His mother died in the second year of Vat.II, which was the same year JFK was αssαssιnαtҽd, 1963. Ratzinger was a peritus at the Council, carrying on in the recent wake of the demise of both his parents within 4 years.
From the Daily Mail's linked page:
Pope's shocking secret: His parents met through a newspaper marriage advert
Pope Benedict XVI has returned to his family home in Germany as a secret to his parent's marriage was revealed after nearly a century - his father advertised for a wife through a Catholic lonely hearts agency.
The Pope admits that he never knew how his policeman father and cook mother met. But in an archive in his home state of Bavaria a newspaper advertisement has been discovered that brought together the couple who would produce the future spiritual leader of millions.
"Middle ranking civil servant, single, Catholic, 43-years-old, immaculate past, from the countryside, is seeking a good Catholic pure girl, who can cook well, and who can do all housework, who is also capable of sewing and a good homemaker in order to marry at the soonest opportunity," it reads.
"Personal fortune would be desirable but is not however a precondition. Offers, if possible with picture, to box number 734."
The ad was placed in the 7 March 1920 edition of the Aotoettinger Liebfrauen Messenger newspaper, a Catholic publication seeking to bring together lonelyhearts of the same religion.
It brought policeman Joseph Ratzinger no results so on July 11 the same year, after he had been promoted a rank, he advertised again and drew a reply from Maria Peintner, born in 1884, and they met at a coffee house in Regensburg - birthplace of the pope - and became engaged days later.
They married on November 9 that year in a parish church near the city and had three children - Georg, now 82 and a Catholic priest in Regensburg, Joseph, 79, the pope, and a daughter named Maria who died in 1991.
The German pope said he was "touched" by the revelations about how his mother and father met. He said it reminded him of the words of the great evangelist theologian Albert Schweitzer who said: "Coincidence is the pseudonym that dear God chooses when he wants to remain incognito."
He received a copy of his father's small ad after it was found by Peter Becker, former editor of the weekly Catholic newspaper. His father died in 1959, his mother in 1963, neither of them having explained how they first came to meet.
Ironically the paper his father chose to advertise in was the first religious publication that the nαzιs shut down when they came to power in Germany in 1933.
The pope, who was recruited into the Hitler Youth movement towards the end of the Second World War, said he cherished the finding of the advertisement.
But although the Ratzingers had a long, and by all accounts happy, marriage [Miss] Peintner* was unable to fulfill the bit about bringing money to the union: she was broke.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404487/Popes-shocking-secret-His-parents-met-newspaper-marriage-advert.html#ixzz2w3QC5seC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
[I inserted "Miss" in place of the Mail's "Ms."]
-
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.
Someone made a comment here not so long ago, I can't remember who, that Bp. Williamson would not be so adversarial towards SVism had "the eight" incident not occured. I think there is alot of truth in that.
He can at least see the resistance falling into SVism, hence is attempted rebuttal series in EC; and one only needs to read at the backlash from that to see that they are. But the acussation that the resistance are SVists is true at least on a practical level. What differentiates Bp. Williamson from Bp. Sanborn? Bp Willaimson inserts Francis in the Canon? That's a bit like I'm not a racist because I have a back friend or I'm not an αnтι-ѕємιтє because I once invited a rabbi to the seminary.
The resistance are practical sedevecanists; there is no difference. When the question was asked a while back about the SSPX consecrating a bishop, I asked the question Would Bp. Williamson like Bp. Fellay seek the popes permission to consecrate a bishop? The response said it all: That would be pretty funny, if +F were to ask permission of the Holy See to consecrate another bishop. Why would he waste the effort?
And clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.....nearly every detail is incorrect starting with the "eight"....they were nine. And everything else after that also confirms how little you know about the subject you are speaking.
It's great they put stuff in writing so everyone can see how wrong they are.
Thanks, Centroamerica. These self-appointed pundits and their "acussations" are pretty funny. They don't need any help making themselves look ridiculous.
If it weren't for Sigfrid's post and yours, I'd have forgotten all about them, because they're so forgettable.
The Resistance is "dead," is it? (Maybe if you keep saying it over and over, silly pete, it will become 'reality' -- you know, like a NewAge mantra -- like your friends in the Newchurch practice -- it used to be called sorcery in saner days.)
Msgr. Williamson's EC is "negotiating terms of surrender to sedes?" That's pretty rich -- imagination. (Mgr in English is the abbreviation for Manager -- but pete vere wouldn't know anything about that.)
And then petwerp has to chime in with his dutiful bowing to the Yids, because he admires their achievement as the traditional enemies of the truth. It's all so transparent. I'm sure you'll be back with more of your loony views on what has "occured" "alot."
You guys dig your own graves. So hop in! Oh, right: you already did. You're just wallowing in it.
.
.
.
Like I said:
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.
And now petwerp steps up to join him -- so their numbers have DOUBLED! :smile:
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.
.
-
I couldn't have said it any better. I attend Mass with resistance priests but have been very critical of the "celebrity" priests in the resistance because they are making the actually reputable priests with integrity look bad and in effect undermining the resistance.
While I usually don't think much of Centroamerica's posts, I must agree with this one.
I firmly believe in the reason why there is a Resistance, but I deplore the "celebrity" side of it. I guess it is just a result of the temperament (and faults) of people.
Those who are seeking the truth will be able to see past the "wrapping".
Those who hate the truth will happily focus on the messenger in order to drown the message.
-
i dislike the term 'celebrity' priest. do you mean, the ones who are in the forefront of the resistance? someone has to be, and i would guess, there are not too many takers!
-
.
So now, when a good priest gives great sermons and logs a lot of frequent flyer miles to bring the Mass to the distant few who request his help, suddenly he's a "celebrity priest?"
How about Fr. Rostand? Or the subtle bishop? Aren't they "celebrity prists" too? Or do they have the "grace of state" so it's okay for them to be celebrities?
What's up?
In ages past, when good priests gave great sermons and traveled far to bring the sacraments to those who requested them, they were called MISSSIONARIES.
St. Francis Xavier --- St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort --- St. Peter Canisius --- St. Maximilian Kolbe
Celebrity priests, no?
What about St. Paul? Was his celebrity status somehow offensive to contemporaries?
I think it was, now that you mention it. It was offensive to the Jews who hated him.
Don't forget the best definition to be found for "anti-Semitism" -- it is this: anti-Semitism is anything the Yids don't like.
And that's all there is to it, because the truth is simple.
Therefore, if the Yids don't like the celebrity status of particular Resistance priests, then anyone who DOES like their celebrity status is an αnтι-ѕємιтє. Get it?
Furthermore, the "celebrity status" of Resistance priests is no doubt offensive to the Jews who hate them, and we could easily expect that some Jew or Yid-simpathizer sitting in the pews, is placing cell-phone calls to the District office complaining about the "celebrity status" of certain (unmentionable!) Resistance priests.
Oh, don't forget. You can't mention any names because then it might give them more celebrity status. YIKES. Can't have that! Why, it would be anti-Semitic, because the Yids don't like it.
And you have to put out key information through established channels so that your minions will develop a DISTASTE for the very word, "Resistance" -- this is essential.
I have seen otherwise good priests scowl and sneer at the word, "Resistance."
I have seen others fume and say that they met so-and-so, and they did not like him!
I have come to the conclusion there is only one explanation for all this, and St. Paul gave it to us. This is not a battle of this world. It is a battle of the Powers and Principalities in high places. This is spiritual warfare.
.
-
"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."
. . . you can dress like one, too, under the guise of charity work . . . Shriners have a similar gig!
http://rosary101.com/author/author5.html
Creepy!
-
.
That hat the Shriners wear as well as others used in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is called a Fez.
When they're more authentic, they are red in color.
The origins of the Fez are based in Mohammedan rituals where they would carry the drained blood of Christian martyrs around in these bucket-shaped hats, to be poured out with contempt as they wallow in the gore of their victims.
The "religion of peace" isn't so peaceful, after all!
(http://www.buttericks.se/PICTURE/45398-4-207515_fez.jpg)
(http://craphound.com/images/tumblr_m8j4fmZsic1qzfsnio1_500.jpg)
.
-
.
I hope I'm not offending any Jews by saying these things. I wouldn't want to be 'anti-Semitic,' you know.
.
-
.
I hope I'm not offending any Jews by saying these things. I wouldn't want to be 'anti-Semitic,' you know.
.
No offense taken . . .
Looks like the tassels, or whatever they are called, might have been dipped, symbolically :shocked:, something red.
from their website: http://www.orderalhambra.org/
-
i dislike the term 'celebrity' priest. do you mean, the ones who are in the forefront of the resistance? someone has to be, and i would guess, there are not too many takers!
I did not invent the term "celebrity" priest. While you may be able to come up with a better term, I believe everyone understands what is meant by it. In this thread, reference is made to those who make imprudent and unproven claims in order to attract people's attention. That's what makes a priest a "celebrity" to certain people, while it will repel others.
-
.
I hope I'm not offending any Jews by saying these things. I wouldn't want to be 'anti-Semitic,' you know.
.
No offense taken . . .
Looks like the tassels, or whatever they are called, might have been dipped, symbolically :shocked:, something red.
from their website: http://www.orderalhambra.org/
I would expect the red tassels to imitate or be reminiscent of blood spilling OUT of the fez.
There is a ritual public display of blood-frenzy that Mohammedans practice, where by women and children line the streets, eating festival foods, and watching their men and even boys running around in the street. They strike each other on the scalp with a long knife or a sword, enough to cause lacerations in the skin, and bleeding. Anyone who knows about head wounds knows there is a LOT of blood that erupts from any scalp cut. The blood flows down their faces and drips on their shirts, spilling over their shoulders, and they run around jumping up and down, shouting their creepy slogans like "Allahu akbar" and other things.
The women, girls and boys under 7 watch this like it's some kind of entertainment.
The red tassels shown in your photo seem to spill over the shoulders, too.
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=4784)
.
-
so if you will invite a resistance priest to visit, will that invitation specify, no celebrity need apply... just asking...
-
.
I hope I'm not offending any Jews by saying these things. I wouldn't want to be 'anti-Semitic,' you know.
.
No offense taken . . .
Looks like the tassels, or whatever they are called, might have been dipped, symbolically :shocked:, something red.
from their website: http://www.orderalhambra.org/
I would expect the red tassels to imitate or be reminiscent of blood spilling OUT of the fez.
There is a ritual public display of blood-frenzy that Mohammedans practice, where by women and children line the streets, eating festival foods, and watching their men and even boys running around in the street. They strike each other on the scalp with a long knife or a sword, enough to cause lacerations in the skin, and bleeding. Anyone who knows about head wounds knows there is a LOT of blood that erupts from any scalp cut. The blood flows down their faces and drips on their shirts, spilling over their shoulders, and they run around jumping up and down, shouting their creepy slogans like "Allahu akbar" and other things.
The women, girls and boys under 7 watch this like it's some kind of entertainment.
The red tassels shown in your photo seem to spill over the shoulders, too.
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=4784)
.
Good work, Neil Obstat! See, it pays to know thy enemy.
Bloody gore and all!
-
i dislike the term 'celebrity' priest. do you mean, the ones who are in the forefront of the resistance? someone has to be, and i would guess, there are not too many takers!
I did not invent the term "celebrity" priest. While you may be able to come up with a better term, I believe everyone understands what is meant by it. In this thread, reference is made to those who make imprudent and unproven claims in order to attract people's attention. That's what makes a priest a "celebrity" to certain people, while it will repel others.
Here in Brazil there is a Novus Ordo Fr. Paul Ricardo that has a YouTube channel and Facebook and poses as a conservative or some sort of Novus Ordo regard up guy. He is most probably a plant for the NWO and what I would call a "celebrity" priest in the strict term since every Brazilian knows wh he is.
The resistance doesn't take it that far so please excuse the use of the term in reference to the resistance.
-
so if you will invite a resistance priest to visit, will that invitation specify, no celebrity need apply... just asking...
I will happily accept and welcome any priest of the resistance because, as I said, I can look past the appearances and faults of the messenger. If I had the choice, I would have chosen a more diplomatic and gentle priest, because it is a lot easier to catch flies with syrup than with vinegar. But I know God is in control and knows better which are the right tools for the right job.
-
Catholics hate ~ SIN!
Sin is not a person. Viva Cristo Rey said Catholics shouldn't hate anyONE, not anyTHING.
-
We need Archbishop Lefebvre...
:pray:
I don't pay much attention to one or the other or the inside politics.
But as far as the current leadership of SSPX goes, if they now have policies that do not reflect the actions and views of AB Lefebvre, not only do they not have the right to ask people to leave or rid priests, they themselves should be the ones who leave and who are ostracized because they are counterfeits.
-
fr pfieffer is a rough diamond, il grant, but certaintly, a diamomd! we owe the swift formation of the resistance to his tirelessness, and love for souls, so if i was curt, its because i am aware of some of his 'bad' press. it appears, he is to be given no quater, while, the smooth talkers who have designs on rome, use him as stick to beat 'the resistance' while secretly, i believe, they are terrified of him.
-
Catholics hate ~ SIN!
Sin is not a person. Viva Cristo Rey said Catholics shouldn't hate anyONE, not anyTHING.
Certainly, this thread has been through some convoluted turns and twists. Hopefully, the Bishop's latest Eleison Comments will put to rest some of the mis-information, and will quiet some souls-- ensuring them that the "resistance" has a purpose beyond just "resisting". See here:http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ELEISON-COMMENTS-cccxlviii-348-15TH-March-2014-AD (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ELEISON-COMMENTS-cccxlviii-348-15TH-March-2014-AD)
If the link doesn't work, look on CathInfo for Eleison Comments of March 15th, 2014.
Bear in mind that there is no "leader" or "personality" or "folk hero" of the resistance. They are simply Catholic faithful, laity and priests and sisters and brothers (and Bishop), who woke up one day and found that the SSPX was lying to them, and was in the process of selling their Catholic faith out to the conciliar religion (I didn't make up that name-- that's the name they called their religion). Hopefully, as this Eleison Comments may indicate, more time will be spent on spreading the truths of the Catholic faith, and less time spent on regurgitating the lies of Fellay and Co.
It is true, Catholics look for a leader. This has proven to be the sticking power of Archbishop Lefebvre. Even when he was (at he urging of traitors within his organization) 'dancing with the Romans', traditionalists still wanted to see him as their 'leader.'
For right or wrong, the good bishop has decided that such is not his place. Certainly no one else has yet stepped up. All the other 'independent' bishops in the world have, thus far, confined their apostolate to their own little hamlets and corners of tradition. In God's good time, He will send a leader to the Catholic faithful, if He so pleases, and if we be worthy. Surely tradition has been littered with a plethora of false shepherds and ill-formed leaders. We don't need more of those. www-sos-save-our-sspx.
-
fr pfieffer is a rough diamond, il grant, but certaintly, a diamomd! we owe the swift formation of the resistance to his tirelessness, and love for souls, so if i was curt, its because i am aware of some of his 'bad' press. it appears, he is to be given no quater, while, the smooth talkers who have designs on rome, use him as stick to beat 'the resistance' while secretly, i believe, they are terrified of him.
Well said, stgobnait!
Thank God for Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Chazal and their tireless efferts to bring sacraments to all of us, just like St. Patrick.
Unfortunately, the SSPX is quite happy to sit in their neighborhood and cater to their group, instead of seeking out souls that need to hear the Truth.
All of you who know about the story of St. Patrick ought to realize that St. Patrick never wasted time mincing words and playing nice with the evil wizards. He called out evil when he saw it!
-
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.
I think Wessex is on to it here. With the accession of Francis to the papacy, it is clear to most (outside of the resistance) that there will be no SSPX canonical regularization for many years. The highly insulated escape pod that Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with CDL Ratzinger in the '88 Protocol whereby an autonomous SSPX hung like an extra leg from the Consiliar Church governed (frighteningly) by some non-distinct committee of orthodox Bishops did not happen then and did not happen in 2012 for +Fellay. The SSPX will develop a hard shell around itself, further separate itself from the modern Catholic structure, and go about its business as it has since the first suppression in 1974. It will ordain priests in its seminaries and consecrate new Bishops after another dozen years go by. They have the resources and a good food supply to wait for the conversion of Rome. There will be ZERO contact with Rome since Rome has nothing to offer if it does not offer the faith.
The resistance already falters among the remainder of at least most, if not all, of the U.S. SSPX priests (thats all of them less 2). FRS Pfeiffer and Hewko may continue to be deluded by the hope/belief that more than a handful of the staunchest priests in the U.S. are teetering on the brink of joining them. They don't recognize that they are merely being treated politely, if you can call it that.
Where there is nothing tangible and solid that you can hold up to the young families or old ladies to 'resist', you will not get new converts - except for the occasional new nutter or former sacristan who's been pissed off at some pastor in a chapel. Add to that, you have priests telling folks not to participate in a rosary crusade because it is nefarious and then have to defend the evil intent of the intentions - which look fine to those with a Fatima devotion, or telling folks to stop attending SSPX chapels in favor of a bi-yearly visit by one of two priests on the circuit.
To Wessex' point, for the Resistance to survive, they have to be demonstrably different from the SSPX and be able to make that distinction in stark terms understandable by both the young families and the old ladies. This gibberish about Max K. plays well on CI but not at the chapel level. The we-are-not-them route will not be sustainable. And similarly, +Williamson's tact of We-are-not-them and We-are-also-not-them(SV) will similarly bear no converts.
Unless you present a reason to abandon the SSPX that is convincing enough to put the near term fear of the loss of one's soul in the balance, then you will continue to see Mrs. Crumpit's curio cabinet in the background of every 'resistance' Mass because it will remain a parlor novelty.
-
VinnyF,
I think you are getting a bit mixed up here.
The SSPX will develop a hard shell around itself, further separate itself from the modern Catholic structure, and go about its business as it has since the first suppression in 1974.
If the inside is starting to rot, then that shell will only make the SSPX sound hollow and empty. The hard shell you may refer to is the culpable ignorance and sloth of the average parishoner, who is too cozy in his/her little corner and doesn't want to be disturbed from his/her slumber. You can't go to war with this type of person and there is no value in this type of hard shell. It is exactly this hard shell that allows the inside to keep rotting.
And the whole issue here is that the SSPX is not keeping itself "separate" as you seem to think. Everything is pointing towards the SSPX NOT wanting to be separate anymore from the heretics in Rome.
They have the resources and a good food supply to wait for the conversion of Rome.
Again, the problem is that they are NOT waiting for the conversion of Rome. They are converting THEMSELVES so they can buddy up to Rome and be defrauded of their "good food supply".
There will be ZERO contact with Rome since Rome has nothing to offer if it does not offer the faith.
I think Bishop Fellay disagrees with you here. And if he did agree, ask him what he has been doing the last couple of years ? Ask him what were the intentions of the Rosary crusades ? Ask him why he has been weaseling so much ?
The resistance already falters among the remainder of at least most, if not all, of the U.S. SSPX priests (thats all of them less 2).
This is a poor remark. Even if there were no one in the US resisting, there are others that are making up for it. I believe there are at least 80 priest/religious that have spoken up now and that support the resistance. If there's only two from the US, then maybe there are other conclusions you can draw from that.
Where there is nothing tangible and solid that you can hold up to the young families or old ladies to 'resist', you will not get new converts
I think you are using the wrong words here. The Resistance is not about getting converts, they are not starting a new mission. They are doing what the SSPX was created for and what the SSPX has always done (until recently) : remain Catholic and fight modernism. It is Bishop Fellay and his cronies who are now changing direction. The Resistance is trying to wake people up.
I am grateful that someone stood up and warned me about what is happening. I have just distanced myself and my family from the SSPX, for the same reasons that I have distanced myself from the Novus Ordo in the past. Even if the Resistance disappeared from sight, I will still not attend the SSPX, unless and until they resume the course that Archbishop Lefebvre set out for them. Even if I am the only one left to resist, that would not justify me to join the betrayal of the SSPX.
To Wessex' point, for the Resistance to survive, they have to be demonstrably different from the SSPX and be able to make that distinction in stark terms understandable by both the young families and the old ladies.
The Resistance only exists for two reasons :
1. To point out that the captain of the SSPX is changing course, in the wrong direction.
2. Keep doing what the SSPX has always done, as much as is possible with their limited resources, until the SSPX is heading back in the right direction.
Do you notice the parallel with the Conciliar Church ?
Apart from that, the Resistance has no other "must do's". If you can't convince people about the seriousness of the situation in the SSPX, maybe that is more because most people have given up the fight. They have found a cozy corner and will not give it up, not even for the Truth. They just want to be left alone.
Please don't take anything personally. I could not discern from your post on which side of the fence you are (or on the fence). I just found that so many people in the SSPX focus on their own little world and don't care about the big picture. I find this very selfish. If Archbishop Lefebvre had been like that, we would have never had the SSPX in the first place.
-
:applause: :applause: :applause:
You hit the nail on the head Nobody.
My dear friend who is still at the SSPX, her first reaction was shock and then outrage.
She was so ticked off and upset, feeling that she had been duped.
She wanted so much to say something she started to prepare a "Declaration from a Third Order SSPX" renouncing the new direction of the SSPX and pledging adherence to the position of ABL.
But then she got scared, and worried and realized she was going to have to make a decision.
So she decided to call her superior Fr. Purdy and ask his advice.
He then went ahead and accused the resistance priests of being ignorant and misinterpreting the AFD.
And how they were expelled and she should not listen to them.
She was then told to study Sacrosanctum Concilium and get back to him citing what is wrong with that docuмent.
By the end of the conversation she was complaining of having a headache and now being confused and just wanting to go to Mass.
And guess what, she has since stopped calling me and barely even responds when I text her.
She told me she would stay in the SSPX until she begins to see any modernism being taught.
One day she calls and tells me about their sermon and how Fr. SSPX preached that divorce was allowed in cases of adultery and that this was taught in the bible, citing the passage from Matthew. I warned her this was a sign of modernism, but she then said ~ well, that doesn't apply to me as I am 74 and have no plans to marry.
Then they taught about the fasting rules under the new code ~ I warned her, she said, well, that doesn't apply to me as I am 74 and do not fast or abstain (she's already a vegan). She will not see what is happening around her.
It seems that I have to find a sign of modernism that pertains to her life before she realizes what is happening, & maybe even then she won't, because she is cozy and comfy and scared.
VinnyF,
I think you are getting a bit mixed up here.
The SSPX will develop a hard shell around itself, further separate itself from the modern Catholic structure, and go about its business as it has since the first suppression in 1974.
If the inside is starting to rot, then that shell will only make the SSPX sound hollow and empty. The hard shell you may refer to is the culpable ignorance and sloth of the average parishoner, who is too cozy in his/her little corner and doesn't want to be disturbed from his/her slumber. You can't go to war with this type of person and there is no value in this type of hard shell. It is exactly this hard shell that allows the inside to keep rotting.
And the whole issue here is that the SSPX is not keeping itself "separate" as you seem to think. Everything is pointing towards the SSPX NOT wanting to be separate anymore from the heretics in Rome.
They have the resources and a good food supply to wait for the conversion of Rome.
Again, the problem is that they are NOT waiting for the conversion of Rome. They are converting THEMSELVES so they can buddy up to Rome and be defrauded of their "good food supply".
There will be ZERO contact with Rome since Rome has nothing to offer if it does not offer the faith.
I think Bishop Fellay disagrees with you here. And if he did agree, ask him what he has been doing the last couple of years ? Ask him what were the intentions of the Rosary crusades ? Ask him why he has been weaseling so much ?
The resistance already falters among the remainder of at least most, if not all, of the U.S. SSPX priests (thats all of them less 2).
This is a poor remark. Even if there were no one in the US resisting, there are others that are making up for it. I believe there are at least 80 priest/religious that have spoken up now and that support the resistance. If there's only two from the US, then maybe there are other conclusions you can draw from that.
Where there is nothing tangible and solid that you can hold up to the young families or old ladies to 'resist', you will not get new converts
I think you are using the wrong words here. The Resistance is not about getting converts, they are not starting a new mission. They are doing what the SSPX was created for and what the SSPX has always done (until recently) : remain Catholic and fight modernism. It is Bishop Fellay and his cronies who are now changing direction. The Resistance is trying to wake people up.
I am grateful that someone stood up and warned me about what is happening. I have just distanced myself and my family from the SSPX, for the same reasons that I have distanced myself from the Novus Ordo in the past. Even if the Resistance disappeared from sight, I will still not attend the SSPX, unless and until they resume the course that Archbishop Lefebvre set out for them. Even if I am the only one left to resist, that would not justify me to join the betrayal of the SSPX.
To Wessex' point, for the Resistance to survive, they have to be demonstrably different from the SSPX and be able to make that distinction in stark terms understandable by both the young families and the old ladies.
The Resistance only exists for two reasons :
1. To point out that the captain of the SSPX is changing course, in the wrong direction.
2. Keep doing what the SSPX has always done, as much as is possible with their limited resources, until the SSPX is heading back in the right direction.
Do you notice the parallel with the Conciliar Church ?
Apart from that, the Resistance has no other "must do's". If you can't convince people about the seriousness of the situation in the SSPX, maybe that is more because most people have given up the fight. They have found a cozy corner and will not give it up, not even for the Truth. They just want to be left alone.
Please don't take anything personally. I could not discern from your post on which side of the fence you are (or on the fence). I just found that so many people in the SSPX focus on their own little world and don't care about the big picture. I find this very selfish. If Archbishop Lefebvre had been like that, we would have never had the SSPX in the first place.
-
The Resistance only exists for two reasons :
1. To point out that the captain of the SSPX is changing course, in the wrong direction.
2. Keep doing what the SSPX has always done, as much as is possible with their limited resources, until the SSPX is heading back in the right direction.
Do you notice the parallel with the Conciliar Church ?
Apart from that, the Resistance has no other "must do's". If you can't convince people about the seriousness of the situation in the SSPX, maybe that is more because most people have given up the fight. They have found a cozy corner and will not give it up, not even for the Truth. They just want to be left alone.
Please don't take anything personally. I could not discern from your post on which side of the fence you are (or on the fence). I just found that so many people in the SSPX focus on their own little world and don't care about the big picture. I find this very selfish. If Archbishop Lefebvre had been like that, we would have never had the SSPX in the first place.
Thanks Nobody, I certainly am not offended by anything you said. The problem is that all of things that have contributed to the resistance mindset are not, in my experience, evident at the chapel level. I have not seen any modernistic tendencies introduced or hinted at in my chapel or in any other I have had the opportunity to visit in my travels. Most of it appears to be issues with what +Fellay does or says and that get's translated into the SSPX slipping into modernism.
Can you give me some examples of changes that I might be missing in my chapel or that might have happened in your chapel that are mandated by the District Superior and indicate a modernistic move?
-
My dear friend who is still at the SSPX, her first reaction was shock and then outrage.
She was so ticked off and upset, feeling that she had been duped.
Can you tell us what exactly she was upset about?
So she decided to call her superior Fr. Purdy and ask his advice.
She was then told to study Sacrosanctum Concilium and get back to him citing what is wrong with that docuмent.
By the end of the conversation she was complaining of having a headache and now being confused and just wanting to go to Mass.
I am also a Third Order member and the response Fr. Purdy gave her sounds like what he typically tells someone who calls him up and complains that "Bishop Fellay says 95% of the Council is OK". His typical response is "Have you read the Council docuмents and disagree with the percentage or are you repeating the outrage of Fr. Hewko?". He then typically tells us to read the Docuмents of the Council, word for word, and then we can have a discussion about what you believe is not truthful and what is. Then we can arrive at least at our perception of the correct percentage . Suffice to say that the entire Council should be thrown out because of the 5% or 2% or 10% or whatever percent of the docuмents are ambiguous and I would bet that both Fr Purdy and +Fellay would rather see the lot in the dustbin than to pick through the debris of the docuмents. My experience with Fr. Purdy is that he does not want to be the sounding board for complaints against the SG but is happy to engage in a discussion of the merits of the question.
One day she calls and tells me about their sermon and how Fr. SSPX preached that divorce was allowed in cases of adultery and that this was taught in the bible, citing the passage from Matthew. I warned her this was a sign of modernism, but she then said ~ well, that doesn't apply to me as I am 74 and have no plans to marry.
I had to chuckle at this one because if you and/or your friend are outraged at this, then you obviously do not know what scripture says or are too lazy to look it up. Those are technically Christ's words in St. Matthew 5:32. However, the Church has ever interpreted Christ's intent that marriage is not dissolved because of adultery. Kudos to the SSPX priest for knowing what scripture says and shame on you and your friend for not. You insinuate that SSPX priest says that adultery (actually its "fornication" in scripture) is legal grounds for divorce. Really? Give us a break.
Then they taught about the fasting rules under the new code ~ I warned her, she said, well, that doesn't apply to me as I am 74 and do not fast or abstain (she's already a vegan). She will not see what is happening around her.
Again, shame on you for not knowing what is required by law for fasting. Like it or not, the Code of Canon Law governing fasting is the 1983 Code and it is the church's prerogative to change this as the Pope sees fit. I didn't catch whether you are a sedevacantist or not because that would be your only excuse for ignoring the 1983 Code, promulgated by JPII. If you think he is an anti-Pope, then you would be bound by the 1917 Code of Benedict XV.
You must know the Code to know if you are violating the Code. That said, Traditional Catholics typically, and with few exceptions, follow the 1917 Code wrt fasting during Lent, Fridays, Ember Days, and other days like vigils of some holy days. It absolutely brings one closer to Christ and His Passion and the reduction to 2 yearly days of fasting in the 1983 Code is ludicrous. It is always surprising to me when folks ask to be dispensed by a priest from fasting on an Ember Day. He can't do it because he can't dispense you from a law that doesn't exist. He can't dispense you from deviating from your personal choice. And of course, out of ignorance, you'll call that priest a modernist and an example of the SSPX slipping into the Novus Ordo. You insinuate by your post the SSPX priest was encouraging the parish to fast 2 times a year (according to the code). Please give us break.
It seems that I have to find a sign of modernism that pertains to her life before she realizes what is happening, & maybe even then she won't, because she is cozy and comfy and scared.
Well you certainly don't appear to know modernism when you see it judging by this post!! No wonder your friend stopped calling.
-
Can you give me some examples of changes that I might be missing in my chapel or that might have happened in your chapel that are mandated by the District Superior and indicate a modernistic move?
The first time I realized something was not quite right was when Bishop Williamson was persecuted, slandered and expelled. No explaination was given. In fact, no one seemed interested. "Ok, we lost a bishop, so what's for dinner ?"
So, the first and most important symptom, even at a parish level, I believe is in what they do NOT say or do. And this is also the hardest to detect, especially for people who don't look past their own little comfort zone.
There have been many scandals coming out of Rome (Assisi III, books/interviews, mosque/ѕуηαgσgυє visits, ..), but the SSPX has been silent. No more condemnations, no more reminders what we're fighting against, just silence. Even scandals in our own parish are now ignored and tolerated (I can't elaborate on this one without saying too much). Sometimes it seems the new enemy has become those "dirty contageous sedevacantists", and now also "those proud rebelious resistance bishop/priest/religous/laity". The superiors have given up the fight, the inferiors will follow the example. It sounds so much like Vatican II. No more condemnations, let's forget about our differences, let's be positive and get along with everybody.. except with those who disagree with this new direction !
There are also some secondary symptoms. For example, they recently tried introducing the Dialogue Mass, for no good reason. This caused a big stir and was thankfully thrown out. The pictures they now use on their own advertising (star wars, evil characters). Sacraments are happily administered to teenagers living in public sin. Kids in church texting, talking, obscenities, etc.. are ignored and quietly tolerated, not in theory, but in practice. There is no more 'spark' in our priests. And the laity look, live and talk like any other worldling. We know some protestants that would put most of these Traditional Catholics to shame !
I understand that when you have a good priest, the secondary symptoms will be less or even non existent. But even those good priests will have to choose sooner or later, they are on a collision course with their superiors.
And I also understand that every situation is different. Some people see things early, some see it late. But everyone who sees and then ignores it, has given up the fight and might not get any more graces after that.
-
The first time I realized something was not quite right was when Bishop Williamson was persecuted, slandered and expelled. No explaination was given. In fact, no one seemed interested. "Ok, we lost a bishop, so what's for dinner ?"
I also believe that +Williamson affair was mishandled and I would wager that +Fellay probably also believes that. However, +Williamson is not blameless in the whole affair.
There have been many scandals coming out of Rome (Assisi III, books/interviews, mosque/ѕуηαgσgυє visits, ..), but the SSPX has been silent. No more condemnations, no more reminders what we're fighting against, just silence. Even scandals in our own parish are now ignored and tolerated (I can't elaborate on this one without saying too much).
My experience on this is that the priests who typically brought these issues up before 2009, still do. Priests that didn't usually bring these things up still don't.
Sometimes it seems the new enemy has become those "dirty contageous sedevacantists", and now also "those proud rebelious resistance bishop/priest/religous/laity".
I have heard a remark only twice at our chapel concerning the resistance, one of those times by Fr. Tim Pfeiffer who distanced himself from the resistance movement. So far we peacefully coexist with the resistors in our chapel. I rarely hear a sermon on avoiding sedevacantism although I could certainly make an argument that it is as dangerous as modernism.
There are also some secondary symptoms. For example, they recently tried introducing the Dialogue Mass, for no good reason. This caused a big stir and was thankfully thrown out. The pictures they now use on their own advertising (star wars, evil characters). Sacraments are happily administered to teenagers living in public sin. Kids in church texting, talking, obscenities, etc.. are ignored and quietly tolerated, not in theory, but in practice. There is no more 'spark' in our priests. And the laity look, live and talk like any other worldling. We know some protestants that would put most of these Traditional Catholics to shame !
I am certainly not a fan of the Dialogue Mass and I would rather see the pre-'55 Mass offered over the '60 book. I haven't seen the texting, talking teens but would be righteously scandalized if I did and I would be vocal about it.
I will grant that in some ways, and particularly some families, the laity does appear to be more worldly. This is not a recent development but it is perceivable. Interestingly, two of the most prominent resistance families are the most obvious examples in our chapel including casual clothes and even blue jeans at Sunday Mass. I wonder if they wear the same thing at the resistance Mass?
I understand that when you have a good priest, the secondary symptoms will be less or even non existent. But even those good priests will have to choose sooner or later, they are on a collision course with their superiors.
And I also understand that every situation is different. Some people see things early, some see it late. But everyone who sees and then ignores it, has given up the fight and might not get any more graces after that.
When the superiors and the priests diverge, it will certainly come to a head. And I agree that we laity and priests need to be ever vigilant for abuse and loss of faith.
-
That's cute-- when a schismatic lectures a Catholic! How quaint! Great lessons from the "we only obey Bergoglio when we want to " crowd.
Why waste your time with discourse with Satan's agents?That's how Eve got caught; that's haw Archbishop was almost caught; that's how Fellay's been caught.
These people are used car salesmen-- they'll tell you whatever you want to know to gain your confidence.
-
That's cute-- when a schismatic lectures a Catholic! How quaint! Great lessons from the "we only obey Bergoglio when we want to " crowd.
Why waste your time with discourse with Satan's agents?That's how Eve got caught; that's haw Archbishop was almost caught; that's how Fellay's been caught.
These people are used car salesmen-- they'll tell you whatever you want to know to gain your confidence.
I would rather not be so generous with accusations like "schismatic" and "heretic". So many people on this forum are calling each other fool (or schismatic or heretic). It doesn't look like a good way to argue your point and win your neighbor over and it may get you into trouble on judgment day.
-
VinnyF,
I wonder whether you are trying to go too fast. Maybe you should start by having a good and hard look at Bishop Fellay.
Has he been consistent ?
Has he been clear and unambiguous ?
Has he been open and upfront ?
Has he listened to advice and warnings ?
Has he stayed within the limits of his authority/mandate ?
Has he always acted in the common good of the SSPX ?
Has he been charitable ?
I believe anyone can find the correct answer, if he/she is honest and does the effort to educate him/herself.
Then remember that Archbishop Lefebvre told us that inferiors are shaped by their superiors. In other words, Bishop Fellay's beliefs and morals will trickle down. I would certainly not want to be like him, he's not a role model for me !
-
VinnyF,
I am not impressed with the tone in which you replied holysoulsacademy. If he/she is getting some things wrong. maybe you should educate him/her in all patience and charity. In these times of confusion, can you claim of getting everything right ? Will you throw the first stone ?
The point holysoulsacademy was making is that often people get all excited when they find out about the errors and scandals. But then when it comes time to act, most people pull their head right back in, or worse, they start looking for excuses. I do hope you're not in this last category.
-
VinnyF,
I wonder whether you are trying to go too fast. Maybe you should start by having a good and hard look at Bishop Fellay.
Has he been consistent ?
Has he been clear and unambiguous ?
Has he been open and upfront ?
Has he listened to advice and warnings ?
Has he stayed within the limits of his authority/mandate ?
Has he always acted in the common good of the SSPX ?
Has he been charitable ?
I believe anyone can find the correct answer, if he/she is honest and does the effort to educate him/herself.
Then remember that Archbishop Lefebvre told us that inferiors are shaped by their superiors. In other words, Bishop Fellay's beliefs and morals will trickle down. I would certainly not want to be like him, he's not a role model for me !
I am sure that you have done this to your own satisfaction and you have arrived at the only correct answer and any opposing answer in +Fellay's favor is the wrong answer.
We could certainly have a discussion on each one of these topics. It would make more sense if we examine all of the players at once and ask the same question of each. I would include +ABL and +Williamson in the list also to prove a point.
There are instances where +Fellay has been inconsistent and ambiguous. I could give examples of those same failings with +ABL and +Williamson. The point is that none of these men are supermen - they are all fallen sinners just like you and me.
You have to discern where their heart lies and what their primary goals are. And then make a personal choice for your soul and the soul of your family where you will follow.
-
VinnyF,
I am not impressed with the tone in which you replied holysoulsacademy. If he/she is getting some things wrong. maybe you should educate him/her in all patience and charity. In these times of confusion, can you claim of getting everything right ? Will you throw the first stone ?
The point holysoulsacademy was making is that often people get all excited when they find out about the errors and scandals. But then when it comes time to act, most people pull their head right back in, or worse, they start looking for excuses. I do hope you're not in this last category.
That is what I tried to do. I do tend to get a bit frustrated with posters who take pot shots at priests (like fr Purdy) without knowing or even trying to understand all of the details behind an event. In this case,hsa had what he/she thought were 3 rock solid examples of blatant modernism coming from the SSPX and having no clue what scripture says, what canon law says, or why Fr Purdy said what he said. Just parroting the Resistance line without any desire whatsoever to understand the truth.
-
VinnyF,
I wonder whether you are trying to go too fast. Maybe you should start by having a good and hard look at Bishop Fellay.
Has he been consistent ?
Has he been clear and unambiguous ?
Has he been open and upfront ?
Has he listened to advice and warnings ?
Has he stayed within the limits of his authority/mandate ?
Has he always acted in the common good of the SSPX ?
Has he been charitable ?
I believe anyone can find the correct answer, if he/she is honest and does the effort to educate him/herself.
Then remember that Archbishop Lefebvre told us that inferiors are shaped by their superiors. In other words, Bishop Fellay's beliefs and morals will trickle down. I would certainly not want to be like him, he's not a role model for me !
I am sure that you have done this to your own satisfaction and you have arrived at the only correct answer and any opposing answer in +Fellay's favor is the wrong answer.
The question is, have YOU done this, to your own satisfaction ?
We could certainly have a discussion on each one of these topics. It would make more sense if we examine all of the players at once and ask the same question of each. I would include +ABL and +Williamson in the list also to prove a point.
There are instances where +Fellay has been inconsistent and ambiguous. I could give examples of those same failings with +ABL and +Williamson. The point is that none of these men are supermen - they are all fallen sinners just like you and me.
Ok, let's try and prove our point. Let's start with the first question on the list.
Please give me some examples where +ABL or +Williamson were inconsistent. And then show me why that particular example is important to you.
I'll try and prove my point. When +Fellay wears blue socks today and green ones tomorrow, that's inconsistent, but I don't care. When +Williamson says the stock market will crash tomorrow, and then tomorrow says it will crash next week, that's inconsistent. But, it does not affect me or any other souls in my or their care.
But when +Fellay first says "No practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement" and then a bit later says "No doctrinal agreement, therefore a practical agreement", then that is inconsistent. But in this case, it DOES affect me and many other souls. And everyone in the SSPX should care too !
If +Fellay no longer believes in the mission of +ABL, then he is free to leave and start his own mission. But do you believe he has the authority/mandate/state of grace/integrity/wisdom/etc to change the SSPX around ? Against the explicit directions of +ABL ? Against the advice of the other bishops and many priests ? Against the warnings of those who have tried the same before and got bitten badly ? Do you really honestly believe this ?
If only you would look at ALL the evidence, you would come to the same conclusion with regards to the fact that there is a SERIOUS problem, and that it affects everyone in the SSPX (and many beyond).
You have to discern where their heart lies and what their primary goals are. And then make a personal choice for your soul and the soul of your family where you will follow.
Is this modernism at work ? Would you excuse the Conciliar Popes because they "had a good heart" ? Ok, let's all stand by and watch while the bad shepherds scatter and kill the flock, after all they have a good heart !?
No, we don't judge them, only God can do that. But we can and must judge their actions and try to stop them if necessary.
-
We need to pray for all Catholic priests.
-
Two of the main players of "The American brand of the resistance"were involved in the then newly established Vasai Priory near Mumbai, which after a year or so, was shut down. A layman like myself had waited 15 years for this priory.
An SSPX priest recently announced at a chapel, the modus operandi of the Resistance on his patch. "The venue is a secret, the timings are secret, the identity of the priest is secret, people are invited in secret. Since when has Mass become a secret?".
In the absence of Resistance Masses, the organizers turn up for the SSPX ones.
-
secret . . . since the time of the catacombs. Password: Deo Gratias.
-
We need to pray for all Catholic priests.
What wretch would give a thumbs down on the above statement?
-
Two of the main players of "The American brand of the resistance"were involved in the then newly established Vasai Priory near Mumbai, which after a year or so, was shut down. A layman like myself had waited 15 years for this priory.
An SSPX priest recently announced at a chapel, the modus operandi of the Resistance on his patch. "The venue is a secret, the timings are secret, the identity of the priest is secret, people are invited in secret. Since when has Mass become a secret?".
In the absence of Resistance Masses, the organizers turn up for the SSPX ones.
No mystery! The two priests at the failed priory were FRS. Joseph AND Tim Pfeiffer. The closing was out of their control, and out of the control of the SSPX. Only Fr. Joseph is an " American Player." Fr. Tim is still with SSPX as of Monday! So far as "secret" masses, there are none, at least in the US. They DO tend to be held on short notice, but everybody is welcome.
-
All Masse sin the U.S are posted at:
http://www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com/
You can also sign up on the site and they will e-mail you announcements where and when Masses are being offred. They will also infom you of when sermons are posted on line.
No secrets here.
-
Two of the main players of "The American brand of the resistance"were involved in the then newly established Vasai Priory near Mumbai, which after a year or so, was shut down. A layman like myself had waited 15 years for this priory.
An SSPX priest recently announced at a chapel, the modus operandi of the Resistance on his patch. "The venue is a secret, the timings are secret, the identity of the priest is secret, people are invited in secret. Since when has Mass become a secret?".
In the absence of Resistance Masses, the organizers turn up for the SSPX ones.
No mystery! The two priests at the failed priory were FRS. Joseph AND Tim Pfeiffer. The closing was out of their control, and out of the control of the SSPX. Only Fr. Joseph is an " American Player." Fr. Tim is still with SSPX as of Monday! So far as "secret" masses, there are none, at least in the US. They DO tend to be held on short notice, but everybody is welcome.
Maybe they are secretive here because they want to have their feet in both camps. Yes, the short lived priory in Vasai did have in the end Frs J & T Pfeiffer. Before that it was Frs Chazal & J Pfeiffer. Know them all, having, among other things, picked them up from the airport and taken them to the chapel on many occasions, always, at my own expense. The actual reason why the Vasai Priory closed should no longer occupy the minds of people like myself, given the direction the SSPX is supposed to be taking.