Author Topic: Worst enemies of the American brand of resistance. (Read 25043 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #45 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:22:03 AM »

J. Paul:

Quote

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.

John Grace · « **Reply #46 on:** February 25, 2014, 04:24:45 PM »

Quote

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:

JPaul · « **Reply #47 on:** February 25, 2014, 09:13:59 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

J. Paul:
Quote
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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2014, 02:13:32 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: hollingsworth
J. Paul:
Quote
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.

peterp · « **Reply #49 on:** February 26, 2014, 05:17:52 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Translation:

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

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

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

.

Here'e a more direct translation:

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

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

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?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #50 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:47:34 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Translation:

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

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

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

.

Here'e a more direct translation:

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

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

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #51 on:** March 15, 2014, 12:50:15 PM »

.

Post

Quote from: Sigfrid

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 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."]

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #52 on:** March 15, 2014, 01:20:55 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Translation:

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

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

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

.

Here'e a more direct translation:

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

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

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.

.

Nobody · « **Reply #53 on:** March 15, 2014, 01:36:51 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

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.

stgobnait · « **Reply #54 on:** March 15, 2014, 01:49:18 PM »

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!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #55 on:** March 15, 2014, 02:19:12 PM »

.

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.

.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #56 on:** March 15, 2014, 02:20:05 PM »

"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!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #57 on:** March 15, 2014, 02:40:29 PM »

.

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!

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #58 on:** March 15, 2014, 02:43:27 PM »

.

I hope I'm not offending any Jews by saying these things. I wouldn't want to be 'anti-Semitic,' you know.

.

BlackIrish · « **Reply #59 on:** March 15, 2014, 02:49:22 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

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/