Author Topic: Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPXs future (Read 9546 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2012, 11:44:10 AM »

Quote from: stgobnait

i dont know... but i have been told, that the priests in ireland want nothing to do with rome... that has to be some comfort.... to someone........

The vast bulk of priests and faithful are anti. Two priests are pro-agreement for certain.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #16 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:08:47 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

I asked a friend of mine who attends both the Trad Mass and Novus Ordo and he feels a reform will happen within the new with people moving back to the old overtime.He believes Benedict XVI is brilliant because he liberated the true Mass.

:stare:

Well now, we must correct him on this error. The novus ordites all give JP II credit for liberating the TLM when he issued his limited indult in 1984 - what a great man he was - let's call him John Paul the Great!

Then, ask him...

If Benedict XVI "liberated" the true mass than who was it that "imprisoned" the true mass?

I think these novus ordites who have a foot in both camps are in a intellectual transitory state - they are moving either toward Truth and tradition or thinking of ways to continue to embrace falsehood.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:19:48 PM »

Quote

There is no rejection of the course of action of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, but rather a repetition of his own condition which he held fast to when Rome in practice rejected it.

The Archbishop admitted he made a mistake. This is their only excuse for this nonsense, to say the Archbishop almost followed through with a deal.

He didn't follow through with it. He almost immediately broke off the agreement.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

Even if you grant us a bishop; even if you give us a certain autonomy with regard to the bishops; even if you grant us completely the Liturgy of 1962, if you grant that we can continue the seminary of the Society as we are doing now; we cannot collaborate! It is impossible, impossible. For we work in diametrically opposed directions. You work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person, and of the Church; and we work for their Christianization. We cannot understand each other...

They can't answer this. They can't accept this. They are going against this. And they know it.

stgobnait · « **Reply #18 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:41:29 PM »

two priests are pro agreement.... that would mean half n half, evens..... who'd bet on that..... :stare:

Nickolas · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2012, 05:40:32 PM »

Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Incredulous · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2012, 05:57:29 PM »

Quote from: Nickolas

Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Good point Nikolas!

The SSPX obviously recruits lawyers to run their counter-attacks for them.

They have to do this because Bp. Fellay "talks in circles" and Father Rostand isn't a gifted speaker or writer.

The SSPX "hired gun lawyer" MO has a precedence: The Dresden lawyer Max Krah, the retired lawyer John Mcfarland and now McCall. There are probably others.

The SSPX's amateur political tactics can be read like a book.

Columba · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2012, 07:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Nickolas
Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Good point Nikolas!

The SSPX obviously recruits lawyers to run their counter-attacks for them.

They have to do this because Bp. Fellay "talks in circles" and Father Rostand isn't a gifted speaker or writer.

The SSPX "hired gun lawyer" MO has a precedence: The Dresden lawyer Max Krah, the retired lawyer John Mcfarland and now McCall. There are probably others.

The SSPX's amateur political tactics can be read like a book.

Bp. Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal, et al are more than a match for +Fellay's hired-gun shysters.

Menzingen should disclose to contributors the budget it has allotted for lawyer-theologians in its bizarre, ongoing campaign against hardliner shepherds and pastors.

Incredulous · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2012, 08:18:39 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Incredulous
Quote from: Nickolas
Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?

Good point Nikolas!

The SSPX obviously recruits lawyers to run their counter-attacks for them.

They have to do this because Bp. Fellay "talks in circles" and Father Rostand isn't a gifted speaker or writer.

The SSPX "hired gun lawyer" MO has a precedence: The Dresden lawyer Max Krah, the retired lawyer John Mcfarland and now McCall. There are probably others.

The SSPX's amateur political tactics can be read like a book.

Bp. Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal, et al are more than a match for +Fellay's hired-gun shysters.

Menzingen should disclose to contributors the budget it has allotted for lawyer-theologians in its bizarre, ongoing campaign against hardliner shepherds and pastors.

Ethelred described Menzingen's behavior as "Stalinist tactics".
With that in mind, Stalin never reported Russia's financials.

With the latest neoSSPX propaganda and chapel "pacification" program,
I doubt in the future, there will be much financial activity to report?

Either through incompetence or by design, Bp. Fellay is destroying the SSPX.

poche · « **Reply #23 on:** October 04, 2012, 05:37:12 AM »

I think we should pray for all concerned

John Grace · « **Reply #24 on:** October 04, 2012, 04:18:38 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

two priests are pro agreement.... that would mean half n half, evens..... who'd bet on that..... :stare:

Are you based in Belfast? It's just that in conversation with a few people from the various chapels/Mass centre's, the view is the chapels/Mass centre's in Ireland are overwhelming anti-agreement and pro-Bishop Williamson. The bulk of the priests and laity wish to remain faithful to the apostolate of Archbishop Lefebvre.

stgobnait · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2012, 05:26:57 PM »

where are you based? john grace... you said two priests are pro agreement.... now you say the bulk of priests (and laity, like they matter) wish to remain faithful to the apostolate of Archbishop Lefebvre, i can tell you, depending on how many priests you count in ireland(sspx) the majority of faithful are oblivious to whats going on... and all the priests say they want nothing to do with rome.... but that brings me back to .. how many priests are you counting,

magdalena · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2012, 05:46:15 PM »

The key word here is "bizarre"; whereas, having all those lawyers is very creepy and suspicious. Whether it be by incompetence or by design that the SSPX is being destroyed, the end result is the same. Who cannot understand the disdain for all these machinations? And could there possibly be a three way split among the SSPX bishops: +Fellay; +Williamson and +Tissier de Mallerais/+de Galarreta? Hopefully one, if not all three, of the anti-accord bishops will step up to the plate before it's too late. The survival of the SSPX, I'm afraid, lies in them.

stgobnait · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2012, 06:04:05 PM »

where on earth is Bishop de Galleretta, AND Bishop Tisser de Mallerais, they should be ashamed, they are a disgrace to their office...i wil call them pretenders... ii dont know what ABL would call them.....

magdalena · « **Reply #28 on:** October 04, 2012, 06:21:48 PM »

Quote from: poche

I think we should pray for all concerned

Poche-- Everyone is praying. Do you doubt that? Please try to keep in mind that not one of us here would be in Tradition without these three things: Prayer, Reading and, above all, Grace. God gave man an intellect for a reason. Does God not expect us to use it? Fine, if that is all you have or want to add to the discussion; but really, it's getting a bit old for many of us. God bless.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #29 on:** October 06, 2012, 10:55:08 PM »

Why stick with the 1962 missal? That was the "last line of defense." Don't stay there! Go further back. Don't sit on the front line where they can try to push you forward.

The absolution before communion is necessary especially now with the liberal dress of the women in many of these churches.

The Last Gospel's elimination looks to me like some kind of sympathetic gesture to the Jews.

Also, do they believe the Leonine prayers are not necessary? Do they believe that Russia has converted so as we don't need to pray them anymore, and Saint Michael's intercession is no longer paramount to the correction of the situation in the Church?

Go back to the 1957 missal. Don't demand the watered down 1962 missal!