Author Topic: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace. (Read 4263 times)

Colt · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2025, 01:58:27 PM »

Viva Cristo Rey!

Miseremini · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2025, 02:11:44 PM »

Quote from: Colt on August 06, 2025, 09:55:28 PM

It is also worth noting, with sadness, that more than half of the faithful who once stood with Father Girouard now attend fully conciliar SSPX chapels. That is not because they stopped praying. It is because they stopped hearing the truth.

That's on them, not Father.

Miseremini · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2025, 02:20:14 PM »

Quote from: Colt on August 06, 2025, 10:24:09 PM

If Father is warning souls privately,

Souls do not just need private support.

You make it sound as if Father is preaching in secret. Nothing could be further from the truth. He preaches openly to any trad who shows up at his Mass or wishes to follow his guidance through his emails. You really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Father.

Colt · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2025, 03:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini on August 07, 2025, 02:11:44 PM

Quote from: Miseremini 2025-08-07, 12:11:44 PM
That's on them, not Father.

For clarity’s sake, this is not accurate.

Father Girouard has directly told multiple people, including more than ten witnesses at the Langley parish, that it is fine to return to the Neo SSPX chapel. He has even encouraged some to go back, these people have attended my wedding.

In another instance, in front of several individuals, he specifically said, I never said you could not go to the Neo SSPX.

These facts are confirmed by those who heard him. That does not mean people stopped praying. It means they stopped hearing the fight.

Gray2023 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 07, 2025, 09:24:40 PM »

Quote from: Colt on August 07, 2025, 01:56:52 PM

Absolutely. A cruise ship seeks comfort. A battleship seeks victory. But the greatest scandal is when those who once fired at the enemy now scold the soldiers for still fighting.

Maybe we should invest in submarines?

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** August 07, 2025, 10:26:15 PM »

Quote from: Colt on August 07, 2025, 03:29:50 PM

For clarity’s sake, this is not accurate.

Father Girouard has directly told multiple people, including more than ten witnesses at the Langley parish, that it is fine to return to the Neo SSPX chapel. He has even encouraged some to go back, these people have attended my wedding.

In another instance, in front of several individuals, he specifically said, I never said you could not go to the Neo SSPX.

These facts are confirmed by those who heard him. That does not mean people stopped praying. It means they stopped hearing the fight.

You are a Hewkonian. I have to take everything you say with a huge grain of salt.

Fr. Hewko put up with some serious nonsense for MANY years before he finally left. He's still full of much of the Pfeiffer poison, including the whole "fake resistance" bit.
One way they are still two peas in a pod is their "Red Light" position on the neo-SSPX. They advocate home-aloneism for even paltry reasons. They like to LARP (live action role play) as missionaries, early Church catacombs, End Times saints, Japanese martyrs, or some combination of these. They both love to see their "followers" only resort to them for the sacraments -- they relish their followers being completely dependent on them. Much less criticism that way. That is not Catholic, that is a cult.

And yes, they claim to be the only true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. But anyone who's cracked a book knows that +Lefebvre had a much more nuanced position on the New Mass and the Conciliar Church than the simplistic rhetoric and doctrines of Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko.

Fr. Hewko says CathInfo is a sewer of filth. He's obviously 100% wrong about that. Maybe he's wrong about other things too.

Why are you even here?

Colt · « **Reply #21 on:** August 07, 2025, 11:31:38 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on August 07, 2025, 10:26:15 PM

Quote from: Matthew 2025-08-07, 8:26:15 PM
You are a Hewkonian. I have to take everything you say with a huge grain of salt.

Fr. Hewko put up with some serious nonsense for MANY years before he finally left. He's still full of much of the Pfeiffer poison, including the whole "fake resistance" bit.
One way they are still two peas in a pod is their "Red Light" position on the neo-SSPX. They advocate home-aloneism for even paltry reasons. They like to LARP (live action role play) as missionaries, early Church catacombs, End Times saints, Japanese martyrs, or some combination of these. They both love to see their "followers" only resort to them for the sacraments -- they relish their followers being completely dependent on them. Much less criticism that way. That is not Catholic, that is a cult.

And yes, they claim to be the only true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. But anyone who's cracked a book knows that +Lefebvre had a much more nuanced position on the New Mass and the Conciliar Church than the simplistic rhetoric and doctrines of Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko.

Fr. Hewko says CathInfo is a sewer of filth. He's obviously 100% wrong about that. Maybe he's wrong about other things too.

Why are you even here?

Matthew,
You’re free to call me whatever you like, but that does not change what was said or who witnessed it. These events were seen and heard firsthand by multiple people, including those at my wedding.

I’m not here to defend personalities. I’m here to defend the truth. If you believe the facts are wrong, correct them. If not, they stand.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 07, 2025, 11:34:49 PM »

Quote from: StonewallCatho on August 04, 2025, 06:39:47 PM

If we want to have a moral certainty that our sins are forgiven, and therefore that we are in the State of Grace, ...

So, I don't know ...

We have moral certainty that our sins are forgiven when we receive valid absolution from a valid priest with at least supplied jurisdiction after not having dilberately withheld confessing any mortal sins and having a firm purpose of amendment, motivated at least by a fear of damnation.

St. Bernard, on the other hand, was listing some "signs", which by themselves do not lead to moral certainly, but can give us a certain amount of reassurance, except that one can subjectively interpret said signs, and motificaiton has often been done by the greatest heretics. I can think I aspire to supernatural things, even if I'm a heretic, and therfore not in a state of grace ... and same thing can be said of leaving the past behind.

In other words, I don't believe these signs provide any kind of certitude, moral or otherwise, but are mere, well, signs, indicators ... which we could misinterpret. Where have have moral certainty is if we're members of the Church and go to Confession, and receive absolution, with the dispositions listed above.

Matthew · « **Reply #23 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:41:55 AM »

Quote from: Colt on August 07, 2025, 11:31:38 PM

Matthew,
You’re free to call me whatever you like, but that does not change what was said or who witnessed it. These events were seen and heard firsthand by multiple people, including those at my wedding.

I’m not here to defend personalities. I’m here to defend the truth. If you believe the facts are wrong, correct them. If not, they stand.

Here are the facts:

1. You make it sound like I'm lowering myself to "name calling" which is generally a bad sign during any argument. That is not accurate. I only "called you" a Hewkonian which is a follower of Fr. Hewko. And I see you haven't denied it.

2. You bandy about "firsthand" because everyone knows that something witnessed "firsthand" is reliable and unmistakably true. But you even admit you didn't witness these things, so it's not firsthand. Your evidence is second-hand at best, quite probably "hearsay", and "malicious rumors" at worst.

"My brother said that John witnessed a car crash firsthand."
That's not how firsthand works.

You ignored virtually my entire post. Including my question: Why are you here on CathInfo, when Fr. Hewko is completely against it? I bet you haven't asked your confessor about this little apostolate of yours. I'm sure you justify it to yourself that you're going to use it as a missionary ground to "spread the Gospel of Fr. Hewko" and help your Team's cause. Still, you should ask your spiritual director, since he's made it VERY clear what he thinks of CathInfo.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #24 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:26:53 AM »

Quote from: Colt on Yesterday at 09:12:30 AM

Ask Father Girouard directly what his position is on attending the Neo SSPX. Ask the parishioners at Langley what they heard with their own ears. This is not about winning arguments. It is about saving souls. If there is confusion, let the priest clarify it.

The new-sspx isn't fully indult (yet). Nobody is going to hell because they attend the new-sspx (unless the priest is doubtful). You're wrong for implying otherwise.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #25 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:53:51 AM »

Quote from: Colt on Yesterday at 09:47:26 AM

The now NeoSSPX has been under Conciliar Rome since the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. That docuмent inserted the heresies of Vatican II “in the light of Tradition” directly into the Society’s framework. To call this merely a danger is an understatement. It is a formal compromise with modernist Rome. Souls are not safe where such compromise is treated as acceptable. No one is judging interior guilt, but the objective danger is grave. This is not private opinion. It is docuмented fact, and it has eternal consequences.

This is a reach. If the new-sspx was part of new-rome, then they'd be fully indult. But they aren't (yet). They have not fully accepted V2 or the new mass.

Twice dyed · « **Reply #26 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:59:04 AM »

Quote from: Mat183 on August 06, 2025, 11:08:58 PM

Good Fr. Rusak!

Fr. Rusak had also daringly posted a strongly critical commentary under his own name on The Angelus book site's comment section regarding a fellow SSPX priest's notorious book. The book was Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. In spite of the politeness, not to mention the objective correctness of the commentary, it was removed from the site within a matter of days while I think all the "cheerleading" commentaries were left up.

From an old CathInfo thread.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-priest-publicly-smashes-fr-paul-robinson's-(sspx)-book/
"...
Failure to consider all the evidence
Father Gerard Rusak, FSSPX, Nov 2018

While Father Robinson excels on philosophical points in the first six chapters of his book (1 star), he accepts the unproven hypotheses of the Big Bang (with its long ages needed for evolution) and he rashly embraces heliocentrism. Meanwhile, he brushes aside those who do not agree with him using insufficient arguments (see below). His interpretation of the Bible is more in accord with a liberal interpretation of Vatican II's Dei Verbum #11 rather than with the traditional teaching of the Church on the inerrant nature of Holy Scripture. This allows him to pick and choose among facts related in the book of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. He also ignores the longstanding the decrees of the Church against Galileo and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church these same questions. On these last issues, his insufficient arguments have been completely refuted by a book by Robert Sungenis: "Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church" (564 pages).

I thank the Angelus Press in advance for posting this review and request them to add to their list of books the above book of Robert Sungenis so that both sides of the question may be heard. Or should they not wish to do so, to withdraw Father Robinson's book from sale from this their website.
I may add that I know other SSPX priests and faithful like myself who are shocked at the publication of this book for at least some if not all, of the above reasons.
..."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #27 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:06:41 AM »

Quote from: Colt on Yesterday at 10:00:09 AM

This is not a reach. The Neo-SSPX submitted the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, accepting Vatican II “in the light of Tradition” and the New Mass as “legitimately promulgated.” That is formal submission to Modernist Rome. Full indult status is irrelevant. They have already accepted the poisoned root. +Archbishop Lefebvre refused that path entirely because he refused to betray Christ the King.

If you're arguing to 'red light' every new-sspx chapel and priest, i'd say you're overreacting. But now that we know you follow Fr Hewko, the overreaction makes sense.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #28 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:40:52 AM »

Quote from: Colt on Yesterday at 10:21:23 AM

Just to be clear: do you personally accept Vatican II ‘in the light of Tradition’ and the New Mass as ‘legitimately promulgated’? These are the exact phrases Bishop Fellay agreed to in the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, which now binds the Neo-SSPX.

Here's your problem...these phrases "legitimately promulgated" and "in the light of Tradition" are not theological statements, but legal ones. So there's gray area there, depending on what the new-sspx means by these terms.

One could argue:
1. Was the new mass legitimately promulgated? Yes, Paul6 promulgated the apostolic constitution (legal docuмent) which created the new mass. This is a fact of history. If you believe Paul6 was legitimately the pope, then his docuмent was legitimately promulgated (i.e. the docuмent was legally issued).

Being legitimately promulgated has nothing to do with whether the new mass is valid, or licit or moral. Promulgation just has to do with a legal question. And, yes, the docuмent which Paul6 issued, is legal. It's a very strict question, with a very strict answer.

2. Accepting V2 'in the light of Tradition'. Well, new-rome has already said that the new-sspx is allowed to QUESTION certain parts of V2. So this "acceptance" is not unconditional and 100%. It's just not.

Is the new-sspx playing word games, to condition the faithful and to propagandize towards a FULLER agreement with new-rome in the future? Absolutely. But as of now, nothing they have agreed to is heretical. And if it's not heretical, then you can't 'red light' them.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #29 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:53:05 PM »

Quote from: Colt on Yesterday at 11:04:50 AM

We see the fruits with our own eyes. Since the 2012 Declaration, Neo-SSPX chapels have filled with Catholics who accept the indult, who attend the New Mass when convenient, and who no longer resist modernism.

I know many souls personally who once stood firm but now attend the indult on Sundays. Others drifted into the conservative Novus Ordo. Others left the Faith altogether. This is not theory. This is reality.

The contradiction is spiritual poison. How can a priest submit to Modernist Rome and still claim to resist it? How can parents raise children in that confusion and expect them to hold the line?

Some older faithful may cling to vague resistance ideals, but their presence at compromise chapels tells the next generation everything they need to know. The message is clear. You do not need to fight anymore. You do not need to resist. Rome is safe again.

But it is not. The Faith is not preserved through silent contradictions. It is not handed down by attending chapels built on betrayal.

+Archbishop Lefebvre said that compromise always begins in theory but ends in practice. That is exactly what has happened. That is why attendance at the Neo-SSPX is a danger to the soul and to the next generation.

The Faith will not survive in an environment where modernism is tolerated, where error is excused, and where the fight is abandoned.

We are not judging hearts. We are judging principles. And the principle is simple. If the root is poisoned, the fruit will be rotten.

I agree with what you're saying but the influx of indulters and the # of former-Trads who started accepting the indult began with Benedict's 2005 motu. 7 years before the new-sspx's/Fellay's declaration.

You're trying to make the case that the CAUSE of the sspx faithful becoming lukewarm was only the 2012 Declaration. False.

There are a number of factors at play. Did the 2012 Declaration help people become MORE TRAD? Obviously not. But it's not the only factor.

The main point is still that the Declaration is not heretical, even if it's lukewarm. You still can't 'gas light' the sspx over this. 'Yellow light'? For sure.

Author Topic: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace. (Read 4263 times)

Colt

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Miseremini

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Miseremini

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Colt

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Gray2023

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Matthew

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Colt

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Ladislaus

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Matthew

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Twice dyed

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Girouard: Saints talk about signs of being in the State of Grace.