“In a trenchant attack on liberal Catholicism in Britain, Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue of Lancaster has advised Catholics to challenge their bishops if they think they are wrong on Church teaching.
The bishop urged people to be courageous in embracing the traditions of the Church and to resist “disobedient and arrogant” attempts to water them down. He said: “If you hear any Catholic say or teach something that goes against the teaching and discipline of the Church, as safeguarded by the Pope, politely but firmly challenge them, be they a lay catechist, teacher, deacon, priest or even a bishop.”
Read the whole article by visiting the link below
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000472.shtml
Now click on ‘comments’ to tell us what you think. What will the modern Catholics will say about this? Criticise your bishop? But, goodness, that’s what Catholic Truth have been doing for ten years now and we thought they were, well… wrong! Isn’t it “uncharitable” to criticise a bishop? Isn’t the bishop always right? Divinely inspired by God at all times? Are we not supposed to obey – no matter what?
It’s a hoot, isn’t it. We’re waiting to hear from you. Click on ‘comments’ without delay!
-
N O T I C E . . .
Visit the Catholic Press thread for an update on this weekend’s Catholic Herald.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=675#comment-7132comment-7132
-
Having ceased attending the New Order Mass under a diocesan bishop early last year in favour of the Traditional Latin Mass at St Anne’s SSPX chapel in Leicester, my chances of hearing errant church teaching have disappeared.
The speech by Bishop O’Donoghue was generally uplifting to read except for his comment about his “great joy” that the Church after Vatican II “left behind the ghetto and the siege mentality to go out into the world to proclaim the liberating power of Christ’s Gospel”.
Would the good Bishop like to explain how Christ’s Church expanded from a handful of Apostles to a world-wide presence other than by going “out into the world to proclaim the liberating power of Christ’s Gospel”?
He seems to want to promote Vatican II on the one hand, and yet to encourage Traditionalism on the other.Full marks however for his urging of “mainstream” Catholics to challenge errant teaching (should they be able to recognise it).
-
the convert – precisely! I agree with every word you’ve written.
Bishop O’Donoghue’s exhortation to challenge catechists, priests, teachers, and bishops when they deviate from Catholic teaching, is only useful because it highlights that things are now so serious that even a public proponent of Vatican II and a bishop to boot, is publicly acknowledging the seriousness of the crisis in the UK and not just admitting that the laity ought to reprimand their bishops, but telling them to do so!
That is the importance of this thread.
I invite all those who have verbally knocked about those of us who have been saying for years what Bishop O’Donoghue is now saying, albeit a bit late in the day, to remind us again of why it is “uncharitable” to criticise the bishops.
How can it be a “duty” (as Bp O’Donoghue says) to criticise a dissenting bishop if it is, at the same time, “uncharitable” so to do?
Benedict? Londiniensis? conceit? etc etc etc…
-
The Holy See issued a statement during the week reminding Roman Catholics that, despite the Excommunications being lifted, the priests (and bishops) of the SSPX are still suspended from exercising any Priestly Office.
They have no Canonical permission to celebrate Mass or any other Sacraments.
Why does the rebel encourage us to attend such places, when the Holy See has clearly and unequivocally stated that we should not do so?
-
sorry – should have said ‘the convert’ instead of ‘the rebel’
-
Spoken like a true Pharisee, conceit. Be sure to dot all the “i”s and cross all the “t”s and present your case against the SSPX like a true professional, as waterproof as possible. Never mind the reality – don’t let that get in your way.
The pendulum has begun to swing back in favour of Tradition, and in keeping with Our Lady’s promise that: “In the end, my Immaculate h
Heart will Triumph”.I am with the convert on this entirely. He has consistently, with many others, upheld the SSPX in its efforts to safeguard the Teachings of the Catholic Church, based on Scripture and on Tradition and on the Magisterium. The technicalities you raise are like twigs in the path of a juggernaut and will do nothing to halt its progress.
Let us pray that Pope Benedict will safely steer the barque of St. Peter back into Traditional waters.
-
Leprechaun,
How dare you call conceit a Pharisee. He, like myself and untold many thousands of orthodox Catholics remained faithful to the Church through these barren years;
We fought FROM WITHIN whilst others ran away and hid in what some until recently called “a schismatic” group whose constant sniping, namecalling particularly against the Pope, saying in one sentence how loyal they are then without drawing breath decrying all within Mother Church; then hastily retreating into their own little world. Well mate, we shall see shortly what happens next.
I fully supported and congratulated the followers of the SSPX, even through that lamentable +Williamson debacle and the hurt is is doing to Mother Church, but the continued arrogance being displayed by SSPX supporters is really beyond the pale.
I am very pleased to say I do not see any of that from the SSPX itself whose Bishops and priests display a totally different type of behaviour called Charitas, Fraternitas and Unitas.
+Fellay et al beware; you have now gone forward and there is no retreat possible. Allow you supporters to bring that arrogance to the table and suffer the consequences.
Christ humbled Himself, even to accepting death on a Cross for us – I wish you guys would display even a grain of sand’s worth.
Rant over, now time for the rugby internationals.
-
conceit
Rash statements such as yours are no longer valid in the present climate, not that they ever were.
Those who support the work of the SSPX and who attend Mass at the SSPX do so because they know the immemorial teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. They have never accepted what you and so many others have accepted so blindly, e.g., that Vatican II is a “superdogma.” This term was coined by the present Pontiff who deplores such a view of the Council.
Pope Benedict is making moves towards the SSPX because he sees the devastation wrought on the Church after forty years of this liberal “superdogma.” He knows the time has come to restore sacred Tradition and to address the injustices committed against the SSPX.
You believe the liberal line of “canonical good standing” if you like, but remember we’re not all uninformed lackies of the revolution. The Church has said that Catholic souls may fulfil their Sunday obligation by attending Mass at an SSPX church. That’s good enough for me, the convert and a good many other Catholics.
Do you really think the authorities of the Church would have made such a statement if they believed that the SSPX Bishops and priests were truly guilty of great sin in the eyes of God for their stance against the destructive spirit of Vatican II? Not in a million years.
You must learn to read between the lines when the Vatican issues statements like the one you refer to. It’s called Vatican-speak and it rarely carries the Pope’s signature.
Oh! if only people would follow Our Lord’s advice and judge people by their fruits instead of just rhyming off by rote what they hear others say concerning the letter of the ‘new Canon law.’
You go indulge in the watered-down Mass and Faith of the average parish on a Sunday (or rather Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath) if you will, conceit, and leave the rest of us in peace to follow our conscience in sticking with the Traditional Mass and Faith as upheld by the SSPX. Thank you.
-
Benedict
There is no such thing as having “fought from within” and fine well you know it. This is the get-off phrase used by those who did not have stomach
enough to stand aloof with the persecuted during the cold years.I was in a modern parish, very actively so, for two decades. Many others now with the SSPX were likewise. We know how empty is the claim of fighting from within. It simply was not/is not genuine. There always comes a time when the genuinely orthodox Catholic comes face to face with a choice, the SSPX or compromise with the liberals. I know because I and all others finally faced that choice. There is no middle-of-the-road position when it comes to the faith, no fighting from within the modern structure. This is a myth. The only fighting from within is to fight from within the SSPX, which, as you now know, is not and never was “schismatic.”
-
Oh Leprechaun,
You have actually called the Church Pharisaic as it is only the Church which can lift the current restrictions on the SSPX.
That is unless conceit is the Pope’s blogging name?
-
Athanasius,
Yes, many gave up hope and left. I feel sorry for them but as our Lord’s parable said, some wheat fell on hard ground, some on the wayside but others fell on fertile ground. I think those who left after giving up hope are tike the wayside grains whilst we who remained true and faithful are the grains on the fertile ground.
Now, how is that for arrogance – am I getting close to you guys?
-
Benedict
The “wayside grains” you refer to are more properly those who withered under the heat of liberal persecution and compromised tradition. Those that fell on the “hard ground” are the liberals themselves. Those that fell on the fertile ground are those who, like the martyrs, were prepared to be crucified “metaphorically speaking” in defence of two thousand years of sacred tradition.
It seems a strange analogy to compare those who gave themselevs up to persecution and exclusion for the sake of the faith with those who “ran away.” Surely the ones who ran away were the ones who did nothing under the liberal regime to bring persecution upon themselves? You know, the ones who now claim that they stayed to “fight within.”
-
Athanasius,
OK I submit. Your arrogance is much, much more breathtaking than mine.
LOL
-
the convert
Glad you focused on that passage of the Bishop’s about “leaving the ghetto,” etc., as I also pulled up short when I saw it. I’ve heard that, and “siege mentality,” several times before, repeated by well-meaning people who don’t realize it provided the justification for “opening the windows of the Church to the world.”
Actually, you, know, there is a wonderful and beautiful reason that the Church’s windows are made of stained glass, and that is to filter, condition, and re-paint the harsh light of the world in sheer beauty and mystery, to inspire us to turn to God and to prepare us for the ineffable mystery taking place on the altar.
Draw your own conclusions about what happens when those windows are opened. And by the way, if the Church locked all its doors after Mass and refused to let people out, then maybe someone could claim that she needed to open up! But no, it is the opposite: the Church urges us to go out and love our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
Benedict and conceit, and esp. Benedict
You never learn, do you? Same tired old arguments, same lack of response to the refutation of your arguments, same false claims, same ad hominem garbage. If you have revealed one thing over the course of this blog, it is that you haven’t the slightest understanding of the crisis in the Church.
-
Benedict,
Had you written (of Athanasius): “Your strength of Faith is much, much more breathtaking than mine” I would have been able to agree with you.
But you didn’t, so I cannot.
Let us go our separate ways – you with the Modernists and all their heresies which you have not yet managed to rectify from your position within their ranks, and me with the Traditionalists where, thanks be to God, everything is as it has been down the ages, and no rectification is required.
Safe journey and God bless.
-
N O T I C E . . .
There’s an update on the Bishop Williamson thread, if you’d like to take a look.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=646#comment-7161comment-7161
-
conceit, if you are referring to the statement from Cardinal Bertone (more likely than not to be a Freemason – see his shenanigans over Fatima and the lies he has spoken about Father Gruner and his Fatima apostolate)
then all I can say is – get real. Think, conceit. Think, think, think. And when you’ve done that, think again.That “urgent” statement is not from the Pope but from a livid Secretary of State – Bertone – who is wild with rage that the Pope acted unilaterially (i.e. without consulting him) to lift the unjust excommunications.
Hence this “urgent” statement which, as Athanasius rightly points out, does not carry the signature of the Pope nor does it have his approval. That we can say with certainty.
Ask yourself, conceit, why, why WHY did the Pope act unilaterially on this matter? Why did he NOT consult Cardinal Bertone? Or any of the other modernists around him in the Vatican?
Take a guess.
-
Leprechaun,
You again prove my point. Arrogance – you guys think you have the sole right to spout “we Traditionalists”. which planet are you on? You think your the only Traditionalist? What utter poppycock.
I shall bide my time; we’ll see where your bishops lead and who will follow. I read already one SSPX priest has been given the boot by +Fellay – how many more to go and how many laity will follow? (reminds me of Stronsay). Now, will you be amongst them as they take up the chant that “we are the Trads” and the SSPX has sold out Tradition and Orthodoxy? Tick-tock, tick-tock.
-
As to this business of “fighting from within” Benedict, what would you say to the congregation of St Aloysius Parish in Glasgow city centre this weekend as they read through their parish bulletin and see a prominent advertisement for Open House the Pope-hating anti-Catholic booklet published in the Diocese of Dunkeld and which we have exposed on many occasions for its dissent? Especially when they published a series of articles promoting cohabitation before marriage. PROMOTING, Benedict. Promoting grave sin as a positive good. That is just the first thing that springs to mind. There’s loads more where than came from. That it is pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion goes without saying. Oh but, what am I thinking of? One of its editors is Father Willy Slavin of St Simon’s & St Patrick’s (two parishes) who is, of course, a “priest in good standing”. So, that’ll be all right then, Benedict, eh?
How could the St Aloysius parishioners – and all the people from around the city who go there for confessions every day and pick up these bulletins displayed at the back of the Church – how do they prevent their sons and daughters from going into the bookshop as encouraged to do so by the priest writing the bulletin, to buy this poisonous publication?
Tell us, Benedict. We sure would love to know.
-
Editor,
Yes yes dear very interesting I’m sure. However it is quite simple to cherry pick individual incidents as examples but I shall refrain from returning the complement to prove the arrogancy within the SSXP; +Williamson does it much better.
Sure the Church has warts which deserve exising, and the SSPX, that apparently sole repository of Orthodoxy, don’t?
-
Benedict,
I have every confidence that Bishop Fellay will ask for nothing more than that Tradition be upheld. He is not going to ask the supporters of the SSPX to follow him into any wildernesses, nor is he going to ask them to press for anything that conflicts with the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture or Tradition. Nor is he going to deny the supremacy of Christ’s Vicar on earth, nor withdraw his loyalty.
I do not see Bishop Fellay “selling out Tradition and Orthodoxy” as you posit. Bide your time by all means, but I am sure you will find the train has left without you while you prevaricate on the station.
I am content to be led by one with such ideals, and I fully expect to be in the company of Madame Editor, Athanasius, Tomas, Semperfidelis, Heather Priest (to name but a few) and every other Catholic who knows Truth from Deceit. You could join this Faithful band, but you would need to discern the difference between Faith and Arrogance if you wanted the perseverance to reach the goal – Eternal life in heaven.
-
leprechaun,
Reread my post of 2.01pm. It is not +Fellay who sadden me it is the arrogant laity he seems to be bringing to the party.
-
Benedict,
You said at 2.01 +Fellay et al beware; you have now gone forward and there is no retreat possible. Allow you (sic) supporters to bring that arrogance to the table and suffer the consequences.
Unless your other name is Humpty-Dumpty of “When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less” fame, please clarify your position because what you said at 2.01 and what you say at 5.04pm seem at first and second glance to be at opposite ends of the diameter.
Either you are lumping in Bishop Fellay with his supporters, or you are not – please make up your mind.
-
Another case of cherry picking here.
You failed to include the preceding paragraph which I do so now:
I am very pleased to say I do not see any of that from the SSPX itself whose Bishops and priests display a totally different type of behaviour called Charitas, Fraternitas and Unitas.
+Fellay et al beware; you have now gone forward and there is no retreat possible. Allow you (sic) supporters to bring that arrogance to the table and suffer the consequences.
How do you know I am shaped like Humpty Dumpty?
-
Benedict
You mistake confidence for arrogance. We Traditional Catholics cannot be anything other than confident because our trust is not in our own reasoning in the divine truths of sacred tradition.
Which brings me to this oft-abused term “cherry picking.” My friend, you really must understand that cherry picking only became popular after Vatican II. It is a liberal vice, not a traditionalist one. We accept every article of faith that has been handed down to us through the authentic magisterium of the Church. Liberals, frankly, do not. They are a la carte Catholics, which is the same as cherry picking.
Torkay
Loved your analogy with the stained glass windows. What a pity Pope John opened wide the windows of the Church just as a hurricane was gathering strength. It wrecked the House of God.
leprechaun
You are quite right about Bishop Fellay and those who follow his lead. These liberals seem to ignore the fact that, actually, the SSPX Bishops have been more obedient to the Pope than their counterparts in the mainstream. Bishop Fellay, like all traditional Catholics worthy of the name, love the Pope. When it comes to preserving tradition, however, they love the Papacy more.
-
“Benedict,
Torkay,
leprechaun”…
what about l’il ole me, Athanasius?
-
Athanasius,
Tomorrow, when I see you, I will be handing you a large brown envelope.
Say nothing. Take it, put it somewhere safe, read it when you get home and then return it to me in said brown envelope.Say nothing, Athanasius. This is not for public consumption…
I mention it here because (a) I will, as per usual in the morning, be otherwise preoccupied, in my state of mystic contemplation so will not be likely to speak with you (b) I want to annoy Benedict…
Say nothing, Athanasius. Nothing…
-
Does “+Fellay et al” mean Bishop Fellay and fellow Bishops only, or does it mean “Bishop Fellay and fellow Bishops and all those who support the SSPX”?
I do not see a gap, myself. I count myself as being with Bishop Fellay, and I trust Bishop Fellay to go forward to the table, with the prayers of his faith-filled supporters, and to return with a commitment from Pope Benedict XVI to uphold Tradition.
The Bishop cannot agree to any sort of deal that involves compromise, because that would be to compromise the Truth, which he cannot even consider.
Pope Benedict XVI knows the score. I do not expect the stand-off to last very long. There is only one Church and one Truth and both parties know there can be no shenanigans.
-
leprechaun
You have said it. This is precisely my position in the matter.
By the way, I have just finished a post on the Bishop Williamson thread that more or less compliments what you have written here at the same time, namely that Benedict should respect the office of a Bishop of the Catholic Church by calling him Bishop, no “+”.
-
leprechaun
sorry, “no” should read not.
-
Does anyone know who runs the Rorate Coeli blog? I was making posts on a Bishop Williamson thread without any problem yesterday, but today, when I sign in using my Google account, it recognises me being signed in as “Athanasius” but adds that I cannot comment using this account.
Have I been banned or something? Can the convert help me with this? Surely they wouldn’t pull a Fr. Z on poor old Athanasius?
-
Leprechaun
If Bishop Fellay is entering into any discussion with the Holy Father determined that he is ‘not going to compromise’, then what sort of discussion is it going to be?
Do you seriously think that the Holy Father is going to allow himself to be lectured by Bishop Fellay, and then the Holy Father is meekly going to fall in line with everything Bishop Fellay says?
Frankly, this is madness, and not going to happen.
The Holy see has already said that any further discussion with Bishiop Fellay and his Society will, firstly, be determined by their accepting the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Will this not be ‘compromise’?
The Holy Father has acted twice now in his attempts to sort all this out. When are we going to see a similarly generous gesture from the SSPX?
All I’ve heard so far is extremely arrogant rhetoric.
-
conceit, “the Holy See” cannot say a solitary word. Who are you talking about?
Cardinal Bertone?
Refer to my post above.
-
Editor
It is highly amusing how you totally dismiss His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State simply because he seems to challenge some of your own entrenched opinions!
Who is right? Oh, of course, it can’t be Cardinal Bertone, after all, he’s WHAT? A Freemason? Where is your evidence of this?
Oh, and as for Fr. Gruner – everything that the Cardinal Secretary of State has said about him is LIES?
If I were the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Holy Father acted unilaterally, I too would be less than happy! It has top be recognised that there is a world of a difference from the Holy Father ‘consulting’ someone, which the Holy Father can do if he pleases, and ‘informing’ them of something major which is going to happen!
It is absolute garbage to insinuate that Cardinal Bertone is a Freemason, and that the Holy Father is deliberately withholding information from Cardinal Bertone. After all, who appointed Cardinal Bertone as Secretary of State? The Pope, and the Pope alone!
I think you own His Eminence an apology. Shame on you, Patricia.
-
Do you HONESTLY believe that the Office of the Cardinal Secretary of State would issue a statement that did not have the approval of the Holy Father?
I think it is you, Patricia, who has to ‘get real’, and to think, think,think and think again.
It stands to reason that Curial Officials will issue statements – the statement remitting the Excommunications was signed by a Curial Cardinal!! Was he acting with the approval of the Holy Father?
Of course he was! But, as ever, the one who you agree with was acting on behalf of the Holy Father – while the other one – that you don’t agree with, is a Freemason!!
You’d better get your coat on Patricia. The men in the white coats will be round for you any moment!
-
conceit wrote:
“The Holy Father has acted twice now in his attempts to sort all of this out. When are we going to see a similarly generous gesture from the SSPX?
All I’ve heard so far is extremely arrogant rhetoric.”I believe that the SSPX has been generous (assuming that you are referring to the SSPX priests and bishops). Bishop Fellay responded quickly to the problem of Bp. Williamson’s interview with the Swedish Television, and Bp. Williamson issued an apology to the Holy Father.
The SSPX bishops have been very respectful toward the Holy Father, which is more than can be said for the rogue diocesan bishops and cardinals who have attacked or criticized the Holy Father. What are you doing to counteract this? Have you written to these critics and complained that they need to support the Pope?
And could you please list the instances where SSPX priests or bishops have been, as you put it, “extremely arrogant?”
-
Conceit,
1) How many times do you have to have it spelt out to you?
There can be no discussion about the Truth. The only discussion there can be is about how it is to be implemented in these disturbed circumstances.
The Holy Father and Bishop Fellay both know this. It is not a question of Bishop Fellay “lecturing” Pope Benedict XVI.
That is a legitimate topic for discussion, and to say: “madness, it is not going to happen” could not be further from the truth.
“Acceptance of the Documents of Vatican II” is a very vague statement and if to you it means accepting Collegiality, Freedom to think what you will, equality of other religions, then I see no possibility of agreement because these are heresies. Pope Benedict XVI cannot ask Bishop Fellay to accept them, and even if he did ask, Bishop Fellay would be unable to agree.
This is not a game of bartering. This is all to do with upholding Tradition. Arrogance does not come into it. You can throw all the brick-bats you like about people whose opinion differs from yours, but you will not make any difference to the Truth, which will stand long after your departure.
2) If Cardinal Bertone is such an upright man, why does he continue to block the revelation of the Third Secret of Fatima? Why does he just not open the envelope and hold it up in front of the TV cameras for all the world to be able to see for themselves the message that Our Lady wanted to be revealed as far back as 1960?
3) The Pope is the ultimate authority in the Roman Catholic Church. He is not obliged to discuss with anyone else what he can and cannot do, no matter how high they may be. We are not in a democracy here, we are in the care of a shepherd who is charged with guiding us all to salvation. If you don’t want to accept the conditions of membership, go it alone.
-
conceit
Once, having educated yourself as to the facts regarding Cardinal Bertone and the Third Secret, you are still prepared to defend his position, then I will respect that.
At the present time it sounds like you’re just spouting off a party line without really knowing anything of the history of the Fatima controversy. Go read what Fr. Gruner, Christopher Ferrara and a number of other unquestionable experts on Fatima have to say about Cardinal Bertone and the Third Secret and then perhaps you may be able to offer a balanced view.
-
Would someone be good enough to go to this link and tell me if it displays a grey box in the top right corner with the words “New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.”
Thank you kind soul who does this for me.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=934925060850869461
-
Athanasius,
I also see the box, in the link webpage, with the words, “New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator,” except that the box is a brown color on my screen, instead of grey. It looks like the comments section has been locked down.I was once banned from posting comments on that blog, probably because I defended the SSPX a bit too zealously. But I was able to post again by using a different screen name (the only time I’ve ever used a different name on a blog or forum). I haven’t posted there for awhile, though.
-
Athanasius,
I have just visited that link and it does display the box you mention.
There seems to have been quite a bit of activity on this thread since my last visit. If it were not so late I would have made a contribution of my own, but I have to go seek Mistress Editor in the pubs and the clubs of Sauchiehall Street.
What can be in the plain brown envelope, I ask myself . . .
-
Ah! the convert, now if I were to tell you what was in that brown envelope I’d have to kill you. Really, it’s nothing important.
Thanks for looking at that blog for me folks, I was beginning to get a bit paranoid. It seems both Rorate Coeli and the Papa Stronsay blogs are displaying the same message on threads relating to Bishop Williamson. It’s odd.
-
Athanasius,
Yep went there and it says the following:
New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.
However from my attempts it appears the comments have been disabled for everyone not just you. Perhaps they feel that big posts on a particular thread are not appropriate for that blog site (I’m only surmising here).
-
Leprechaun,
At last I see you are beginning to get it. You wrote:
3) The Pope is the ultimate authority in the Roman Catholic Church. He is not obliged to discuss with anyone else what he can and cannot do, no matter how high they may be. We are not in a democracy here, we are in the care of a shepherd who is charged with guiding us all to salvation. If you don’t want to accept the conditions of membership, go it alone.
Exactly. so whatever your perseived version of the Truth is, is irrelevant. The Pope is the ultimate authority here on earth. SPOT ON. That means +Fellay will have to sumbit to the Pope or, in your own words, go it alone .
-
Athanasius,
The use of +(Bishop’s name) is an accepted form. This, as you are no doubt aware, is the form Bishops use in communications, especially when signing documents. Similarly that of an Archbishop may use ++(Archbishop’s name). There is no disrespect given or taken. But of course, I forgot, I’m a liberalist from the modern church who has no knowledge of Tradition or Orthodoxy so I must be wrong.
-
Benedict
Thanks for looking at this for me. I note what you say about “big posts” on particular threads, but they have halted one thread that only has eleven comments on it.
Now regarding your comments to leprechaun, I think you probably already know that you are deliberately muddying the waters. Bad Benedict!
There is a complete world of differnece between the Pope making a unilateral decision that does not contradict the Church’s doctrinal teaching, which he is perfectly entitled to do as Supreme Pastor of the Church, and one which does contradict doctrinal teaching, because he is not God. You catch my drift?
-
All,
new posting on Rorate Caeli may be of interet to you.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/four-sspx-bishops-send-joint-letter-to.html
-
Athanasius,
Yes I do, but it was just too good an opportunity to miss, especially since I’ve been at the brasso tonight.
-
I’m an isopropol alchohol man myself, Benedict. Help take away them blogging blues!
-
Just posted my comments on that Rorate Caeli thread, Benedict.
-
Now then, now then, now then!
In April and May 1996 Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, excommunicated Catholics who attended the SSPX chapel in his diocese because there was no ‘case of necessity’ since the traditional Mass was freely available to the faithful through his priests and the FSSP. Rome upheld the excommunication. Therefore the SSPX left the diocese because they knew that since there was no ‘necessity’ the excommunication was justified and their ministry was sinful.
I wonder if Cardinal O’Brien or Archbishop Conti know about the laudable action taken by this Bishop? Where is the ‘case of necessity’ in Edinburgh or Glasgow?
Clearly there isn’t one. Just a state of arrogant disobedience.
-
Athanasius,
Regarding your earlier comment to Benedict
Why is it that saying something which is difficult for some to stomach, or doesn’t follow the Catholic Truth ‘party line’ called muddying the waters?
Sometimes the truth is unpalatable!
-
Benedict,
Reference your post of 11.09 pm Feb 7 above:
You say: “Exactly. so whatever your perseived version of the Truth is, is irrelevant. The Pope is the ultimate authority here on earth. SPOT ON. That means +Fellay will have to sumbit to the Pope or, in your own words, go it alone” .
My perceived version of the Truth, if I have been taught correctly, will be the same as the Truth. Therefore my perception cannot be irrelevant because it will be congruent.
I said that the Pope is ultimate authority. However, for you to say that Bishop Fellay will have to submit to the Pope [and therefore will be required to accept the fruits of Vatican II] is a non sequitur.
No Pope can require a Catholic to accept heresy.
To make such a claim is to display gross ignorance of the concept of False Obedience. It is not a question of “the Catholic Truth party line” as conceit contemptuously says. It it part of Catholic Doctrine that Catholics must correct their superiors in cases of error. Apart from that, Pope Benedict XVI himself has been very quiet so far on the question of the Doctrinal Differences between Tradition and Modernism, and I have not seen any suggestion that he would require Bishop Fellay to accept the fruits of Vatican II, much as the Modernists would like that to be the case.
No Benedict, you were having a stir while your judgement was temporarily clouded, and whilst I don’t mind you trying to make fun of me, I do object to you misleading other bloggers, as illustrated by your demonstrated submersion of the matter of False Obedience.
Remember that this is an educational blog and that many, myself included, come here to learn, with the exception of those who cannot accept the Truth and who make bitter accusations about those who can and do uphold it.
-
Conceit:
Thank you for your link to Archbishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska above. I looked him up in Wikipedia and it seems there are Traditional Latin Masses available throughout that State, such that the SSPX could not claim to be providing Traditional Latin Masses in the absence of an alternative. They were driven out of the State and their supporters excommunicated.
You then say: “I wonder if Cardinal O’Brien or Archbishop Conti know about the laudable action taken by this Bishop? Where is the ‘case of necessity’ in Edinburgh or Glasgow?”
I am neither Glaswegian nor Edinbronian myself, but I do not have the impression that either city is offering Traditional Latin Masses to such a wide extent that there is no justification for an SSPX presence.
Without doubt you will hasten to substantiate your position with a list of all the churches in both cities where a Traditional Latin Mass is held on Sundays for the benefit of the Faithful.
-
Correction: Make that “Bishop Bruskewitz”.
-
I propose everyone contacting and challenging their Bishop to come out in support of Pope Benedict XVI at this crucial moment in church history in light of the press led vomit against his authority.
Also, request that your message at least be acknowledged – we know how they like to bin criticism without reply.
Would be interesting to see what replies and actions occur.
-
It is absolutely impossible that Bishop Bruskewitz could have excommunicated SSPX faithful because they did not attend the Latin Masses arranged in his diocese. What utter tosh!
The stance of the SSPX and its faithful, which the Pope perfectly understands and accepts, is not just a defence of the Mass but of doctrine also.
How often must people be told that this fight for the faith is not just about the Mass. If Rome understands this then why can’t everyone else. If, in fact, this Bishop did excommunicate SSPX faithful for the reason above, and if Rome upheld his act, then we may be certain that such grave injustice will certainly be null and void in the eyes of Our Lord.
I’ll bet that Bishop is imbued with the condemned doctrinal errors of Vatican II, such as Collegiality, religious liberty, religious freedom, ecumenism, etc. I’ll bet he also permits such profanities as ministers of the Eucharist, Communion in the hand, drinking from the chalice and all those other heathen gymnastics we see in the average parish.
And he would dare excommunicate upright Catholics for refusing these insults to almighty God and standing aloof from his diocese whilst they are in vogue? How dare this unjust and doctrinally deviant bishop pretend such hypocrisy.
Who do we think Our Lord will be pleased with in this affair? A revolutionary modernist bishop who issues unjust sentences, or those Catholics who wish only to preserve the faith of their fathers, and so refuse the bishop’s wee carrot of Mass but not doctrine?
It’s just as Our Lord said to the Pharisees of His own day “You strain at a Gnat and swallow a camel.” These bishops baulk at the SSPX and its stance for all things holy but are quite content to permit sacrileges against the Blessed Sacrament. Woe to these Pharisees in the mainstream Church.
-
Michelangelo
If you have read the comments of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor on the Pope’s lifting of the excommunications then you will know that your suggestion would be a fruitless exercise.
This “Prince of the Church” is too busy placating the Jews in Britain to be sympathetic towards the Holy Father. He criticised the Pope in a letter to Britain’s chief Rabbi. Few bishops in Britain, if any, will take a different view of matters lest the Cardinal ship them off to Swaziland!
-
conceit,
Could you please provde a link to the supposed proof of SSPX faithful who were excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz? My understanding of the situation is that Bishop Bruskewitz only threatened to excommunicate anyone who attended, or who even were thinking of attending (thought control) an SSPX mass.I don’t think that attending an SSPX mass has ever been an excommunicable offense. But I may be wrong, and will admit so if shown the proof to the contrary.
As I recall, Bishop Bruskewitz also threatenend to excommunicate anyone who joined any freemasonic order, but never saw any evidence that he actually followed through with this.
Though this bishop is to be commended on his support of the Latin Mass, isn’t he also the one who is known far and wide for his Polka Masses?
-
conceit
Here is a link dealing in detail with Bishop Bruskewitz’s behaviour, as well as that of other zealous modernists: Take note particularly of the case of the Hawaii 6.
http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues.htm
Oh yes, nearly forgot to say that the offence committed against justice by Bishop Bruskowitz was aggravated by his deliberate inclusion of the SSPX with such sects as Freemasonry and planned parenthood in his excommunication. This was done to bring about maximum impact on the faithful. It’s a scandal.
-
Theneva
If you follow the link in my previous post you will see that Cardinal Ratzinger overturned a Bishop’s excommunication of 6 SSPX supporters in Hawaii.
It is not considered an excommunicatable offence to attend Mass at an SSPX church. Rome only says that it is serious if one does so in a schismatic spirit. This is certainly not the case with the average Trad. So, no excommunication.
Can you imagine a Bishop reasoning with himself that those who uphold the traditional Catholic Faith against these horrendous scandals today are acting, like Freemasons, against the Church? What utter rubbish.
I do know, incidentally, that Bishop Bruskewitz has been involved in a number of ecumenical services to the great scandal of Catholic souls.
-
This is a very enlightening link about Bishop Bruskewitz. We must not pass judgement on him, but his suitability as a role model, even for Cardinal O’Brien or Archbishop Conti, has to be called into question.
-
leprechaun
Thanks for posting this very informative link. It says all that needs saying to any Catholic with a modicum of the true faith.
-
leprechaun
By the way, I should point out that while we are not permitted to judge whether or not Bishop Bruskewitz’s heresy is material or formal, we are permitted to observe that his actions are heretical.
-
Leprechaun
The ‘case of necessity’ does not exist in Scotland as, there is a TRaditional Latin Mass in Glasgow every Sunday at Sacred Heart Church, Dalmarnock Road, at 10:15am. For further information, please ‘phone Fr. Dunn – 0141 554 0806.
Now, while I am prepared to accept that Scotland is much more than just Glasgow, YOU tell me that there is a ’state of necessity’ in this city. Clearly, there is none.
-
conceit,
Well said about the SSPX’s relevance in Edinburgh and Glasgow with licit Traditional Masses in close proximity to theirs. A good question to put to their Excellencies.
As the SSPX do not have a resident priest in either location then once the Pope has put the SSPX in their place within the Church then there is no need to have flying priests to cater for the Traditional community in either place; numbers alone do not support two separate Mass locations in each city.
I personally look forward to greeting the SSPX followers at St Andrew’s church in Edinburgh. I am sure those in Glasgow will also do so.
-
N O T I C E . . .
Visit the Holocaust – an alternative view to read an update
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=709#comment-7216comment-7216comment-7216
-
Benedict and conceit, you cannot be that ignorant. You cannot really believe the rubbish you are talking about having traditional Masses available dispensing with the SSPX.
All I can say is…
(1) you can take a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink (ie. your continued stubborn adherence to the falsehood of SSPX schism means you are, as Our Lord described the ancient Hebrews in the desert,”unteachable”. It’s a case of “don’t know, don’t wanna know”)
(2) you’ve obviously never heard an SSPX sermon!
-
Leprechaun,
Well where do I begin. Let me take the worst of your response to my post:
I said that the Pope is ultimate authority. However, for you to say that Bishop Fellay will have to submit to the Pope [and therefore will be required to accept the fruits of Vatican II] is a non sequitur.
No Pope can require a Catholic to accept heresy.
I cannot not believe you wrote that. You are openly stating that +Fellay does not have to submit to the Head of Mother Church?? You are also inferring, if not downright stating that the Pope teaches and condones heresy??
Good grief if that isn’t a sedevicantist viewpoint I don’t know what is. You state this is an educational blog yet you dare to spread that kind of heretical nonsense to bloggers?? Wow!!
It appears that irreverent comments are not only the domain of an SSPX Bishop.
In a previous post you clearly stated that:
If you don’t want to accept the conditions of membership, go it alone.
Now in the post I allude to you have now changed 180 . Where do you really want to be, the days of one foot in and one foot out are over.
-
Editor,
Have you ever heard an FSSP sermon? You quite rightly say you can only take a horse to water….. That applies equally to the SSPX. His Holiness have led you back to Mother Church; now are you going to drink or what?? From what some of your SSPX followers are openly declaring it looks very much in line with your (1).
-
Editor,
Whether conceit or I believe about dispensing with the SSPX Mass centres and priests is irrelevant because you know full well that given any opportunity both their Excellencies will do just that.
My only regret is that in writing those thoughts it may give ideas to their moles who may frequent this blog.
-
Benedict
Go grow some wisdom teeth. You speak on matters you have never investigated and, consequently, you show a great ignorance of Church discipline and the difference between true and false obedience.
I could make a huge post here laying out the truth of the matter, but it would make no difference either to you or to your agitating accomplice, conceit. Neither of you really cares about the facts, nor, I add, the beautiful traditions of our Holy Faith that have been wiped out in the name of that false obedience.
You both simply follow orders without question, correct? Now where have I heard that one before?
conceit, you knew precisely what you were instigating when you made that post today at 12.31am. It was intended to aggravate rather than stimulate charitable debate. And on a Sunday. Shame on you.
editor
I see the times and addresses for the FSSP Masses have also been placed by conceit in his post of 3.21 pm today. I advise that since these details were posted uncharitably they should be removed. We cannot use the Holy Mass as a means of scoring points. Besides this, we do not advertise FSSP Masses on this site for the reasons you have mentioned before. I think both Benedict and conceit should respect your wish.
-
Thank you for alerting me to the Edinburgh Mass advertisement, Athanasius. I hadn’t noticed that in my haste to skim this thread before going out.
I would ask bloggers to respect the decision of the Catholic Truth team which was reached, incidentally, following representation by an Edinburgh reader who rightly objected to our continued advertising of Fr Emerson’s Mass on our website following our reports in the January 07 edition.
I had overlooked the fact that we were advertising his Masses on our website but, moved to end that inconsistency without delay as soon as I received the email from our Edinburgh complainant.Now, I will take it as provocative cheek to post any further advertisements for Fr Emerson’s Mass. All such advertisements will always be deleted.
There is an SSPX Mass in Edinburgh which it is perfectly legitimate to attend. That is the judgement of the Vatican, in plain English, so anyone who insists on saying the opposite is defying the Pope.
-
Benedict,
Re: Yours of 4.01pm
Then clearly you do not know the difference between a sedevacanist who rejects the validity of the Pope, on the one hand, and a properly informed adherent of the Faith, who is loyal to the Pope but who at the same time is required to correct error in his superiors, on the other hand.
Is Collegiality a heresy? Is False Ecumenism a heresy? Are these two practised in the Conciliar Church?
“There’s none so blind as them that won’t see” and on that note I shall sup some wholesome Guinness and you can return to your Brasso.
-
Benedict,
I don’t know if Editor has been to an FSSP Mass, but I have…..several of them, actually. The sermons I heard were every bit as good as what I hear from our SSPX priests. And here’s why I don’t attend any Masses there anymore: because the priest there has the same hostile and uncharitible attitude that you do about the SSPX, Benedict. And yet, I never hear anything uncharitible from the folks at my SSPX chapel about those who attend the FSSP Mass.
He also believes that the SSPX is a cult. This priest also, like yourself, will not listen to reason. I can see that he’s a good priest, and trying his best to save souls. But the SSPX mass centers are still very much needed. Things may change in the future as to how the SSPX is set up in the Church, but that may be a long time from now.
Athansius,
I appreciate the info about the Hawaii 6, since I hadn’t known much about that situation. It’s heartening to know that it was Cardinal Ratzinger himself who declared that the excommunications were invalid. -
OK Benedict,
Here’s your chance to prove me wrong with reasoned, factual debate supported by evidence from the teaching of the Magisterium over the centuries.
You made this statement to leprechaun: “I cannot not believe you wrote that. You are openly stating that +Fellay does not have to submit to the Head of Mother Church??”
This is not what leprechaun said, but merely your misrepresentation of what he said. He actually said that Bishop Fellay is not bound to accept the errors (“heresies”) of Vatican II.
You then made this statement:
“ You are also inferring, if not downright stating that the Pope teaches and condones heresy??”
I have gone over the distinction between material and formal heresy in the past, so no need to do so here again.
Now here is where you have to go and research documents of the infallible magisterium.
Collegiality, religious liberty, religious freedom and ecumenism are all condemned by the Church as grave errors (or heresies). Today they form the basis of a Conciliar reform which even the Pope says is not infallible.
Explain please? Tell us how the Church can condemn heresy and then embrace it? And I would like something a little more convincing than “we must obey Mother Church.”
-
conceit, your posts confuse me. Would you please kindly answer the following questions to help me understand where you are coming from.
a) do you think the SSPX are in schism?
b) do you think Cardinal Bertone is right about the Fatima message?
c) do you think the Jesuit, Father Malachi Martin just made up everything
he said about Freemasonry in high places in the Vatican, given that Fr
Malachi himself held a high position in the Vatican?By the way, if you read the editor’s post about Cardinal Bertone, she only said he was “likely” to be a Freemason, probably because of his Fatima statements and his anger with the Pope over the SSPX excommunications.
I look forward to your answers to a, b and c. I’m genuinely interested, please don’t think I’m trying to wind you up. I think it is only when I know your position on those three points that I can really get to grips with what you’re about. Thanks in advance.
-
Aha!
Good old Athanasius, rushing to defend the position of the Catholic Truth with regard to the FSSP Mass in Edinburgh – and, in general, as I see it.
However, Athanasius, highly informed and undoubtedly intellectual as you are, I’m not remotely interested in YOUR attitude to the FSSP – or to the attitude of the Catholic Truth towards them. What I AM interested in, is the attitude of Holy Mother Church to the FSSP.
According to Holy Mother Church, the FSSP Masses are valid and licit. Oh that the same could be said about the SSPX Masses!
Theneva made an interesting point, that some regard the SSPX as a cult. I wonder if those same people have ever met the Not-Quite-The-Catholic Truth?
-
conceit, I would also be very interested in knowing your response to rebel’s questions, especially a) and b).
Now, please don’t run away for a few hours or days, so that you then think that you don’t have to respond to them. -
Ooooh!
Do you work for the Gestapo?
I should think my opinion on such matters is perfectly clear from what I have already said.
-
Dear conceit, will you please do us the honor of refreshing our memories?
A clear and concise answer to the questions would be most helpful. -
Conceit
Little of what you say is either perfect or clear.
Most of it is calculated to cause others to waste their time in refuting the mischief you put forth.
I, for one, welcome your continuing postings, because the publication of them demonstrates the impartiality of the editor, but I doubt I shall waste any more time on you. I shall take St. Paul’s advice when he said: “Cast not your pearls before swine”.
-
Athanasius,
I refer you to Leprechaun’s post as it equally applies to you and all followers of the SSPX who display this highly regrettable and unfortunate arrogant stance:
If you don’t want to accept the conditions of membership, go it alone.
If you cannot accept the conditions which will be required for the SSPX priests to be licit again then go away and become the cult that Theneva refers to. Is that really what you desire?
Theneva,
I am not not ever have displayed, written or thought of anything uncharitable towards the SSPX. My only argument over the past couple of days is with the attitude of the followers of the SSPX – something entirely different. Please do not confuse the two, they are quite distinct.
I feel sorry that the FFSP priest was less than charitable towards the SSPX but in return how often have the SSPX priests been the same towards the Pope and Mother Church in the old days. That, hopefully is now firmly in the past and soon the Church will be one again and go forward rather than harp back to a supposed golden age.
-
Has it occurred to Benedict and conceit that there wouldn’t be any FSSP but for the SSPX?
As Theneva says, conceit, please refresh our memories – I do not recall you stating your position with regard to any of my questions above. Please tell us what you think on these matters. Thanks in advance
Benedict, I’ve never heard an SSPX priest say anything uncharitable about the Pope and the Church, merely pointed out where there are errors since the council as in ecumenism, religious liberty etc. Never heard anything at all that lacks charity. You seem to be assuming things because you have fallen into the liberal error of thinking the SSPX are in schism.
I repeat that but for the SSPX you wouldn’t have the FSSP or any other Masses in the traditional rite. For that reason alone, any Catholic with any traditonal faith left, should be grateful and supportive towards the SSPX.
-
I forgot to say Benedict that it is not fair to be judgmental about the people you call the “followers” of the SSPX by which I presume you mean those who attend their Masses, north and south of the border.
Like you, we are flawed human beings but I think it was Athanasius who said you must take care not to confuse confidence that the SSPX is right to take the uncompromising stance it does in defence of the faith which Mass attenders mostly support with “arrogance”. You are making a judgement about me when you say that. I am not arrogant but if I was arrogant that is a matter for me and my confessor not for you to judge.
Sorry about my grammar, here, which I’m sure is not perfect but you will understand my meaning I hope.
-
Benedict, why is it that it’s only the “attitude” of SSPX adherents that you are so gravely concerned about?
Also, you have twisted my words. There was no ‘cult’ that I have referred to. There is no ‘cult,’ except in the minds the enemies of the Society.
-
Rebel,
Yes it had occurred to me and it also occurred to me that had the SSPX not engaged in the illicit act of ordination of Bishops they, the SSPX, would have still been within the Church as ++Lefevbre wished and intended. Yes, the FFSP was formed directly because of that ’schismatic’ act, the 12 founding fathers of the FFSP coming from the SSPX.
I accept I used ‘the followers’ and this indeed was an error and I apologise to you. Thankfully the vast majority of SSPX followers do not display this arrogance. However when you say you have never heard of any priest say anything uncharitable toward the Pope and the Church, well, even Athanasius would have to disagree with you there.
As I said at the end of my last posting,
That, hopefully is now firmly in the past and soon the Church will be one again and go forward rather than harp back to a supposed golden age.
By the way I am not judging, I am only, like you, stating my opinion.
-
leprechaun, rebel, Theneva, et all,
I agree with leprechaun that continued discussions with Benedict and conceit in the matter of the SSPX is fruitless, not to mention an occasion of sin.
We have all noted how they both continue to agitate with a flawed party line, neither being informed or able to inform from the authentic, immemorial teaching of the magisterium. I doubt either of them has studied the Encyclicals of the Popes in these matters of obedience and doctrinal error.
Anyway, it is clear that they are more interested in mischief-making, particularly conceit, than in truth.
Hence, I for one will not debate further with them when they make remarks which are solely intended to raise others to anger. Theirs is not Catholic behaviour. It does a great disservice to the truth and to this blog. I hope they will rethink there approach to matters and attempt in future to refrain from this silliness.
-
Hooray for leprechaun. Perhaps now we can get on with some levity and some serious education.
Reverting to the title of this thread, here is an extract from the Nottingham Diocesan Pastoral Plan’s Assembly Prayer of 2004:
Help us to leave behind all that weighs us down;
To carry with us all that lifts us up in hope
So that your Church in our Diocese
Will gather in a rich and fruitful harvest
For your Kingdom.When I asked Bishop McMahon whether “Help us to leave behind all that weighs us down” referred to the dogma of the Church, he just smiled.
What interpretation might others put on it?
-
Athanasius, you refer to discussion with “Benedict and conceit” but I have sometimes wondered if they are one and the same person. They seem to post at the same time in defence of each other. Coincidence?
Can editor advise us on this, perhaps? It is possible to tell if they’re both the same blogger? They certainly seem to be soul mates, thinking the same thing all the time.
-
Rebel,
I think that you will find Mistress Editor exercises the utmost propriety about identities, just as she does about sources – but it is an interesting suggestion.
-
Rebel,
We are most certainly not one in the same nor do I know who he/she is or where he/she lives. I do not need anyone to express my opinions, they are all my own. Who is spreading mischief now?
Oh, and regarding arrogance and the need for some to change I have just finished reading the January 2009 edition of Si, Si, No, No which is an SSPX publication of which another blogger wrote:
which presents the SSPX position on the reformed liturgy and religious liberty in the most uncompromising (which is not to say unpromising) light:
an Extract:
The rite of Saint Pius V is good and legitimate; the rite of Paul VI is bad and illegitimate.
I remind all again what the SSPX leaders are saying:
La Stampa: And who will decide your future?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: The Pope will decide it, with the mediation of the Roman Curia.
-
Benedict
the rite of Paul VI is bad and illegitimate. Where have you been hiding while the faith has been disappearing all these years since the New Mass?
rebel,
Benedict and conceit are absolutely not the same person. I know this by the tone of the posts. We are dealing with two different people, no question.
the convert
this “help us leave behind all that weighs us down” prayer you refer to is probably a desire to cast off all remaining clerical dress. Either that or someone can’t wait to get to pawn shop to offload those brass candlesticks.
-
It’s a sorry state of affairs when someone is accused of mischief making and causing trouble simply becaus e they express an opinion different from the ‘party line’.
Some people are so sure of themselves, and so sure of their interpretation of the ‘Truth’!
-
Conceit
I agree. Its a bit like “I’m not playing any more and these are my toys and I’m going home”.
-
conceit & Benedict
It’s not the expressing of a different opinion that’s at the heart of my comments, but the manner in which it is expressed. You both know exactly what I mean by that, as does everyone else who has read your posts.
-
Athanasius,
Yes I can fully understand and appreciate that, BUT, equally do you think that I do not feel likewise concerning the manner in which you and your fellow likeminded contributors display when rebutting anything I say.
-
Athanasius,
I have said this before. If you want a private, SSPX only blog, where everyone has the same opinions and the threads are full of Spot on, well said and couldn’t agree more, then just say so and I shall move on. I will most certainly not stay where I am not wanted. No problem to me, just say the word, any of you.
-
Benedict
No-one here has ever said that you are not entitled to debate your opinion. What I object to is your method of doing so. Yes, we rebutt angrily at times but only because the initial tone of your remarks are of a derogatory nature and conceit is worse yet.
It’s the introductory tone that is often the problem. I think if your honest you will admit to that.
By the way, there’s lots of “spot on,” “I agree” and “well said” comments shared between you and conceit, so don’t go turning that into some kind of debate. When someone says something we agree with then it is only natural that we let them know that we agree.
-
Benedict, Benedict, BENEDICT! How on EARTH could we have a Catholic Truth blog without a Benedict? At least until the next Pope comes along and what’s the bet his name will be ‘Pius’? Piux XIII – unlucky for some, methinks, very unlucky for the few mad modernists who’ll be left by that time – because he WILL be the long awaited reforming pope and wait till you see the Tablet then! This week’s is a total scream! Hate and venom on every page. I love it!
rebel, I’m interested in your suggestion that Benedict and conceit are one and the same person but when I told you I think conceit is two faced I wasn’t meaning that he shared Benedict’s… nay, nay!
conceit, I said no such thing. Don’t believe a word rebel says, he is mischief making.
Be good everyone. Bear with one another patiently.
Benedict and conceit, you know that the SSPX question is at the very heart of the current crisis in the Church. That the Tablet is talking about the majority of Catholics splitting from the Vatican over these excommunications being lifted (and this under cover of the Holocaust debacle) then you really must be able to see how protestantised these “Catholics” have become.
Be honest.
Luv ‘n stuff.
Rev Mother (ever so much) Superior (but you can call me “Arrogant”…)
-
Ah, so it is only the tone of my remarks, not yours or your fellows! I am not speaking only of this sorry thread or of the past few days but, Nuff said.
My use of ’spot on’ etc is a parody – I thought you would have guesed that. Nuff said.
-
Dear Arrogant Rev Mother,
I think the next Pope will take the name Martin and follow that exceedingly fine Pope Martin V.
The only Tablet I digest is my sister’s and even that gives me heartburn.
-
Yes Benedict, nuff said indeed.
-
I’ve been following a thread on the Angelqueen forum today that has a similar problem to that of this thread.
I like how the moderator, ECS 220 handles it, in the 2nd post down, which begins…..”Adults don’t persist in asking the same questions after they’ve been answered…”
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24021&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50
Okay, I won’t say anymore about it, promise.
-
Benedict
Can you imagine how Pope Martin’s first Encyclical would read following that Papal/Episcopal consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? I don’t think a guillotine has ever been set up in St. Peter’s square, has it?
-
Theneva, I don’t get your point. If you are referring to the questions rebel has asked of conceit, I cannot recall conceit every stating his position clearly – could be my bad memory of course, but, after all, I – and Athanasius – have answered the points made by Benedict and conceit over and over again without too much, if any, complaining.
The moderator of the Angelqueen website obviously hasn’t head the old adage that repetition is the mother of education.
-
There has been much talk in this thread about “the party line” and dissatisfaction with bloggers who post alternative views to it.
Whose “party” is it and what is its “line”? It is the party of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world. Its “line” is the revelations He gave to us in His brief ministry on earth. It requires Faith to be able to accept those revelations, especially as some of them are Mysteries which are beyond our understanding. Those who have sufficient Faith have the confident belief that those revelations are the Truth, because they came from Our Lord, who cannot err.
There is a great difference between “confident belief” and the pejorative “arrogance”.
Apart from the purpose of discussing alternative points of view as a means of bringing waverers to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, there is nothing to be gained from discussing them in terms of their validity, since they can have none.
Any other interpretation of the unwillingness to discuss matters already painstakingly explained is plain flight of fancy.
-
The convert
I agree absolutely. There is only one party line for Catholics.
-
Editor
Before you started this blog, you must have prayed as follows:
“Dear Lord, show me a way to increase the virtue of patience among UK traditionalists.”
I can think of no other reason for having to go ’round in perpetual circles with Benedict and conceit.
Your ‘umble servant,
Arrogance ‘n stuff -
Editor, I apologize for not being more clear. It’s not rebel’s questions that I meant to refer to at all. It’s Benedict and conceit bringing up the same issues all the time, and yes, most everyone here, except for me is very patient with them. What is so bothersome is their (Benedict and conceit) endless droning on about…arrogance….attitude…..pride….it gets old after awhile, you know?
It’s just childish, as the Angelqueen moderator showed quite well (I thought, anyway).
-
Theneva
Since it is arrogant of us to reject heresy without wavering, then apparently all the saintly Popes who condemned the heresies of the modernists were also arrogant. Shame on them for trying to preserve Tradition.
-
Agreed, Torkay. I read through Pope St. Pius X encyclical ‘Pascendi’ yesterday, just to remind myself about what it is that we are fighting for.
Those who accuse us of being arrogant should read through it as well, and then ask how it is that what we are saying is different than what the saintly Pope has said. They accuse us, but will they dare to accuse him?
-
Okay, I won’t say anymore about it, promise.
Now who said that I wonder?
Athanasius, I said ‘Nuff said’ but if this is what they want……..
-
Benedict
Since it appears you have been left in the trench all by yourself I will accept that promise, with due arrogance of course!!
-
Athanasius
A very trenchant observation…
-
I now understand, Theneva. And about that patience thing – I think you’re very patient with my slowness of uptake.
I would say “spot on” but I think it annoys our Benedict!
-
Your Spot on editor.
Athanasius, never alone; He is always with me!
Speaking of the trenches as you were, I’ve just finished ‘Trench Priest’ a wonderful story about Fr William Doyle S.J. I think it was he to whom Crouchback was referring a few days ago.
-
Yes, Benedict, I ‘ve heard of this noble priest. A great life of service to God and the souls under his care.
-
ATTENTION…..Bishop Tissier talks on you tube parts 1 &2
-
Bishop Tissier part 3. Bang up to date, really good stuff, watch all 6 other 3 to come right now.
-
Part 4 Bishop Tissier mentions the lifting of the “excommunication”
-
5 & 6 Bishop Tissier talks of how the “negotiations” with the Vatican will take place.
-
Part 6, really worth a look. It looks to me like, the deal is already done.
-
James McPake Carlisle England
Bishop Patrick of Lancaster asks us in the Press to Challenge our Bishops…….I challenge the Bishops of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales to preach like this and get their priests and religious to do the same before it is too late. Yours Jim McPake Carlisle Cumbria
I hope you are all making arrangements to welcome the Society of St Pius X into your Diocese, parishes, and houses to repair the damage of the last 40 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h52TjrzI-78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBS5z7ZFtfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH0TaTyBZhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRjMLQBdOLE
-
Speaking of challenging bishops, here is the latest issue of The Flying Buttress (Tapeworm Letters #8):
-
“The Flying Buttress” eh? Winston Churchill used to describe himself as a buttress of the Church of England, by which he meant that he supported it – but from the outside.
Tomas, could you write your Flying Buttress blog in Verdana font? Ever so please? Times Roman, if that is what you use, is not easy to read at small font sizes, and it does look worth reading.
-
leprechaun, I think a visit to Specsavers is long overdue – I found TFB very easy to read. Of course, I suppose us young things have better eyesight, right enough… and I won’t be 29 forever…
What am I saying? Of COURSE I’ll be 29 forever. I decided years ago that since I hated birthdays, I’d just pick one and stick with it. I picked 29…
-
So THAT’S why I keep ending up in the butcher’s shop next to the opticians? Thanks Madame Editor.
Comments are now closed.
128 comments