Skip to main content

Gullible's Latest Comment from SSPX 50th - Lourdes (updated)

Image
By
+
JMJ


Gullible posted another comment in the SSPX 50th - Lourdes article. For clarity I will post it here with my responses.

Hi Tradical
you know what the Archbishop said if called to Rome, He would lay out the anti modernist encyclicals of the pre V2 popes and ask them if they accept them, if not , call me again and it will be the same thing.[1]
secondly the Conciliar Church is modernism which is every error under the sun, it is the new religion, it is being promoted by the heiarchy in the Catholic Church, that's how the simple man understands it.[2]

What is the pronouncement of the definition of the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church?

please explain your theory of the 2 chapters you laid out[3]

Gullible

Tradical: In answer to [1] Archbishop Lefebvre said many things about 'what if' he was called back to Rome.  

However, I don't recall him saying that he did this when he was called by a Cardinal to see if there was a way to reconcile:


Question: Did you recently meet Cardinal Thiandoum at his request, and was he seeking to find a way of reconciliation?


Archbishop Lefebvre: It is true, he did insist that I go to see him in Neuilly at the Sisters of St. Thomas of Villanueva, and so I went. He is always very friendly and very affectionate but for the moment there is nothing - nothing on the side of Rome, nothing on the part of Cardinal Thianboum nor any other cardinal ...There is no sort of opening. (source)
Tradical: I guess he didn't read the good Cardinal the riot act.  


Tradical:Concerning [2] ... are you such a simple man?  If so ... well you better up your game because the Catholic Church has to exist somewhere and it has to be united to the Pope because it is a Dogma that he is one half of the 'Unity' mark of the Church.  (source).

 Tradical: Re [3] - These two sentences are muddled - what do you mean?  Theory of '2 chapters'???
November 20, 2019
Gullibles latest comments:
Hi Tradical How come nobody else comments? [Tradical: Commenting is variable.  There are about 100 readers per day and over the life of this blog only 277 comments]Anyhoo, I quoted from the Spiritual Journey and you posted 2 chapters from it, can you e-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-e????? thanks God Bless Gullible[Tradical: ... more later]
Tradical; Now is later...

Here's your comment:
Hi Tradicat
Better yet Bishop Fellay and Fr Pagliarani swallow their blind fervor and follow the good Archbishop!

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
You only quoted a the typical 'proof text' used by the resistance.  The problem is you excised the context.  So ... if the SSPX is to 'follow' Archbishop Lefebvre, they need to follow his principles - which are Catholic. This includes obedience as noted earlier.
Tradical: You should read my articles on Obedience (link). Is there anything specifically sinful in the legislation? Technically speaking no. wow  [Tradical:Wow is right.  Look at the level of obedience required and then don't be simple about how you apply those principles and voila a recipe for staying Catholic in a non-Catholic world.  Fundamentally, what the policy contained is legislated 'compliance' in the form of the basic texts bracketed with what they will do about it as Catholics. No sin was committed and the scandal is in the minds of the 'resistance' who are like the dwarves in the Last Battle.]
Dwarves are for the Dwarves

Labels:

Comments

  1. GullibleNovember 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM

    Hi Tradical
    If it is not technically sinful then why don't you post it and ask your readers to comment. I can assure you the pages I gave you are straight off the school website. The reason you won't post it is because you know the legislation is voluntary and scandalous, you cannot provide proof of it being mandatory for non-funded private schools, and don't reply "why don't you provide proof". I am praying for you. God Bless
    Gullible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradicalNovember 28, 2019 at 11:27 PM

      Even if I decide to publish it, it won't be soon because of two reasons: I would want to provide commentary and I don't have the time to devote to it presently.

      Regarding "The reason you won't post it ...". You can't read my mind so don't make the assumption.

      In my spare time (while paying bills) I did some research and have found records that the school was receiving government grants in excess of $450k per annum - depending on the number of students enrolled.

      I also found that the school was listed as 'accredited' and the legislation was obligatory.

      So thanks for your prayers, it took some precious time to dig through the Alberta government's website ... but I was bouncing back and forth between that and doing bills.

      By the way, one other thing that the legislation seems to indicate is that it doesn't matter if all schools are subject to the Alberta Education Act and that whether they received government funding or not, the were subject to the legislation. The phrase 'funded' has a special meeting. So I'd have to pull together the various definitions and review the legislation to make certain ... if and when I have both the time and the inclination.

      Fundamentally, the school was receiving government funding following Alberta's method for distributing school taxes and even if you are right about 'non-funded' schools being exempt it doesn't matter.

      P^3

      Delete
  2. GullibleNovember 25, 2019 at 9:01 AM

    Hi Tradical
    I found your previous response
    COMMENTS

    GullibleNovember 26, 2018 at 11:29 PM
    Hi Tradicat
    Talking about compromise just wondering what your take is on the Calgary school policy signed by Fr C. Do you think he signed it without Menzingen's approval?

    REPLYDELETE

    TradicalNovember 27, 2018 at 10:53 PM
    You are a little behind the times and have missed the key question that you should have asked: Did he know about the contents of the policy to which you allude?

    Given that those policies are now removed, it is a moot point.

    P^3

    It was in:
    Posted by Tradical November 24, 2018
    COMMUNIQUÉ ON THE MEETING BETWEEN CARDINAL LADARIA AND FR. PAGLIARANI

    Gullible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradicalNovember 28, 2019 at 11:15 PM

      Thanks .... here's the link:

      https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2018/11/communique-on-meeting-between-cardinal.html?showComment=1543296548383

      Delete
    2. GullibleNovember 29, 2019 at 5:43 PM

      Hi Tradical
      Probably better you don't post it since according to AKACatholic there was an email forwarded to Louis by an SSPX priest which had an email from Fr C saying the BAD text of the government was taken out. So maybe you might want to avoid dipping your feet in hot water. I don't want to push you into something you don't want to be in. This is a touchy subject, people get mad without even verifying the evidence, Fr C is well protected. Fr McMahon was sent to Calgary to straighten things out but the root of the problem is Menzingen allowed FrC to approve it. if you check the news there were many schools not complying with the gov/fund regulation to have the Gay Policy on their website and the Government (NDP) was threatening to not give them funds for the next year, sadly there were no Catholic schools on the list (NO or Trad). Maybe you can inquire about the rumor about the washroom doors not having Boys or Girls on them, now that is low if it was true. As far as the policy goes I know it's disgusting I won't argue further with you on it. I'm sure Fr C is wrestling hard with that on his conscience. I'll pray for him. God Bless.
      Gullible

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

By
+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - July 6, 1988

By
There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Post a Comment
Read more

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6b: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 1)

By
 + JMJ Principle 1: Realize that something is amiss in the Catholic Church The world in which I had my Traditional Awakening, is one in which practically anything pre-Conciliar such as liturgy, doctrinc, and even dogmas are either suppressed, ignored or re-framed to be acceptable to the ‘world’. What is more, the people adhering to these pre-conciliar teachings and liturgy are persecuted by other members of the Catholic Church. The things that non-Trads say about Trads can be quite extreme. For example, accusations against Traditionalists include that they are: A revival of the Jansenists (link) , Schismatics, Heretics, Uncharitable, Lefebrists Radicals Integrists When one group of Catholics is persecuted by the others for simply wanting to live as Catholics before them did for generations … well something is wrong. Further, we need to realize that when what was previously condemned is now promoted and what was previously promoted as the trut...
Post a Comment
Read more

How is the SSPX prepared to accept the Second Vatican Council??? - Reblogged and Updated.

By
+ JMJ The Archbishop remained steadfast. In the 1980s, in his correspondence with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises three elements: 1) He and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition; 2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. 3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised. The Archbishop laid this out explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985. CF News: Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions CF News: The April 15 Deadline A few years ago Tony La Rosa (aka ecclesia militans a Toronto based 'resistor') had a difficult time accepting this approach to the council. He held that it must be completely tossed as...
Post a Comment
Read more