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

What is Tradition?

By
 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

By
 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...
1 comment
Read more

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

By
 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The News is an Addiction ...

By
 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

By
 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...
Post a Comment
Read more