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

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

By
 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...
Post a Comment
Read more

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

By
 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

By
 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...
Post a Comment
Read more