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

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Battle Joy

By
+ JMJ I was listening to a Cd of John Vennari on Battle Joy ( Recapture the Flag: Dedication and Battle Joy - by John Vennari ) and it really captures a key point that Catholics (Traditional and otherwise labelled) need to adopt. We should see this conflict as a chance to prove our mettle for our King and to earn our unending reward.  As veterans we'll be able to talk about the old battles in which we fought and the honour we gained in fighting for our King! Attached is a preview of course that, although secular, contains some of the elements of Battle Joy. P^3 https://www.coursera.org/learn/war/lecture/VDwfk/the-joy-of-battle
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more