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 and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

By
 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...
Post a Comment
Read more

Schism

By
There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX / DICI: Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.

By
+ JMJ The following is the communiqué of the SSPX regarding the Bishop Williamson's consecration of Fr. Faure. As a follow-up to this article ,  I would like to highlight the rationale for denouncing the consecration. Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure. On March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil. Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.(1) The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had c...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bishop Huonder, SSPX in Schism? - Nope, Consecration of Holy Oils - Update 1

By
 + JMJ  So Bishop Huonder is in the news for two reasons.  First, his 'Testimony' concerning Pope Francis etc. This was received as a nice reinforcement by Trads (SSPX and others).  Of course, there are those that now are demanding an apostolic investigation.  Yawn, been here before.  This was predictable as other bishops who have followed the same path came to the same conclusions.  It is the way. Second, he celebrated the Chrism Mass and blessed the Holy Oils for use in the SSPX's European chapels and ceremonies.  This caused a stir amongst some Trads who are locked in one or the other statements made by either Archbishop Lefebvre or others. I received two versions of a question regarding this event: Hi Tradical Do you have any comments about doubtful oils in SSPX europe by +Huonder (NO Bishop not conditionally consecrated)? God Bless Hi Tradical Any thoughts on Huonder oil, not conditionally ordained and consecrated by SSPX bishops? God Bless M...
Post a Comment
Read more