+
JMJ
I promised Gullible that I would pull together my thoughts on the Calgary School issue. In addition, I determined that it would be necessary to pull together all of his 'comments'.
Gullible's thoughts and approach come up periodically so I've decided to add a new label to the blog: Series - Gullible Theme.
In this post I will reconstruct the exchanges with Gullible and draw out some themes. Since it is a long series, I will present my conclusions below, followed by the exchange.
Themes
- Psychological Projection: Accusing others of something they themselves are guilty. A good example is Gullible's statement that "people get mad without verifying the evidence". Gullible needs to examine the evidence before making accusations.
- Proof-Texting: Throwing down the proof-text gauntlet without providing their own thoughts on the matter, apparently expecting me to know how this proves their point.
- Intellectually Lazy: I know this sounds harsh but I've been arguing with 'resistors' of various flavours (in-person and online) for almost a decade and this is a theme. I feel that in some cases this is just a case of laziness, they think they've found proof and lash out right away, without doing the thinking necessary to see if it proves what they think it proves.
- Gullible: This is a natural result of the lack of thinking and understanding of Catholic principles. The 'resistors' are gullible. You just have to pack a half-truth into a post and boom it hits the internet like fire.
I do not know when I will do part 2 as it will take a sustained period of time to work through it.
P^3
Exchanges / Comments and Posts on the Gullible Theme
The latest exchanges with Gullible started when I posted an article on the SSPX pilgrimage to Lourdes for the Society's 50th anniversary.I think Gullible took umbrage to the following:
...It would also be great if Bishop Williamson would swallow his pride and ask to be re-admitted to the SSPX.
Gullible November 15, 2019 at 2:40 PMHi 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)
As Gullible did not provide what he thought Bishop Fellay and Fr Pagliarani should do ... it just offered a proof-text that doesn't really talk about the action the Superior General of the SSPX should take.
Frankly, the accusations of a sell-out by the SSPX to Rome have been going on for decades, even when Archbishop Lefevbre was alive! This latest era started in 2000 as a result of the pilgrimage to Rome by the SSPX.
Frankly, the accusations of a sell-out by the SSPX to Rome have been going on for decades, even when Archbishop Lefevbre was alive! This latest era started in 2000 as a result of the pilgrimage to Rome by the SSPX.
Hi Gullible,
Not so fast ... are you suggesting that the SSPX should not heed the call of the Vicar of Christ and obey whenever possible to do so?
I truly hope not because that is not the path of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is a path that leads away from the Catholic truth and leads to perdition in this crisis.
A couple of other things ...
First, I have found a couple of chapters of this book on the web and posted them here: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2019/11/spiritual-journey-archbishop-marcel.html#more
Second, what is the 'Conciliar Church'? Is it a separate organization from the Catholic Church or, as described in the letter of the district superiors a :
"... To the extent in which a ‘change of direction’since Vatican II has occurred, we use the term ‘conciliar Church’. This expression is commonly understood, not as a distinct object or substance, but rather as a new spirit, introduced into the Church at the time of the Council Vatican II, and which constitutes an obstacle the end of the Church ..."
http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/04/has-sspx-strayed-from-teaching-of.html
P^3
Since Gullible gave a proof-text, I thought it would be appropriate to see if I could find a copy of the Spiritual Journey online. I succeeded and posted it here: Spiritual Journey Archbishop Lefebvre.
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 [hierarchy] 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
I will create a new post for this one.
I created a new posting here:Gullible's Latest Comment from SSPX 50th - Lourdes (updated)
An observation is that Archibishop Lefebvre said a great many things. However, when dealing with Church authorities, he appears to have maintained a respectful but firm tone.
For example, when contact by Cardinal Thiandoum, it would appear that he did not do as Gullible hoped. Each point corresponds to a point above (in red).
An observation is that Archibishop Lefebvre said a great many things. However, when dealing with Church authorities, he appears to have maintained a respectful but firm tone.
For example, when contact by Cardinal Thiandoum, it would appear that he did not do as Gullible hoped. Each point corresponds to a point above (in red).
- 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)
- ... 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).
- 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 TradicatYou 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.
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)
Tradical: You should read my articles on Obedience (link). Is there anything specifically sinful in the legislation? Technically speaking no. [Gullible]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.]
=========== END OF POST ===========
On November 23, 2019 I posted an article titled: On Catholics, Authority, the SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantism, Modernists and Modern Catholics. In this article I discussed the nature of obedience and being Catholic. Gullible hasn't commented on this article.
Gullible left some more comments on the original 50th anniversary post:
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
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, they were subject to the legislation. The phrase 'funded' has a special meaning. 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
A key point here is that Gullible claims that the legislation was voluntary, whereas if he had done the leg work and done some searches he would have found that the legislation required the schools to add these sections to their policies.
He would have further found that, according to the 2016 Annual Education Result Report, the Calgary school in 2015/16 received $509,007 in funding from the provincial government.
Bill 24 was passed after the required readings with the intention of closing some of the loopholes left in earlier versions passed by the NDP in 2015. Keeping in mind that the requirement for adding the text to the school policies was actually in the 2015 legislation.
The Act has been somewhat changed since then, so if you want to see the bill you'll have to use the CANLii link below to wade through the changes.
So ... in answer to some of Gullible's earlier comments: The School Act required, the SSPX school was not exempt, and, as far as I can tell, the SSPX didn't comply until the loopholes were going to be closed in 2017.
A key link here is the guidance provided to the schools:
Minimum legislated requirements under the School Act, Section 45.1 (including Section 16.1)
He would have further found that, according to the 2016 Annual Education Result Report, the Calgary school in 2015/16 received $509,007 in funding from the provincial government.
Bill 24 was passed after the required readings with the intention of closing some of the loopholes left in earlier versions passed by the NDP in 2015. Keeping in mind that the requirement for adding the text to the school policies was actually in the 2015 legislation.
The Act has been somewhat changed since then, so if you want to see the bill you'll have to use the CANLii link below to wade through the changes.
So ... in answer to some of Gullible's earlier comments: The School Act required, the SSPX school was not exempt, and, as far as I can tell, the SSPX didn't comply until the loopholes were going to be closed in 2017.
A key link here is the guidance provided to the schools:
Minimum legislated requirements under the School Act, Section 45.1 (including Section 16.1)
Because of the amount of FUD (click link for definition) in this comment I was very frustrated and on November 29th I vented in: Gullible and those like him.Hi Tradical
I found your previous response
COMMENTS
Gullible November 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?
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
Thanks .... here's the link:
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2018/11/communique-on-meeting-between-cardinal.html?showComment=1543296548383
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 [1]. 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. [2] This is a touchy subject, people get mad without even verifying the evidence[3], Fr C is well protected[4]. Fr McMahon was sent to Calgary to straighten things out but the root of the problem is Menzingen allowed FrC to approve it[5]. 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[6]. 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[7]. I'll pray for him. God Bless.
Gullible
I'm going to unpack Gullible's statement point by point as identified in red above.
- A bad text is not the same thing as a sinful text.
- This struck me as Gullible taunting me.
- I find it interesting that Gullible makes this accusation as he is obviously guilty of it. He/she earlier made claims that the legislation was voluntary and it clearly was not. This shows the difference between believing and knowing. Having done the research I know that the SSPX school was required by legislation to include those elements in its policy. I know that one element that seals the deal is that the SSPX school was partially funded by the province via tax revenues. What I don't know is if there is an exemption for schools completely funded by tuition.
- This is pure speculation on his part and basically calumny.
- As with most 'resistance' writers they deal with only part of the story. Fr. Couture stayed in Calgary for a year to try and resolve some issues with the Calgary school. Fr. McMahon was transferred there afterwards around Oct 2018. The policy was changed June 2017.
- Seriously, let's deal with reality and facts not rumours. If Gullible has proof of this claim then he (or she) should present it. Otherwise, why would I waste my time doing his leg work?
- If it isn't sinful, then it would not be on his conscience. That Gullible and others are uncomfortable with the principles of living a Catholic Life in places hostile to those principles is their problem.
Here's the comment trail that followed:
Hi Tradical
Mental Illness.
T- I believe that I clearly answered his various objections
T- Is there anything specifically sinful in the legislation? Technically speaking no.
Technically you did answer but only with a declaration and nothing else provided.
then disregard my unposted comment and prove Menzingen innocent.
God Bless
G
Having established that the legislation required that school policies include the offensive sections I will (time allowing) review the policy itself.
I asked for Gullible's proof and I got ...You are right, I have not responded in full, but I will.
In the meantime, of what are you accusing 'Menzingen' ?
What is your proof?
P^3
Hi Tradical
This guy has an interesting article on the Bill 24, I know he is not Catholic so weed through it because you can't find an Albertan who is Catholic to provide a decent perspective.
https://www.educationunlimited.ca/bill-24-and-the-alberta-home-educator
G
Something is becoming clearer with each of your comments.
P^3
Light bulb going on ...
Hi Tradical
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/61-alberta-private-schools-running-afoul-of-gay-straight-alliance-law-minister-says
G
... high-beam.
Hi Gullible,
I get the feeling that you are lurking in the shadow of other peoples words.
Don't you have your own thoughts and analysis of the situation? Can you not present your own argument?
You are the accuser or perhaps the prosecutor, so make your case!
P^3
Gullible has been silent since this time.