|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2018 9:44:43 GMT
I understand machbees is trying to say two things. 1 the sacraments come from the church not the priests or the bishops. 2 there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. so your stuck. Church cant grow. Its done. So is that an emergancy? Do you look outside that cult for God's answer or stay stupid and compliant? It doesnt matter if it is +ambrose or some other valid bishop. Your contention overall is it must be from the sspx cult betrayers. Objectivity means nothing. Would it be too much to ask, jonathan, for you to use apostrophes appropriately? Do you know how to use them, or are you simply too dense to learn? Because your penchant for omitting them makes your posts really look like you are of a lower intelligence. It takes away from your credibility, FYI. Examples: Incorrect: there is a sspx or feminate traditional cult in peoples mind and the church does not exist outside of it and God cant provide outside those betrayers. Correct: There is an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult in people's minds, and the Church does not exist outside of it; and God can't provide outside those betrayers. So if that is what you were trying to say, okay, but even in the second version, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean to say. It would seem that you think that an SSPX or an effeminate traditional cult (?) in people's minds constitutes "betrayers." Is that accurate? Then you have, "so your stuck." By which I must presume that you meant to write, "So, you're stuck." Because the former is meaningless, and the latter is not. When you write "your stuck" you are saying that "stuck" is something that belongs to "you." Like your car, your money, your reputation, your stuck. Get it? Then you have, "Church cant grow." Which is nonsense, unless you meant to write, "The Church can't grow." Which makes sense. Spot the difference? FYI cant is a kind of gradient-inducing device used in roofing to help water drain more reliably. So Church cant grow would mean, well, never mind. Then you have, "Its done." More nonsense, unless you simply left out the apostrophe: "It's done" which now has meaning while "Its done" has no meaning. The word "Its" is the possessive case of "It." That is, something belongs to "It." And that something is given by the next word. Such as "Its color" or "Its size" or "Its frequency" or "Its usefulness." But "done" is not such an object. That is, if what you wrote here had a meaning, it would tobe, "done" is some object that belongs to "It," like, "Its conclusion" or "Its progress" or "Its relevance" or "Its done." Get it? Antonio,
Thank you for the repetitious grammar lessons over several posts. It has proven interesting. You can stop now. Your points have been made, many times over. These kinds of posts quickly become tangential to the point and therefore are superfluous.
God bless,
Admin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 1:10:57 GMT
You keep the Faith without compromise. You do not join in public worship with those who have compromised on doctrines of Faith and Morals either through commission or omission. God will hold the compromised bishops accountable and not the simple priests and laity. Just like God does not hold accountable a barren married couple for not having children, he will not hold the Kentucky Fathers accountable for not ordaining seminarians. Are you saying that OLMC is barren for not ordaining seminarians? My point is that I don't believe that OLMC has the moral obligation to run a seminary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 1:26:06 GMT
![]() This is the attitude we must have towards the the groups listed below (emphasis mine). For this reason, we cannot consider as fighting for the Faith, those who accept (in one way or another) the new apostate religion of Vatican II. We must necessarily give a red light, warning you to stay far from:
- those who embrace this new religion (e.g., dioceses); - those who submit to it (Ecclesia Dei groups); - those who make or receive concessions from this new religion (FSSPX); and even - those who give only a yellow light for any of the above groups, viz., the fake resistance of Bishop Williamson, who himself teaches heresy.Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., August 2017 Newsletter of St. Joseph's Monastery (as quoted in the September 2017 issue of the Catholic Candle)The Kentucky Fathers must not seek out Bishop Williamson any longer until he returns to the positions of the Archbishop, even it means that all his seminarians leave him and the seminary shuts down. The Kentucky Fathers have no moral obligation to run a seminary because, as simple priests, they don't have the power to ordain. N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 24, 2018 2:32:41 GMT
![]() This is the attitude we must have towards the the groups listed below (emphasis mine). For this reason, we cannot consider as fighting for the Faith, those who accept (in one way or another) the new apostate religion of Vatican II. We must necessarily give a red light, warning you to stay far from:
- those who embrace this new religion (e.g., dioceses); - those who submit to it (Ecclesia Dei groups); - those who make or receive concessions from this new religion (FSSPX); and even - those who give only a yellow light for any of the above groups, viz., the fake resistance of Bishop Williamson, who himself teaches heresy.Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., August 2017 Newsletter of St. Joseph's Monastery (as quoted in the September 2017 issue of the Catholic Candle)The Kentucky Fathers must not seek out Bishop Williamson any longer until he returns to the positions of the Archbishop, even it means that all his seminarians leave him and the seminary shuts down. The Kentucky Fathers have no moral obligation to run a seminary because, as simple priests, they don't have the power to ordain. N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas. Who's is this new priest, Fr. Poisson, at OLMC?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 4:09:31 GMT
This is the attitude we must have towards the the groups listed below (emphasis mine).
For this reason, we cannot consider as fighting for the Faith, those who accept (in one way or another) the new apostate religion of Vatican II. We must necessarily give a red light, warning you to stay far from:
- those who embrace this new religion (e.g., dioceses); - those who submit to it (Ecclesia Dei groups); - those who make or receive concessions from this new religion (FSSPX); and even - those who give only a yellow light for any of the above groups, viz., the fake resistance of Bishop Williamson, who himself teaches heresy. Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., August 2017 Newsletter of St. Joseph's Monastery (as quoted in the September 2017 issue of the Catholic Candle)The Kentucky Fathers must not seek out Bishop Williamson any longer until he returns to the positions of the Archbishop, even it means that all his seminarians leave him and the seminary shuts down. The Kentucky Fathers have no moral obligation to run a seminary because, as simple priests, they don't have the power to ordain.N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas.Highlighted in red is YOUR personal opinion rejected by the Militant Church, the Suffering Church, and the Triumphant Church who needs priests! Your refusal for facts is not a defect of anyone else but you. The SSPX and everything of the priesthood is what continues THROUGH the SSPX-mc priests you wish to separate for your own ends.
The OLMC seminary is an extension of the life of the SSPX as Winona and Econe are the SAME to the SSPX. Your ignorance of these and many facts places you in a handicap position with NO moral authority to state otherwise. Your premise to act like a "bishop" throwing around your "moral precepts" are rejected.
In 2013, Bishop Williamson was united with all the other SSPX-mc priests encouraging the Seminary to start in which HE said he would doctrinally and morally support. Because of BW's latter defect from the faith in her doctrine and morals is NOT a handicap to the continuance of the Archbishop's work started in 2013 and thereafter.
Furthermore, because BW left for doctrinal adultery, like Bishop Fellay did, does not mean God lacks His providence otherwise for His Church. Something of which you are showing a lack of faith in this crisis. Go out and put the pressure on Bishop Williamson to return to the fold of Christ instead of shutting everything Catholic down because he sins and you cannot handle the understanding or suffering of it. Welcome to our Lord's sanctification you too are fighting against.
Your refusal to even have a decent understanding of the Church's essence for her priesthood and the salvation of souls is what makes your statement EQUAL to peter's rebuke from our Lord calling him satan when selfish peter told our Lord not to make sacrifice -- you are saying the same.
You know not what you say. Speak to the SSPX-mc priests you obvious have a bone with before you make your public opinions/sins into gossip, again, for others to trip up where there is NOTHING true in your allegation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 11:45:10 GMT
![]() This is the attitude we must have towards the the groups listed below (emphasis mine). For this reason, we cannot consider as fighting for the Faith, those who accept (in one way or another) the new apostate religion of Vatican II. We must necessarily give a red light, warning you to stay far from:
- those who embrace this new religion (e.g., dioceses); - those who submit to it (Ecclesia Dei groups); - those who make or receive concessions from this new religion (FSSPX); and even - those who give only a yellow light for any of the above groups, viz., the fake resistance of Bishop Williamson, who himself teaches heresy.Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., August 2017 Newsletter of St. Joseph's Monastery (as quoted in the September 2017 issue of the Catholic Candle)The Kentucky Fathers must not seek out Bishop Williamson any longer until he returns to the positions of the Archbishop, even it means that all his seminarians leave him and the seminary shuts down. The Kentucky Fathers have no moral obligation to run a seminary because, as simple priests, they don't have the power to ordain. N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas. Who's is this new priest, Fr. Poisson, at OLMC? He is a former priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter. He was introduced to us in Toronto when Fr. Pfeiffer came to celebrate Mass a couple of months ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 11:48:41 GMT
This is the attitude we must have towards the the groups listed below (emphasis mine).
For this reason, we cannot consider as fighting for the Faith, those who accept (in one way or another) the new apostate religion of Vatican II. We must necessarily give a red light, warning you to stay far from:
- those who embrace this new religion (e.g., dioceses); - those who submit to it (Ecclesia Dei groups); - those who make or receive concessions from this new religion (FSSPX); and even - those who give only a yellow light for any of the above groups, viz., the fake resistance of Bishop Williamson, who himself teaches heresy. Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., August 2017 Newsletter of St. Joseph's Monastery (as quoted in the September 2017 issue of the Catholic Candle)The Kentucky Fathers must not seek out Bishop Williamson any longer until he returns to the positions of the Archbishop, even it means that all his seminarians leave him and the seminary shuts down. The Kentucky Fathers have no moral obligation to run a seminary because, as simple priests, they don't have the power to ordain.N.B., The definition of heresy defined by the Catholic Candle is that of St. Thomas Aquinas.Highlighted in red is YOUR personal opinion rejected by the Militant Church, the Suffering Church, and the Triumphant Church who needs priests! Your refusal for facts is not a defect of anyone else but you. The SSPX and everything of the priesthood is what continues THROUGH the SSPX-mc priests you wish to separate for your own ends.
The OLMC seminary is an extension of the life of the SSPX as Winona and Econe are the SAME to the SSPX. Your ignorance of these and many facts places you in a handicap position with NO moral authority to state otherwise. Your premise to act like a "bishop" throwing around your "moral precepts" are rejected.
In 2013, Bishop Williamson was united with all the other SSPX-mc priests encouraging the Seminary to start in which HE said he would doctrinally and morally support. Because of BW's latter defect from the faith in her doctrine and morals is NOT a handicap to the continuance of the Archbishop's work started in 2013 and thereafter.
Furthermore, because BW left for doctrinal adultery, like Bishop Fellay did, does not mean God lacks His providence otherwise for His Church. Something of which you are showing a lack of faith in this crisis. Go out and put the pressure on Bishop Williamson to return to the fold of Christ instead of shutting everything Catholic down because he sins and you cannot handle the understanding or suffering of it. Welcome to our Lord's sanctification you too are fighting against.
Your refusal to even have a decent understanding of the Church's essence for her priesthood and the salvation of souls is what makes your statement EQUAL to peter's rebuke from our Lord calling him satan when selfish peter told our Lord not to make sacrifice -- you are saying the same.
You know not what you say. Speak to the SSPX-mc priests you obvious have a bone with before you make your public opinions/sins into gossip, again, for others to trip up where there is NOTHING true in your allegation.
I will say this again. The Kentucky Fathers can run a seminary. That is fine. However, they should not resort to using a bishop who has departed from the position of the Archbishop to ordain the seminarians. That is an unacceptable compromise and flies in the face of the very reason for the seminary's existence. Both of the Fathers have said several times that they leave it in the hands of Our Lady to give them a bishop. Is Our Lady's answer Bishop Williamson? I think not!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 12:01:17 GMT
Machabees,
Please clarify something. Did Bishop Williamson actually respond with a "no" or did he not respond at all?
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 24, 2018 12:10:43 GMT
Who's is this new priest, Fr. Poisson, at OLMC? He is a former priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter. He was introduced to us in Toronto when Fr. Pfeiffer came to celebrate Mass a couple of months ago. Is he saying mass at OLMC or one of their locations?
|
|
|
Post by bruised catholic on Jul 24, 2018 16:14:45 GMT
This is a sad development for Bp. Williamson. He complains about his SSPX order not fighting for Christ the King and yet he doesn't help in the priestly restoration when asked.
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 24, 2018 17:32:12 GMT
Who's is this new priest, Fr. Poisson, at OLMC? He is a former priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter. He was introduced to us in Toronto when Fr. Pfeiffer came to celebrate Mass a couple of months ago. Is he saying mass at OLMC or one of their locations?
|
|
|
Post by Nightowl on Jul 24, 2018 17:41:50 GMT
This is a sad development for Bp. Williamson. He complains about his SSPX order not fighting for Christ the King and yet he doesn't help in the priestly restoration when asked. It may be sad, but clearly we don't know all the facts. EM is right: Did williamson say no, or did he not answer? Remember, either way it is on his soul. EM is right. If olmc says we are not to attend Williamsons mass, how is it alright to have Williamson ordain? Fair question. Anton is also right: Time to move on. However, Em is right, that Anton is mistaken if Anton thinks Moran is the one to move on to. Perhaps Fr. Pfeiffer needs to reconsider his stand on Thuc line bishops.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2018 17:57:10 GMT
This is a sad development for Bp. Williamson. He complains about his SSPX order not fighting for Christ the King and yet he doesn't help in the priestly restoration when asked. Perhaps Fr. Pfeiffer needs to reconsider his stand on Thuc line bishops.
Why should Fr. Pfeiffer reconsider his stand on sedevacantist bishops? Did not the Archbishop always refuse sedevacantism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 21:07:36 GMT
He is a former priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter. He was introduced to us in Toronto when Fr. Pfeiffer came to celebrate Mass a couple of months ago. Is he saying mass at OLMC or one of their locations? I would think Fr. Pfeiffer would want him conditionally ordained first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 21:08:38 GMT
Perhaps Fr. Pfeiffer needs to reconsider his stand on Thuc line bishops. No.
|
|