Confusion continues in Bishop Thomas Aquinas
May 8, 2018 4:46:17 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 4:46:17 GMT
A recent sermon of Bishop Aquinas is being passed around flagged as a standard to fight against the neo-sspx and its spirit aligned with Vatican II. But is it a true standard, or even a fight?
Bishop Aquinas said in that sermon: "Contempt for God is manifested first in the [novus ordo] liturgy." True, but how can he at whim bring up pre-2012 doctrine when he post-2012 professes a public position simultaneously with Bishops Williamson, Faure, and Zendejas the novus ordo liturgy is something you can worship God with, it is "catholic", and you can "build your faith" on it?
Getting past the glitter, the teaching of Bishop Aquinas remains in support of Bishop Williamson's public errors and to Bishop Faure's own support for the new religion.
Post 2012 to date:
They accept and supports Bp. Williamson’s belief in the NOM. “Where did you see that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is outside the Church?” (Bishop Faure, Letter to Father Ernesto Cardozo, 1/6/2016)
They accept and support Bp. Williamson’s belief in the novus ordo “miracles” cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/letter-from-fr-altamira-to-bishop-faure.3606/ And confirmed in Bishop Aquinas’ own letter to defend Bishop Williamson’s errors cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/dom-thomas-defends-b-williamson-miracles-in-no-masses.3068/
They believe in the conciliar church. “It is not possible that God has abandoned 98% of the souls. We have to read attentively and understand what Bishop Williamson wants to say. There can be, within us, the danger of radicalization.” (Bishop Faure, Sermon 12/06/15, Saltillo, Mexico)
It was discovered however these bishops founded the new SAJM congregation for “political purposes” cor-mariae.com/index.php?thr...-new-congregation-for-political-reasons.5066/
They refuses to accept priests who disagree with their errors. “Do not invite Father Cardozo to say Mass.” (Bishop Faure, Letter to the faithful of Santo Andres)
They accept “non una cum” sedevacantist priests on God's altar and ordain sede seminarians cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-faure-sajj-seminary-accepts-“non-una-cum”-seminarians-to-be-ordained.4493/
Not surprising these bishops live an independent life of their own. They said this is what they want, and, to participate with the "conservative" forms of the Vatican II enterprise.
The rest in discourse is just a political disguise fiending tradition the same as Bishop Fellay to promote a different agenda.
See all the compromises these false bishops have declared so far thecatacombs.org/thread/719/false-resistance-topic
So it is only when one stands uncompromised can one say they have a true standard on the side of God.
Bishop Aquinas said in that sermon: "Contempt for God is manifested first in the [novus ordo] liturgy." True, but how can he at whim bring up pre-2012 doctrine when he post-2012 professes a public position simultaneously with Bishops Williamson, Faure, and Zendejas the novus ordo liturgy is something you can worship God with, it is "catholic", and you can "build your faith" on it?
Getting past the glitter, the teaching of Bishop Aquinas remains in support of Bishop Williamson's public errors and to Bishop Faure's own support for the new religion.
Post 2012 to date:
They accept and supports Bp. Williamson’s belief in the NOM. “Where did you see that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is outside the Church?” (Bishop Faure, Letter to Father Ernesto Cardozo, 1/6/2016)
They accept and support Bp. Williamson’s belief in the novus ordo “miracles” cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/letter-from-fr-altamira-to-bishop-faure.3606/ And confirmed in Bishop Aquinas’ own letter to defend Bishop Williamson’s errors cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/dom-thomas-defends-b-williamson-miracles-in-no-masses.3068/
They believe in the conciliar church. “It is not possible that God has abandoned 98% of the souls. We have to read attentively and understand what Bishop Williamson wants to say. There can be, within us, the danger of radicalization.” (Bishop Faure, Sermon 12/06/15, Saltillo, Mexico)
It was discovered however these bishops founded the new SAJM congregation for “political purposes” cor-mariae.com/index.php?thr...-new-congregation-for-political-reasons.5066/
They refuses to accept priests who disagree with their errors. “Do not invite Father Cardozo to say Mass.” (Bishop Faure, Letter to the faithful of Santo Andres)
They accept “non una cum” sedevacantist priests on God's altar and ordain sede seminarians cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/bishop-faure-sajj-seminary-accepts-“non-una-cum”-seminarians-to-be-ordained.4493/
Not surprising these bishops live an independent life of their own. They said this is what they want, and, to participate with the "conservative" forms of the Vatican II enterprise.
The rest in discourse is just a political disguise fiending tradition the same as Bishop Fellay to promote a different agenda.
See all the compromises these false bishops have declared so far thecatacombs.org/thread/719/false-resistance-topic
So it is only when one stands uncompromised can one say they have a true standard on the side of God.
From The Recusant:
“… In fact, what we have here is not internecine warfare but just warfare. I don’t consider myself on the same side as Bishop Williamson. And yet I have not changed my beliefs one iota over the past few years – how is that possible? As far as I am concerned there are two different sides. It can be confusing when the other side insist on still referring to themselves as the Resistance, even though their own leader and supposed source of unity, Bishop Williamson, has said several times that he doesn’t believe in the Resistance and never uses the word except in quotation marks… if they were honest, they would not use a name or label which Bishop Williamson himself so pointedly eschews, but never mind. The point is that these two sides are very different and stand for very different things. One side has bishops as its source of unity, the other the Faith. One side is more interested in persons, the other in ideas. One side always somehow manages to attack their opponents without ever quoting any of their actual words, the other side quotes their opponents’ own words at length. One side always attacks the personality or personal morals of their opponents, or spreads anonymous online rumours which are either impossible to verify or turn out to be totally untrue, the other side questions the doctrinal orthodoxy of their opponents’ public teachings. One side has no problem assigning motive to their opponent, the other can stick to what they actually said. One is prepared to turn a blind eye to bending a little doctrine here, a little Tradition there, the other are absolute sticklers and insist that not one iota must change and that every last grain must be accounted for, so to speak. One side offers the faithful a great deal of license on questions such as where to go to Mass, the other side encourages them to be generous (in the proper sense of the word) to Almighty God and exhorts them to personal sacrifice. I could go on ….” ( pp.35-36, “Is The Recusant Guilty of “Internecine Warfare”..?,” The Recusant, May/June 2017, Issue 41 )
The difference between the False Resistance and the True Catholic Resistance.
“… In fact, what we have here is not internecine warfare but just warfare. I don’t consider myself on the same side as Bishop Williamson. And yet I have not changed my beliefs one iota over the past few years – how is that possible? As far as I am concerned there are two different sides. It can be confusing when the other side insist on still referring to themselves as the Resistance, even though their own leader and supposed source of unity, Bishop Williamson, has said several times that he doesn’t believe in the Resistance and never uses the word except in quotation marks… if they were honest, they would not use a name or label which Bishop Williamson himself so pointedly eschews, but never mind. The point is that these two sides are very different and stand for very different things. One side has bishops as its source of unity, the other the Faith. One side is more interested in persons, the other in ideas. One side always somehow manages to attack their opponents without ever quoting any of their actual words, the other side quotes their opponents’ own words at length. One side always attacks the personality or personal morals of their opponents, or spreads anonymous online rumours which are either impossible to verify or turn out to be totally untrue, the other side questions the doctrinal orthodoxy of their opponents’ public teachings. One side has no problem assigning motive to their opponent, the other can stick to what they actually said. One is prepared to turn a blind eye to bending a little doctrine here, a little Tradition there, the other are absolute sticklers and insist that not one iota must change and that every last grain must be accounted for, so to speak. One side offers the faithful a great deal of license on questions such as where to go to Mass, the other side encourages them to be generous (in the proper sense of the word) to Almighty God and exhorts them to personal sacrifice. I could go on ….” ( pp.35-36, “Is The Recusant Guilty of “Internecine Warfare”..?,” The Recusant, May/June 2017, Issue 41 )