Will SSPX's Senior Bishop Williamson Lead a Countermovement to the SSPX?
#21
MitOS Wrote:
MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:
Reichsjager Wrote:This about made me fall out of my chair from laughing so hard. What a bunch of crap.

Fr. Cekada might see it differently...

Fr. Cekada?????????

Is this the same Fr Cekada that publically stated the termination of the life of Terri Schivo was acceptable and no sin??????

And fellow Fisheater, Fr. Cekada.
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view/...therCekada

Reply
#22
Credo Wrote:Please don't quote Traditio, they're the National Enquirer of the traditionalist movement.


AMEN!! Traditio makes me ill.
Reply
#23
Tobias Wrote:MitOS,

I was surprised to see General Bryan Grimes, CSA as your avatar.  My family comes from the Grimesland, North Carolina area.


I am related to General Grimes.  Are you familure with the plantation next door known as Oatland?

It used to belong to my mother's family untill 1910.  I am related to the Bryan family as well of which General Grimes's mother was a Bryan ergo his first name.  In fact there are so many marriages with Bryan girls in both families I am more Bryan then any other family name.

Do you know of the Pugh family in that area.

Kin

Reply
#24
Traditio more like Trashio
Reply
#25
I am not personally familiar with Oatland.  Older members of my family might if I asked them.  My mother was a daughter of Roscoe Fleming, who was a farmer and merchant in Grimesland during the 1930s and 1940s.  She told me that some of our family once lived in General Grimes' house.  I work under a professor in my college department who is a descendant of General Grimes.  My father is from Simpson, NC, just a few miles away from Grimesland.  This would be the William Jasper Edwards clan.  I have heard of the Pugh family, but I am not acquainted with any of them.
Reply
#26
Tobias Wrote:I am not personally familiar with Oatland.  Older members of my family might if I asked them.  My mother was a daughter of Roscoe Fleming, who was a farmer and merchant in Grimesland during the 1930s and 1940s.  She told me that some of our family once lived in General Grimes' house.  I work under a professor in my college department who is a descendant of General Grimes.  My father is from Simpson, NC, just a few miles away from Grimesland.  This would be the William Jasper Edwards clan.  I have heard of the Pugh family, but I am not acquainted with any of them.


I thought I had corrected the typo  It is OAKLAND (as in oak tree) not oatland.  My screen is blurry from someone leaving the monitor on all the time.  Oakland and Griamsland are next door to each other.

 

I just bet there is a picture posted of JJ Laughinghouse somewhere in the college.  JJ was an uncle to my Grandfather.

 

I hear from a direct descendent of General Grimes that it was JJ who lead to band of men who hung General Grimes's assassin on the Washington Bridge (the very bridge General Grimes had built and gave to the county)

 

Such were the times of Reconstruction and the price of wicked men.  In this new era of the Neo-Reconstruction it is a lesson that should give warning when people feel disenfranchised.

 

I do not know if the story is true or not.  It never made it down my line as a family legend.  But we were not direct decedents of General Grimes, he was an uncle/in-law/cousin/state hero or all the above.

Reply
#27
I know of J.J. Laughinghouse.  He was suspected of leading the lynch mob that hung William Parker.  He has descendents around Pactolus, NC.
Reply
#28
ggreg Wrote:Agreed, I think its far more likely that Bishop Williamson will be jailed in Germany than will break away from the SSPX.

On the face of it the SSPX are now in a commanding position.  The gates have been opened and the wooden horse of Troy rolled in.  For Bishop Williamson to break away would be like the Greeks breaking out of the Trojan Horse and attacking the fortess from the outside.

Fr. Moderator is just angry that he is still stuck outside waiting for the fortress to blow itself to bits.

Reminds me of a Monty Python Sketch.

Perhaps Fr. Moderator needs to build a large wooden badger!!!


I like your analogies. Although I am very understanding of the sedevacantist position (despite serious reservations on my part, on theology and canon law and indefectibility etc.) and only "tolerate" the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to "regularize" in a "Personal Prelature" if they continue the doctrinal battle (which Fr. Laguérie and Fr. Aulagnier in the Institut du Bon Pasteur did not continue as far as it is clear to me). I myself would not regularize up until the state, that the Holy See and the current Benedict XVI himself would offer an identical profession of faith (on the disputed issues) that was the Roman Catholic Faith on October 1, 1958. Nothing less would be a reason for me to "regularize" or even contemplate such "regularization". That is, while I am not a formal sedevacantist and adhere to Archbishop Lefebvre's position, an Institut du Bon Pasteur fallacy and failure should not happen under Bp. Fellay. Why? Because if there is no reasonable refutation or orthodox Catholic explanation and sanation of the seemingly heretical and apostatical Vatican II "new church", I am not sure whether the "fortress" to be taken as a "traditionalist Trojan Horse" is actually Troy (Rome of the Pope) or in fact Babylon or a suburb of Jerusalem instructed by the Sanhedrin Caiphas-followers, instructed by Judases Iskariots, numerous of whom can be found among modern-day Conciliar Church bishops.

I do not think Bp. Fellay would "sell out" without any serious doctrinal discussion commission on theological difficulties to happen however.

And one addition: it is now the "Frs. Moderators". I guess some other irregular Duarte Costa or Old Catholic line ordained vagant priest (sacerdos vagans) joined the crew of Fr. Morrison (who does not even reveal his date, fact, rite and source of ordination and is only addressed as "Fr." for reasons of courtesy, which he himself does not follow sadly enough).

Anyway, the real Battle and Division and Problems have just begun. The last 40 years and the last 20 years were just a warming up to the real rugby match against Heresy Club & Co.
Reply
#29
MitOs Wrote:

“…when SSPX's Best Priests Formed the SSPV…”

 

//holding back snickers and out and out laughter//

 

They are sedevacantist and schismatic. 
Lead by Bishops with crackerjack box gift consecrations.


 

This is just not true. Whatever may be your opinion on the SSPV and sedevacantism, both the (main line) Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc bishops as well as Bishop Clarence Kelly and the Father recently consecrated in February 2007, are valid sacramental bishops. With no ordinary jurisdiction however. Unlike the ridiculous and usurpating claims made by certain individuals like bishop Louis Vezelis OFM (now in his 80s, I think).

Reply
#30
HMiS Wrote:Although I am very understanding of the sedevacantist position (despite serious reservations on my part, on theology and canon law and indefectibility etc.) and only "tolerate" the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to "regularize" in a "Personal Prelature" if they continue the doctrinal battle (which Fr. Laguérie and Fr. Aulagnier in the Institut du Bon Pasteur did not continue as far as it is clear to me). I myself would not regularize up until the state, that the Holy See and the current Benedict XVI himself would offer an identical profession of faith (on the disputed issues) that was the Roman Catholic Faith on October 1, 1958. Nothing less would be a reason for me to "regularize" or even contemplate such "regularization". That is, while I am not a formal sedevacantist and adhere to Archbishop Lefebvre's position, an Institut du Bon Pasteur fallacy and failure should not happen under Bp. Fellay. Why? Because if there is no reasonable refutation or orthodox Catholic explanation and sanation of the seemingly heretical and apostatical Vatican II "new church", I am not sure whether the "fortress" to be taken as a "traditionalist Trojan Horse" is actually Troy (Rome of the Pope) or in fact Babylon or a suburb of Jerusalem instructed by the Sanhedrin Caiphas-followers, instructed by Judases Iskariots, numerous of whom can be found among modern-day Conciliar Church bishops.
Good points, HMIS.  I almost had a stroke when I heard reports that the SSPX might be "regularized" by 2 February.  All the bombshells that sprang out of VII (ecumenism, collegiality, etc.) are still alive and festering in the conciliar Church. 

I can't understand all the excitement about the lifting of the excommunications.  Abp. Lefebvre's stand was the result of two things(at least):
     1.  Doctrinal changes initiated by VII
     2.  The Novus Ordo

Benedict warmly embraces both these things.  He is the first pontiff to refer to the Novus Ordo Missae as the "ordinary form."  By his writings, he has also demonstrated that he is firmly commited to the modern understanding of ecumenism.

I doubt the SSPX would be able to influence anything if moderni-...er... regularized.  Archbishop Lefebvre kept the Society away for a reason, and that reason is still there.  Unless I wake up one day and find that Benedict has turned his back on ecumenism and all that rot about Judaism being a path to salvation, or reinstated the TLM as the "ordinary form", then "regularization" just means the SSPX has become another color on the rainbow flag of the conciliar Church.  Benedict gives us the Motu Proprio, making the TLM more accessible, and all of a sudden we all think he's a "borderline traditionalist" or a "closet trad".  A tiger doesn't change his stripes.

If regularized, I predict the SSPX will not initiate some sweeping reforms back to Catholicism.  I think they'll stand for the Faith for a while, but eventually they'll make a small compromise here and there, so as not to rock the boat.  I remember a line from the movie Gangs of New York: "It's a funny thing, being taken under the wing of a dragon.  It's warmer than you think." 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)