From Father Z's: How Liturgical Reform was done.
#31
(10-15-2009, 02:20 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-15-2009, 12:35 PM)DarkKnight Wrote: Stories like this make Fr. Malachi Martin look more credible all of the time.
 

It's long been a traditionalist hope and a firm conviction of conservatives that the recent Popes were really traditional but were "decieved" or "did not know" etc. etc.  ad nauseum.  But that's pretty much of a myth conjured up to provide cover for the Popes.

Exactly they knew what they were doing the only one that I dont think is as culpable is John XXIII I have been told that had he lived the council would have been much more conservative and certainly the Mass wouldnt have changed we already have his Novus Ordo which is just the Mass of 62  as said by traditionalists today. Paul VI was a wolf in sheeps clothing i've never really bought that he didnt want things to go that far or this or that and the libs just took it over.
A. He signed all the documents after being warned by conservatives that their ambiguity would be trouble(could this be what he wanted)
B. He signed off on the new Mass the Neotards(thanks DK) can say whatever they want but the fact is he signed the new Mass into law even after her was warned by Ottivani(sp) Lefebvre and others that the news Mass is just a protestant communion service and went against trent.
C. He himself admited that "the smoke of satan" had entered the Church yet did nothing to stop it.

IMO JPII loony antics not withstanding the fact that the barque of peter is sinking is his(Paul VI) fault and his fault alone.
Reply
#32
(10-15-2009, 11:28 PM)Credo Wrote: Just the other day I was commenting on the bad habit traditionalists have of fueling unsubstantiated gossip. This has to be rock-bottom of academic integrity. What you said is very serious, SaintRafael. The least you could do is reference this.

As others have pointed out, the homosexual stuff is in Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy.

TIA also has some sources on their website. Anyone can read about what TIA has uncovered. They even have a source from a homosexual himself, the French writer Roger Peyrefitte, who was so offended that Pope Paul VI attacked homosexuality, that he outed the Pope himself:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi...tions.html
Reply
#33
WDTPRS  should stand for:  What Does The Priest Really Say?

because when you really look at it, it's a dangerous website for traditional Catholics to read uncritically. 

The more I read Fr. Z, the more I'm convinced he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.  He sows dissent against the SSPX in a variety of ways, and has a particularly cavalier attitude about tradition in the Church. He floats ideas that are ludicrous out among traditionalists to see what they will swallow.

I knew something was seriously wrong when he actually tried to pass off the idea that JPII "laid the foundation" for Pope Benedict's "Marshall Plan."  I'd believe that only if Benedict's so-called "Marshall Plan" is actually "Sherman's Plan for Atlanta."  His understanding of Catholicism is woefully insufficient  since he thinks traditionalists are so-called primarily because of their "liturgical preference."   

1) From his writings it can be deduced that he dislikes or even hates Bishop Williamson with a passion.  If he honestly doesn't, he's a bad writer, because the poison pen is obvious.  Prior to the lifting of the excommunications, any reference to Bp. Williamson was prefaced with "Excommunicated Bishop Williamson..."  Strong defenses of Bishop Williamson are altered or deleted.  Posts of dubious authorship  attacking "Fr.Z" in support of Bp. Williamson using foul language are retained with the added comments by Fr. Z along the line of,  "I'm leaving your comments up so people can see the kind of supporters Williamson has."  I personally believe Fr. Z faked the post. 

2) At the same time, there was an attitude of what I term "mock-sympathy" for Bishop Fellay and how we have to pray for him.  Interestingly, I don't remember him trumpeting Fellay's status of "excommunicated" (bogus though it was) during this time.  It's apparant that if there wasn't division in the SSPX he was going to try and sow it or at least give the impression that it existed.  It's right out of the Alinsky handbook.  Fr. Malachi Martin referenced Alinsky tactics  in the 1970's being used  to sow division and create chaos in the Church.  Long before the Alinsky-Obama connection was being made, the tactics were being used in Rome. 

3) After the lifting the excomms he has consistently referred to Bp. W as "old news" which makes me think he views Williamson as an eliminated target.  He has also never refrained from the use of extremely derogatory terms against Williamson's statements which are ultimately against Bp. Williamson himself.  They are the typical childish neo-Catholic terms hurled when someone without character doesn't have a logical argument.  "Looney" "weird" etc.  And don't even try to debate him on it.  He'll run like a river if he is asked to defend his comments and delete and ban anyone who thoroughly gets the best of the argument. 

4) Since the lifting of the excomms, his attitude towards Bp Fellay has been one that explains away any strong (dare I say Williamson-like) statement as speaking to the money-people.  In other words Bishop Fellay is not sincere in Fr. Z's cynical mind.  The Bishop simply tosses a little political red-meat to the big-money patrons of the SSPX in order to keep them in line. 

5) He either imbibes in or has an insufficient understanding of what is going on in that he believes the SSPX and Rome are engaging in "negotiations" instead of "doctrinal discussions" and he mysteriously believe that "Peter will instruct the SSPX"  (As an aside, the typical neo-Catholic loves to refer to the pious tradition of calling the Pope "Peter" in order to give the argument emotional weight in order to make up for its lack of basis in reality.  I hate to break it to them but just because a Pope occupies Peter's seat, does not mean he is given Divine Revelation as Peter was.  That was for Peter alone as far as Popes go.  In any case, Paul was Divinely inspired to correct the first Pope.  It's ironic that they accuse us of "insufficient understanding of the development of doctrine"  when they don't even get the basic doctrine.) 

6) Following on that, he employs tactics that are basically trying to create a "cult of personality" around Pope BXVI for traditionally minded Catholics similar to that  built up for conservatives about "JPII the Great" and other such silly non-sense. This tactic had a previous life in two parts as the "Spirit of Vatican II" and during the council the "Spirit of John XXIII or the Spirit of Agiornamento."  It has the character of,  "Don't parse what he does into good and bad!  It's all good because he's our guy!  Go Eagles! ...er I mean Benedict! "  There's a lot of bread and circuses surrounding the writings of Fr Z.  Traditional Catholics should be very skeptical.

Conclusion:  It's my personal opinion that Fr. Z is the equivalent of a pre-1965 liberal.  A good amount of the language and the trappings sound and look traditional, but Karl Rahner  and Hans Kung and Tielhard de Chardin said the TLM and thousands of others kept up appearances prior 1965.  After '65 they went wild. 

His unwillingness or even his inability (due to his position and his specific, undeclared mission) is not to tell the truth about what the Popes really did or what they were responsible for.  It's to provide an "out" for specific Popes like Paul VI,  JPII and  BXVI when they falter in their performance as "Successor of Peter."  It takes any heat off them  from trads that may cause embarassment to the ecumenical objectives of many in the hierarchy.  Vast, numerous and prominent errors are papered over with vagueries "Yeah, yeah, the Popes are human....some things could have been done better."  But you'll never hear,  "Yes.  Assisi was a scandalous action carried out by Pope John Paul II. "  or "Paul VI failed to fulfill John XXIII's commission that Vatican II clearly teach the faith in language modern man could understand." 





Reply
#34
(10-18-2009, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: WDTPRS  should stand for:  What Does The Priest Really Say?
because when you really look at it, it's a dangerous website for traditional Catholics to read uncritically. 

The more I read Fr. Z, the more I'm convinced he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Conclusion:   It's my personal opinion that Fr. Z is the equivalent of a pre-1965 liberal. 

:salute: :tiphat:

It's about time Fr. Z gets exposed. You articulated it perfectly.

I was banned from his website for daring to point out that the Church actually has bishops who are apostate. They peddle liberalism and make excuses for sin.
The post that got me banned was a quote from St. John  Chrysostom.
Reply
#35
Gerard, your post was excellent. It would be even better if you could provide sources as well (and I'm not saying I disbelieve you).

You should make your post into its own thread because it deserves it. This issue needs to be talked about.
Reply
#36
(10-18-2009, 01:01 AM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 12:17 AM)Gerard Wrote: WDTPRS  should stand for:  What Does The Priest Really Say?
because when you really look at it, it's a dangerous website for traditional Catholics to read uncritically. 

The more I read Fr. Z, the more I'm convinced he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Conclusion:   It's my personal opinion that Fr. Z is the equivalent of a pre-1965 liberal. 

:salute: :tiphat:

It's about time Fr. Z gets exposed. You articulated it perfectly.

I was banned from his website for daring to point out that the Church actually has bishops who are apostate. They peddle liberalism and make excuses for sin.
The post that got me banned was a quote from St. John  Chrysostom.
Agreed I got banned from this wolf in a Cassock for defending the SSPX. He needs to spend more time administering the sacraments and less time blogging. He's a smells and bells reformer in the same vein as Benedict XVI he cares nothing for true Catholic dogma.
Reply
#37
Great post gerrard
Reply
#38
This link is an article concerning the censorship of the comments of a blogger on Fr. Z's site. In fact, the blogger in question who was banned by Fr. Z was Martin Blackshaw, who writes for the Traditionalist magazine The Remnant. Yeah that's right, Fr. Z banned someone who writes for a well-known and well-respected Traditional Catholic magazine.

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=243
Reply
#39
(10-18-2009, 10:41 AM)CatholicThurifer Wrote: This link is an article concerning the censorship of the comments of a blogger on Fr. Z's site. In fact, the blogger in question who was banned by Fr. Z was Martin Blackshaw, who writes for the Traditionalist magazine The Remnant. Yeah that's right, Fr. Z banned someone who writes for a well-known and well-respected Traditional Catholic magazine.

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=243

Oops!  What a surprise when I saw that article.  I had no idea someone had taken the WDTPRS and made that switch from "prayer" to "priest"  I'd originally written WDTPRM as in "What does the Priest Really Mean?"  but I thought it would be better to keep the original letters and switched to "say".   No plagiarism intended.   Mr. Blackshaw or the blogger thought of it first, a year ahead of me.

Good article by the way,  I'm thinking more and more that we need to be more vigilant in how we view priests who are "sympathetic" to tradition while still going for all the VII stuff.   It's a sign of confusion, weakness or at worst subtle wickedness.  We dont' need to fall into the traps that worked in the 1960's.
Reply
#40
I agree we need to be vigilant. I could say many things about the "New Liturgical Movement" which supports the reform of the reform, or rather deform of the deform. Mixing truth with error is not good, mixing error with even more error might be worse.

(10-18-2009, 12:33 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 10:41 AM)CatholicThurifer Wrote: This link is an article concerning the censorship of the comments of a blogger on Fr. Z's site. In fact, the blogger in question who was banned by Fr. Z was Martin Blackshaw, who writes for the Traditionalist magazine The Remnant. Yeah that's right, Fr. Z banned someone who writes for a well-known and well-respected Traditional Catholic magazine.

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=243

Oops!  What a surprise when I saw that article.  I had no idea someone had taken the WDTPRS and made that switch from "prayer" to "priest"  I'd originally written WDTPRM as in "What does the Priest Really Mean?"  but I thought it would be better to keep the original letters and switched to "say".   No plagiarism intended.   Mr. Blackshaw or the blogger thought of it first, a year ahead of me.

Good article by the way,  I'm thinking more and more that we need to be more vigilant in how we view priests who are "sympathetic" to tradition while still going for all the VII stuff.   It's a sign of confusion, weakness or at worst subtle wickedness.  We dont' need to fall into the traps that worked in the 1960's.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)