Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Bp_Bruno

Other than noticing this thread has been reduced from 14 pages to 8, since this morning

FYI - there are more posts per page when you're signed in as a member which is why you're seeing fewer pages.

Thank you for the correction. Being new here, I wasn't aware of that and apologize to anyone who was offended.

Thank you for the correction. Being new here, I wasn't aware of that and apologize to anyone who was offended.

All the above is very correct.

Really, now?  It's plainly libelous from a journalistic perspective.  The only legal defenses for the anonymous sources of the postings above, for willfully damaging the reputations of named independent clergy, would be for all of their allegations to be provably true.  Even the reputation of a 'public person' like a bishop.

It's not even an exercise in flash-mob libel, because the anonymous originators began their campaign on the afternoon of Aug 4, 2013, then stretched their campaign in the topic out for more than a month, last posting on the afternoon of Sep 8, 2013.

This topic strikes me, overall, as a cowardly exercise following a 2-part principle: "If you can't bamboozle (opponents) with bluster, then bury them in bull--um--manure."   As exemplified by the eye-glazing individual postings that stretch for half-a-dozen laptop-screenfuls.

They are good reasons, please point out the error in those reasons, if you find any.  I would never want what happened to me, and others, to happen to anyone else unfortunate enough to be duped [....]

Worse than mere innuendo: An accusation of fraud, rhetorically softened with an expression of empathy, but deprived of all the specifics necessary for readers to evaluate it (much less "point out the error"): Who?  What?  When?  Where?

I seriously doubt that anonymous posters on an anonymous-by-design Internet subforum would have a whole lotta truth on their side.  How many anonymous-but-real people have posted in this thread, piling on under the default names 'Guest' and 'Guest Unregistered'?  The software doesn't even assign them ordinal numbers to distinguish them, but there seem to be at least 2 different people under the latter name.  Then again, the apparent dialog among the anonymeeses might've been a completely fabricated one, simulated via postings from a single real person.

Readers might be best advised to raise the classic question: "Cui bono?", i.e.: "Who would benefit most from damaging the reputations of independent traditional Catholic bishops?"  Hmmm?

The postings in this topic definitely warrant "further review" by the forum moderator.  Strictly speaking, they weren't willful violations of the later warning that opened this subforum's topic "Friendly Warning for any Trolls", but they certainly violated its principle(s):

The Anonymous subforum is not "the Wild West" or a place where anything goes. [....] The Anonymous subforum IS moderated, and has the same standards as the rest of the forum. [....] you can't use the Anonymous subforum as a cloak for malice.

<http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Friendly-Warning-for-any-Trolls>.

I believe that the advantage of "a cloak for malice" was exactly why the anonymous posters chose to conduct their hostile campaign in this subforum.  I believe that this thread is a black eye to the reputation of CathInfo, but the remedies are not for me to determine.

All the above is very correct.

Also to be addressed is the fact that Taylor admitted (and so you'll note he now removed his website) that his "conditional" consecration from Adamson was NOT DONE FOR VALIDITY.  Now again, what is it done for?  Taylor tells us:  "for an internal" reason for the Society of the Virgin Mary.

It appears that a "Bishop Macek" also at one point "enthroned" Taylor during some type of ceremonial in his tiny Chapel.  This is nothing but shear Old Catholic shenanigans at best.  These are men who clearly have no grasp on Catholic ceremonial or teaching, or else they would not conduct themselves in this manner.

The Taylor group is apparently now working with the following to form some type of "new organization" to gain entrance into traditional Chapels.  Among the participants are a Fr. Gabriel Tetherow, Louis Montelongo, Merrill Brian Adamson, Pablo Dolorosa, Jesse Milagrosa, a Taylor product named Macek and another product of Taylor (via Jason Spadafore) and consecrated by Taylor, a fellow named Bruno and a few others.

I've read enough. This thread is so full of slander and lies--I personally know Several of the above and they are priests beyond reproach. I've beeno on several trad sites and seen this kind of gossip and slander over and over. How dare you stay anonymous. Use at least a screen name, you cowards. Have you seen the blog "the Lay Pulpit" or some others like this? Same thing. If you cannot use at least a registered screen name how can you be taken seriously? Or maybe, like some political comment sites, "unregistered guest" is a troll sent here to divide us against successful priests by innuendo, rumor and planting doubt.

At the bottom of the screen when posting on this sub forum you will see a little box that you can check to that your post will not be anonymous.  It is below the browse button and above the reply button

http://scor.sled.sc.gov/OffenderDetails.aspx?Display=Main&Id=2304116

http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/News-Release-for-Amicarelli-01256294xD2C78.pdf

  https://www.live5news.com/story/34436821/summerville-man-faces-child-pornography-charges/

  http://www.holyfamilytraditionalcatholicchurch.com/home.html

Dorchester County public index (court records) - click "accept" and then search on last name:

https://publicindex.sccourts.org/dorchester/publicindex/