Author Topic: Pope Michael Video Docuмentary (Read 6138 times)

s2srea · « **Reply #60 on:** April 13, 2011, 12:57:08 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

S2srea said:
Quote
Raoul76 said:
Then why do you call Benedict Pope?

I do believe I said "BXVI". Are you pointing to another thread?

Semantic games and a slippery approach, what a shock from a staunch defender of SSPX...

Really? Semantics huh? Thats pretty funny... Read your above post...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #61 on:** April 13, 2011, 01:05:03 PM »

As Ethelred pointed out, there were no priestly vocations from Germany, Austria, or Switzerland at Zaizkofen last year.

The liberal attitudes in those areas become so deeply ingrained and habitual, and so difficult to resist because of state imposed conformity, that it becomes second nature even to SSPX Catholics.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #62 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:05:26 PM »

Can you two invent new ways to insult each other on PM?

I thought there were 7 pages discussing the docuмentary and instead there are 7 pages continuing an argument from a locked thread!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #63 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:27:13 PM »

I agree that even though "Pope Michael" is a Traditionalist (or claims to be one) he's a fraud because he isn't even an ordainded priest, or at least he wasn't the last time I checked. If Benedict were an anti-pope, it would not be because of in-valid election. There are two things that can make an anti-pope:

1.- If he was not validly elected (the 30-something popes that were declared anti-popes by the Church were declared as such for this very reason).

2.- If he is a heretic/non-Catholic.

In any case, the claim that Michael is more of a Pope than Benedict is absurd. Apparently, even if Benedict is an anti-pope he'd still be a validly ordained priest. Michael does not fit this category as he hasn't been ordained (and even if he was, lay-people can't elect a Pope).

Telesphorus · « **Reply #64 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:28:30 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

In any case, the claim that Michael is more of a Pope than Benedict is absurd.

No one ever claimed that.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #65 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:30:45 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
In any case, the claim that Michael is more of a Pope than Benedict is absurd.

No one ever claimed that.

I'm just talking about those that do. I don't think we have any of them on this forum, though.

Zenith · « **Reply #66 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:25:55 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Can you two invent new ways to insult each other on PM?

I thought there were 7 pages discussing the docuмentary and instead there are 7 pages continuing an argument from a locked thread!

What is there to discuss about the docuмentary? It is sadly amusing and pathetic and you are simply using it as a tool to brand all Traditionalists as nut cases.

I know your caper. :whistleblower:

ColdFusion · « **Reply #67 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:59:08 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I see a difference between S2srea and Tele.

Tele is kind of irritating since he is so fixated on virgins that he's not getting certain common-sense things, like why a father wouldn't approve of him for his daughter for other reasons than his age ( certain recent posts show an unexpected conceit in Tele ).

But he thinks he is being persecuted and believes he can prove it, so when he calls someone a liar or slanderer, he will then tell you what the alleged lies and slander are. That's the difference.

S2srea, however, is acting like those Tele describes from his ex-church. He makes up wild accusations, paints Tele as a freak, pervert, potential wife-beater, and possible ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ ( the first, apparently, to have a taste for young female virgins ) and then never apologizes.

Of course, Tele goes too far with that whole "You're wicked, you're a Pharisee" routine, but that is his default mode whenever dealing with those who try to paint him his a pervert. That's his sensitive spot and anyone should be able to see it, yet this guy and LM are needling him. He was already kicked out of church for courting ( barely ) a young girl, allegedly painted as a pervert when, he is correct, it is natural to be attracted to young women. Now here it is happening again.

There's a difference between being incited to anger and doing the inciting. That doesn't exonerate Tele completely, but I still take his side over those who treat him like he's some kind of molester.

You are very sympathetic to Telesphorus' sensitive feelings, as have I, which is why I reserved comment. Now perhaps you and others who felt some comments uncalled for would put yourselves in the shoes of those of us with teenaged daughters (who need shielding from undesired attention), attend SSPX services, and have lineage from "south of the border."

Telesphorus · « **Reply #68 on:** April 13, 2011, 06:21:18 PM »

Quote from: ColdFusion

You are very sympathetic to Telesphorus' sensitive feelings, as have I, which is why I reserved comment. Now perhaps you and others who felt some comments uncalled for would put yourselves in the shoes of those of us with teenaged daughters (who need shielding from undesired attention), attend SSPX services, and have lineage from "south of the border."

It's laudable to wish to protect one's daughter, but I'm quite convinced someone who was unscrupulous would not be in my position. Be sure not to act in such a way as to defeat your own purpose, by inadvertently rewarding one with evil intentions by punishing someone with good intentions.

ColdFusion · « **Reply #69 on:** April 13, 2011, 06:40:05 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I'm quite convinced someone who was unscrupulous would not be in my position.

I agree.

Quote

Be sure not to act in such a way as to defeat your own purpose, by inadvertently rewarding one with evil intentions by punishing someone with good intentions

I urge you to do the same. You have received some sound advice -- please re-read it without the assumption of malice for your own benefit. It is very apparent that you are well capable of reason, but situations regarding families (particularly in-laws, or future in-laws) are seldom resolved by being factually, technically correct.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:26:26 PM »

ColdFusion said:

Quote

You are very sympathetic to Telesphorus' sensitive feelings, as have I, which is why I reserved comment. Now perhaps you and others who felt some comments uncalled for would put yourselves in the shoes of those of us with teenaged daughters (who need shielding from undesired attention), attend SSPX services, and have lineage from "south of the border."

I'm part-Spanish myself so I fall under the condemnation of "macho." Apparently we transmitted it to you, along with Catholicism

Each person in this predicament has a different motive. It's sort of a witches' brew. The father just didn't approve of Telesphorus as a suitor, and that is his prerogative. He doesn't even have to have a good reason. But to send people to tail Tele is wrong.

The girl MAY have been leading Tele on. That doesn't mean she didn't like him, it means that she may not have really been thinking about marriage. Tele is extrapolating badly here from a very slender flirtation.

The priest shouldn't have gotten involved at all. Tele is not a predator who is going to stalk the girl.

And then there is the flock at SSPX, who allegedly put their oar in and portrayed Tele as a pervert. Did it really happen? I have no reason to believe he's lying; I have heard of cult mechanics happening frequently in trad chapels; and I have seen some of that unreasoning hatred directed at Tele here.

Tele is a sincere guy, that counts for a lot with me. There's nothing about him that seems sneaky or underhanded or manipulative, unlike many, many people in the traditional movement, unfortunately. I know others who strike me as the "cream of the crop," just open-hearted and straightforward people, who seem to be persecuted for no reason, Eamon on this site for one, as well as a friend of mine from "real life," and now Tele, who has always been sympathetic to me.

It's no coincidence. The devil is trying to drive those that can hurt him out of traditionalism. If trad chapels are filled with sophists and Pharisees and cult-type people and high-school-like bullies, not many will want to go.