CathInfo.com

No, it's called giving them the benefit of the doubt.  You clowns are making the accusations, so the burden of proof is on you.  In point of fact, you're just pulling these out of your collective asses because you don't like the man.  This has been going on since day one against +Vigano.

It hasn't been done with Fr. Vigano as far as I recall, but you have proven that with Putin we are going to need his 2022 Communist Party card, a detailed genealogy of his Jєωιѕн heritage, a list with photographs and perhaps video of his murder victims, etc. The measure of proof you require honestly doesn't exist, and I think you know that, which is why you are pushing this angle so hard and ignore everything that is offered. It would be nice if we had a simple list of heretics and saboteurs, wouldn't it?

Why is it that the SVs are such assholes?  Makes me think that it's a huge reason so many people stay away from them.  You might do a better job of persuading people you're right if you didn't rip anyone to shreds who didn't measure up to your standards of perfection.  And perhaps +Vigano sees some of your vitriol and animosity toward him.  Why would he want to align himself with that bullshit?

I never said I was a SV or anything at all, but I can't stop you from adding what you like to me. Perfection has nothing to do with it, and I doubt Fr. Vigano even has familiarity with a lot of what gets discussed in this corner of the Internet. The Novus Ordites would be a different story.

And I'm going to be very blunt here.  While I understand the theology behind SVism and am sympathetic to it, it's just a simple fact that most SVs are a bunch of bitter assholes ... and a lot of people point that out as your bad fruit.

See above. It's possible to disagree and both still be Catholics. I know you are deep into some unpleasant cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and it would be impossible for that to not color your thinking. I don't even think you must mirror my thoughts, but it would be better if you were at least neutral towards people like Putin, etc.

No, only idiots like you who pull stuff out of your asses and slander people like Archbishop Vigano without a shred of evidence.  You spin together some conspiracy narrative that you then hold up as the yardstick of reality.  You throw idiotic terms out there like "Alt-Right/Duginist" and pretend that merely by hurling the phrase you've uncovered the truth.

I have yet to see even a shred of proof for your allegations.  That's when it's slander and calumny.

It's perfectly fine to be cautious, but you cross the line into slander when you present these as fact when they're nothing but the product of your imagination.

Ladislaus, are you serious? Are you certain you have read everything that has been presented to you? Your arguments prove that this must be impossible, and you claim everything that is being said is imaginary? What is wrong with you?

It's not for lack of trying by the opposition that you haven't seen a shred of evidence. Would it take that look to have read some of the previous posts or followed a few links? It could be that you don't want to believe that there is an Alt-Right or that Duginism is a thing, but that is your bias. What you would like to believe doesn't make what they are into something that I invented.

If you would like to pretend at authority it would be better if you could at least know what your opponents are saying rather than come up with the nonsense in the quote.

It hasn't been done with Fr. Vigano as far as I recall, but you have proven that with Putin we are going to need his 2022 Communist Party card, a detailed genealogy of his Jєωιѕн heritage, a list with photographs and perhaps video of his murder victims, etc. The measure of proof you require honestly doesn't exist, and I think you know that, which is why you are pushing this angle so hard and ignore everything that is offered. It would be nice if we had a simple list of heretics and saboteurs, wouldn't it?

No, it's not been done with +Vigano at all, and yet that hasn't stopped the slanderers from making accusations.  Even for Putin, there's nothing there that that proves your assertions.  There's enough there to cause someone to question it, but nothing that comes close to evidence or proof of anything.  There's also counter-evidence, which has been presented, but you simply ignore because it doesn't fit with YOUR "narrative".  I'm pushing for truth and for looking objectively at both sides.  I just said that it's perfectly OK to be suspicious, but that's in a completely different league than accusing someone.

This might be an apt metaphor.  I see a guy show up at my chapel who's got effeminate mannerisms.  So I have my suspicions, keep an eye on him, wouldn't let my children be alone with him, etc.  But it would be quite another thing for me to go around telling people the guy's a sodomite and a pedophile.  That is where you guys cross the line into slander, by presenting your suspicions as if they were fact.  This is exactly what you're doing.