Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12

Author Topic: J’ACCUSE  (Read 11349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46948
  • Reputation: +27805/-5167
  • Gender: Male
Re: J’ACCUSE
« Reply #135 on: July 01, 2024, 07:05:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 01, 2024, 04:45:38 PM
    Are you and Ladislaus trying to deflect away from this subject? That's the typical ploy here.

    This is Meg's answer to a request to explain why she despites SVism, i.e. what theological objections she has to it.  SHE HAS NEVER DONE SO, and based on this answer which is, ironically, what constitutes the deflection, SHE NEVER WILL.

    Not only has she never offered anything close to a rational theological thought about the subject, she won't (and likely) can't explain her emotional contempt for SVism.  NOT ONCE.  She just makes puerile drive-by comments.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #136 on: July 01, 2024, 07:07:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 01, 2024, 05:02:10 PM
    Can't have the sedevacantists have their feelings hurt by someone saying this.

    More BS from Meg.  Nobody's "feelings" are hurt except evidently yours, and you won't/can't even explain why you "FEEL" such animosity towards SVs and SVism.  Nice projection, Meg.

    We're still awaiting your explanation for why SVism is wrong ... with bated breath.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #137 on: July 01, 2024, 07:10:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on July 01, 2024, 06:55:11 PM
    Meg, I've been staying out of this recent "debate", but I have to interject to point out that the bolded is false.  There have been a number of these sedevacantists (called "dogmatic" sedes here) that Matthew has banned over the years. They typically don't last long.

    But I cannot remember the banning of a similar poster on the R&R side (and yes, there have been R&R posters that have called sedes non-Catholic or schismatic although not in recent times...SeanJohnson comes to mind).

    Correct.  I made the same response before seeing yours.

    I defy Meg to name ONE POSTER who was banned on account of dogmatic R&Rism or for calling SVs schismatic. 

    XavierSem was dogmtic R&R but he got banned for other reasons.  There were others who were dogmatic anti-Trads, who masqueraded for a while as if they were anti-SV only, i.e. posturing as if they were anti-SV R&R, but then got exposed as considering all Traditional Catholics to be schismatics/heretics and were banned for that reason (and not for their original attack against SVs) ... JJoseph comes to mind, as did the one Salza account.  They were not banned when they attacked SVs as schismatics, and kept going for a while with those opinions ... but were finally banned when they declared all Traditional Catholics heretics/schismatics.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12496
    • Reputation: +7940/-2451
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #138 on: July 01, 2024, 07:48:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Not only has she never offered anything close to a rational theological thought about the subject, she won't (and likely) can't explain her emotional contempt for SVism.  NOT ONCE.  She just makes puerile drive-by comments.
    True.  Meg's been posting like this for (easily) 5-6 years.  
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14811
    • Reputation: +6115/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #139 on: July 02, 2024, 04:59:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Gray2023 on July 01, 2024, 02:59:36 PM
    Quote from: Stubborn on June 30, 2024, 05:29:15 PM
    Quote
    I reject sedism mainly for it's primary reason for existing, namely, disunity - as if trads need more of that. The whole idea has proven itself to be iniquitous.
    Where does this idea come from?
    Reality.

    I could tell a story that paints you a picture (worth a thousand words) but just notice reality. You yourself see the disunity that an opinion turned de fide doctrine causes right here on CI.  

     Take only one example of +Sanborn, there are many more that are similar....+Sanborn, who was ordained by +ABL and was one of his first priests here in the USA, but decided to split from the SSPX, and take half of those parishioners with him, (left the other half high and dry), to start his own sede chapel, school, seminary, convent, have himself consecrated a sede bishop, etc.

    Multiply that by who knows how many times and what do you have, unity? No, what you have is disunity, caused by the apparently insatiable urge to insist that popes are not popes, i.e sedeism.

    This is what an opinion has morphed itself into, quoted from Bonaventure on SD....

    Quote
    Quote
    Remember, the anti una cuм clergy (Dolan, Cekada, Sanborn, et al.) are not saying to use discretion when attending a valid "Una cuм" Mass.

    These men are saying it is a "mortal sin," a sin against the first commandment, and Sanborn's seminary prefect and professor has publicly written that one una cuм Mass is more offensive to almighty God than all of the abortions ever committed in history.
    This is what Lad calls my fertile imagination.  
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14811
    • Reputation: +6115/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #140 on: July 02, 2024, 06:07:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Gray2023 on July 01, 2024, 03:18:57 PM
    I don't understand why you keep going there.  What heresy exactly, I am too lazy to look back through all the posts?
    I can be of assistance here. One of the heresies he is talking about is my disagreement with his opinions-turned-dogma.

    For example:
    More than once Lad has posted quotes from popes teaching that the Church's Magisterium is immune from error, this is of course true, always was true, always will be true. Being immune from error means that there is no possibility that the Church's magisterium never has and never will teach error.

    I  hasten to remind him of this when he insists the Church's Magisterium has gone off the rails and now teaches all manner of errors and heresy and leads souls to hell.

    This is only one of his reasons he calls me a heretic. If you'd like for him to call you a heretic too, all you have to do is agree with me, or simply disagree with him using popes he himself quoted. 
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14811
    • Reputation: +6115/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #141 on: July 02, 2024, 06:19:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 01, 2024, 07:05:41 PM
    This is Meg's answer to a request to explain why she despites SVism, i.e. what theological objections she has to it.  SHE HAS NEVER DONE SO, and based on this answer which is, ironically, what constitutes the deflection, SHE NEVER WILL.

    Not only has she never offered anything close to a rational theological thought about the subject, she won't (and likely) can't explain her emotional contempt for SVism.  NOT ONCE.  She just makes puerile drive-by comments.
    No, she's right, deflection is a typical ploy of yours. 
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #142 on: July 02, 2024, 07:51:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on July 02, 2024, 06:19:11 AM
    No, she's right, deflection is a typical ploy of yours.

    Everyone here knows that you're a liar and that I've never shied away from any argument or debate, and that my posts have substance (despite the fact that people may not agree with me).
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #143 on: July 02, 2024, 07:56:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on July 02, 2024, 04:59:22 AM
    Take only one example of +Sanborn, there are many more that are similar....

    Those men left for nearly the identical reasons that the Resistance left more recently.  In condemning them, you condemn also the Resistance.  You could ... and the SSPX have ... condemned the Resistance for their having created "disunity", but it's OK for them yet eeevil for the SVs to have done the same thing, when +Lefebvre was begging Rome to make the "experiment of Tradition", throwing his own priests under the bus on the altar of Wojtyla, and forcing doubtfully-ordained priests on them.  Besides, putting the lie to your example again, +Sanborn et al. did NOT leave the SSPX due to their eeevil "sedevacantism", and a number of them were not SV at the time.  Nowhere did the list SVism in their complaints against the SSPX.

    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #144 on: July 02, 2024, 08:01:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on July 02, 2024, 06:19:11 AM
    No, she's right, deflection is a typical ploy of yours.

    You might also notice that it was not I but another poster (unfamiliar with Meg's history) who in all sincerity asked her to explain why she considered SVism wrong.  Meg has refused and continues to refuse to elaborate on why she considers SVism to be wrong.  Not only has she never given a theological/doctrinal answer in all her years of making driveby comments, she has never once even explained her emotional reasons for despising it.  She just makes these drive-by, hit-and-run derisive comments about "sedeism".  People will be engaged in debate and she'll make these one-liner posts about "sedeism" is evil and "sedes run CathInfo" (false) or "dogmatic R&R types get banned" (false, it's the opposite).  She made that latter comment on this thread, and we defied her to name one instance where a dogmatic R&R type got banned (since no one here knows of any such example).  She makes crap up to suit her fantasy about the evils of SVism but has never once here on CI explained why it's wrong.  It's really pathetic and obnoxious.  SVs too could just paste in "R&R are evil", "R&R are obnoxious" several times per page in every SV vs. R&R debate.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #145 on: July 02, 2024, 08:03:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 01, 2024, 07:48:58 PM
    True.  Meg's been posting like this for (easily) 5-6 years. 

    Oh, I think I've been debating about SVism here for longer than that.

    Why would you all want me to define SVism? Don't you know what it is?

    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #146 on: July 02, 2024, 08:06:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 02, 2024, 08:03:57 AM
    Oh, I think I've been debating about SVism here for longer than that.

    Why would you all want me to define SVism? Don't you know what it is?

    Well, in all your years here, you've been attacking it, so presumably you can explain what you're attacking.  And the poster did not ask you to define it, but just to explain why you consider it wrong, bad, eeevil.  You've never once in all those years explained why you think it's wrong.  Not once.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #147 on: July 02, 2024, 08:07:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 01, 2024, 07:05:41 PM
    This is Meg's answer to a request to explain why she despites SVism, i.e. what theological objections she has to it.  SHE HAS NEVER DONE SO, and based on this answer which is, ironically, what constitutes the deflection, SHE NEVER WILL.

    What I despise is you calling other forum members heretics. I've complained about that several times on this thread. But you need to change the subject. I get it. Now I'm supposed to define sedevacantism.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46948
    • Reputation: +27805/-5167
    • Gender: Male
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #148 on: July 02, 2024, 08:14:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on July 02, 2024, 08:07:20 AM
    What I despise is you calling other forum members heretics. I've complained about that several times on this thread. But you need to change the subject. I get it. Now I'm supposed to define sedevacantism.

    You may despite it all you want, but that has nothing to do with the question.  In fact, the poster who asked you to explain also didn't like my calling out heretics.  Nor was it I who "changed the subject" (but it was another poster) ... not to mention that subjects change all the time on thread and that you're just using that as an excuse for your continuing refusal to explain why you consider SVism is wrong.  Can you even explain it or do you hate it for some ulterior emotional motives?
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: J’ACCUSE
    « Reply #149 on: July 02, 2024, 08:16:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 02, 2024, 08:14:46 AM
    You may despite it all you want, but that has nothing to do with the question.  In fact, the poster who asked you to explain also didn't like my calling out heretics.

    What does your (and her) question have to do with me continually pointing out on this thread that you keep calling other Traditional Catholic heretics?

    I feel like I'm debating with a 14 year-old.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29
    Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12
    « previous next »