It is interesting how on this site you can respond to a question and it will be completely ignored. Anyone of intellectual integrity, especially those I am responding to, can feel free to answer my questions honestly:
I will share the quote which was ignored:
It seems I am woefully misunderstood and misjudged. I'll defend myself here once and move one. The above blogs have never really been on my radar. I got a PM from someone saying there is speculation that I'm bought and in league with those people. This is unreal. Aren't some or all of those guys against Father Ramolla who I defended at the loss of my credibility and who I will still defend to this day?
How could, after reading that, someone ask again, why I am not policing these sites which I think are insignificant?
Additionally regarding these no name sites that everyone is so concerned about and keeps promoting through their mention of them I stated:
“I see a huge hatred among them.”
That is the people behind those blogs in which I am not sure what names are into condemning who but I know enough that and in at least one case they are not concerned with the pure objective truths of right and wrong so much as his or their own agenda’s, whatever they happen to be at the current moment.
They are not on my radar. I read Christ or Chaos, Daily Catholic, The Summa and something to help my spriritualality online. That is pretty much it. Apart from stuff on John Lane’s site and stuff on Fenton where he explains in several different articles how it is established in Church Theology that a public heretic is not a member of the Church and cannot legitimately hold office. He predicted that V2 would not do certain things because he knew (better than any of us on this blog) that a legitimate Catholic council could not do what they did. So when they did it, he pretty much disappeared from the public view. I believe he died of a heart attack in 1969 before the true Mass was abolished except in private by very old clergy and replaced with the masonic innovation they call “the new order mass”. I still read The Four Marks as well as I believe it to be the best newspaper in the world.
Hobbles I accused you of lacking charity in your dealings with me. Do you confirm or deny this assertion? Or do you just try to get out of it by saying "well you are uncharitable too" thinking I have to police sites that are insignificant and run by people I do not know? Has there never been a Bishop consecrated before V"2" during an interregnum? Were any such consecrators condemned for doing so? Were any bishops consecrated during the GWS by bishops not mandated to do so by a valid Pope? Were any of those consecrators condemned for not doing so? Is it indeed possible that no pre-V"2" theologians thought we would see the times we are in and that such times would last for this long and therefore that they would not have taught what would happen in such a situation regarding whether supplied jurisdiction would be full for the sake of unity and the common good? Do you admit that it is possible that even you could be wrong, failing to understand or notice an obscure but important distinction in the jurisdiction issue when all things are taken under consideration or that perhaps maybe you have not taken all things under consideration and properly applied them?Do you avoid answering the questions because they make the case you make look bad? Again I make know pretense of knowing the answer to the current jurisdiction situation.
I clarified that I was not “attacking” Griff which should have been obvious from the start but the accuser just remains silent instead of admitting he wrongly accused me or thank me for the clarification.
What is a viater? I have gone so far to say that you should never put your hopes, or make your happiness depend, on any living being in this world. Perhaps a viater is one on pilgrimage on this planet.
Hobbles (for short I mean no disrespect) said:
This sentimental egocentricity is a bit unnerving. I was not trying to hurt John, but trying to respond to his ridiculous accusation that I was opposing Mr. Ruby's attempts to unify the sedevacantists. I also never said on this thread that the clergy are "Sacramental machines." I merely pointed out the principles of Canon Law as they apply to our times.
Not sentimental egocentricity at all. It is not my ego that is bruised but the fact that I do continually get disappointed in Catholics I admire. Plus I did not accuse you of attempting to oppose Mr. Ruby’s attempts to unify the sedevacantists, actually he wants to unify us all as people of good will and intellectual honesty would be unified IMO. I accused you of being uncharitable for calling his writing “silly”. Something that while not admitting you do not deny. It seems people read into things too much and try to get to the meaning behind the words. With me you can pretty much read my words and know they speak for themselves. For instance it would be interesting if you could show me where I wrote that I accuse you of opposing Griff’s attempts to unify the sedevacantists. I merely stated that this is what he is trying to do.
There is no reason to go out of your way to tell me you are ignoring me while in fact you are not, other than to make me feel bad. It worked. I feel bad about you as I truly thought more of you. Not so much the ignore, which if used to actually ignore is your business, but to make sure I know about it. Again you do not admit or own up to it. I bring it up for your own benefit in the hopes you might react as I do when I realize I did something wrong.
I believe I have a healthy pride in owning up to do what I do wrong. I wish I could see that more often in others. I do try to learn from my mistakes, albeit unsuccessfully at times, as well. Two-and-a-half years ago I joined this blog to defend Kathleen Plumb and in the process I disparaged Tom Droleskey. He owned up to his mistake and apologized. But I acted worse than he did when I went on the blog and made things public that I should not have. And the fact is I did not have the full story. Again more than two years later I come on and do the same thing to Kathleen Plumb, she, along many on this blog, do not apologize or admit they were wrong on any given point or grant me any valid points that I undeniably make. But again, I could have showed myself to be the better person and failed miserably, acting far worse than she did and I also probably do not have all the facts in defending Father Ramolla. I do know that the ultimate public opinion on all that went on is not a completely accurate reflection however. He is a good Priest that should not be banned from being mentioned in a sedevacantist newspaper. But that is not why Kathleen will no longer associate with me but because I disagreed with her on the issue.
There was a time when people urged me to stop bringing this up, yet what do I keep seeing:
Lover of Truth said:
IF WHAT TOM WROTE IS TRUE WHO WOULDN'T BE? THIS PERTAINS TO THE SOULS OF SEMINARIANS AND SOULS OF THEIR POTENTIAL FLOCK, ESPECIALLY IF THEY LOST THEIR VOCATION AS A RESULT.
Really!? Well, let's see...
Then why haven't you condemned Jim Gebel, Sr., for his libelous slander against these same Seminarians:
http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2012/01/retracting-support-for-paul-petko.html
Why haven't you condemned Petko for his campaign against the Seminarians?
Why haven't you condemned Craig Toth for quitting the Seminary faculty only to conspire against St. Albert's, and therefore jeopardizing the futures of these same young men?
He was only using them as pawns for this:
http://materdeicmriwatch.blogspot.com/
All to lead up to this:
http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2012/03/top-reasons-for-lay-governance-5.html
All you had to answer to my posts pertaining to this mess have been meaningless or irrelevant questions, some posted with sock puppet accounts.
Beware of the fires of Gehenna...When I first saw this it was so emotional looking on the surface that I just walked away from it. I was surprised at the source as Hobbleday is one of the more reasonable and logical and knowledgeable people on the blog. Perhaps it would be good if some could take their own advice. I was rather shocked that this was even an issue as I am not into the gossip blogs. Some people’s lives seem to revolve around them. The only lay people I would go after, were they to engage in dishonest hate tactics would be the stand-up people I look up to. Again the people you mention are pretty much off my radar. I would do the same to the clergy who have many souls in their hands. But not in the way as I have done in the past with Tom and Kathleen. I know for double sure that my personality type is better off zipping it before speaking out. I may speak truth or what I believe to be truth but my motives, in those two cases were definitely not pure. Of that there can be no doubt. You might remember that it was Bishop Pivuranus that I was defending against Tom Droleskey 2 ½ years ago. The good thing about me is, that I do not let what people think of me prevent me from doing what I believe to be the right thing at the time. And I am frank. I do not avoid admitting whether I am SV or not. I say here it is, tell me why I am wrong.
I believe when holding our clergy accountable, which I believe must be done, lest a repeat of the ‘60’s happens again, that we should do it behind the scenes and only go public when souls are at stake in an undeniable way. Of course only based on the facts.
All the know nothings with their uncharatible thumbs down based upon emotions in reaction to who is writing as opposed to what is actually written remind me of girlish children who stick their tongue out behind your back. Perhaps a more productive thing to do would be to confront the poster you (a general you) do not like directly, it would be more manly certainly.
One of the facts on this blog is that people make icons out of their favorite clergy and have this they can do no wrong attitude much as parents who say “Not my Johnny”. Oh yeah? Elizabeth, for instance, is okay with people talking bad about the SSPV but if someone, who knows more than her about the situation the she should dare to mention the Cekeda/Dolan duo in a negative way she acts like some expert on the issue denouncing it all even though she does not have the facts. That is just one example though there are many more that are much worse.
But there is an extreme on the other side where people will condemn, publically, every little thing or perceived thing and do it ad infinitem when it is obvious, to everyone but the blabber, no one is interested in hearing it and that it is not doing any good. I have been guilty of this twice and have admitted it and have apologized. I don’t see the other authentic Catholics doing this 99% of the time. No one owns up, admits they were wrong or apologizes. I want get to the point where I no longer do anything where I have to apologize, but it would be nice if traditional Catholics could own up to their wrong-doings instead of denying or being silent in the face of accusations.
I defend the real people like Kathleen Plumb, (in 2009 when she was being castigated by Dolan and Cekeda), [I defended] Tom Droleskey, Father Ramolla and Griff Ruby.
I do not really think of the 3 people you mentioned in the category of the “real” people I mention above. I have not seen much of what they have written lately. Was not sure Bishop Petkco was saying or writing anything against the seminarians. Was this a butt grabbing campaign or one of words and pressure tactics? I’m not even sure what seminarians we are talking about? The ones who left Mater Dei? Perhaps because I am somewhat filled in on the reputable people above you think I am all into the hate filled agenda driven gossip blogs. I will tell you that this is incorrect. When things broke I looked at some of it and thought there was some truth there. But I am aware that they will take sinful means to obtain a desired end even if it means exaggerating, making public what should not be made public, perhaps lying, and pressuring people to get them to do what they want. I seem to be off their radar as they probably would have said something about me by now. The do read this blog so perhaps this will get them mad enough to say something against me.
I will say the videos against Father Ramolla are hillarious even if done in bad taste. Not sure where the credit/blame goes there. It would be interesting if we could laugh at ourselves if such vidoes where done on us.
Perhaps I’ll be accused of lying here, but here it goes.
I know about Jim Gebel somewhat but I am certainly not silent because I agree with him. Are all those who want unity on this blog supposed to condemn these people? If so have they? If not have you sent repeated emotional tirades to them asking them why (publically, since you don’t speak privately) over and over again?I’m not sure I understand what you mean by Petko’s “campaign” against the seminarians. You won’t believe me.
I read Tom’s article, does that article mention this campaign? Who is Greg Toth and what seminary did he quit and why am I supposed to care? I know him from the Hitler videos. Jim Gebel and Greg Toth are small potatoes they are not the ones on my radar. Does that answer the questions or do I need to say more and brush up on my slander blogs and get the full picture so I can accurately condemn them all for you. Perhaps they are telling the truth or partial truth which may or may not need to be blabbed publically. You tell me as you seem to be the experts on it.
I have bolded the questions in the hopes that they will be responded to. If not I'll rightly assume that to answer them would make me look good and that is not in the interest of the potential answerers.
I do not mind being judged and hated for things I have done or for the right reason. I’m still working on being judged and hated for things I have not done due to misunderstandings and preconceived biases. If Catholic prudence and charity deem you condemn me publically by all means do it and I will respond to the accusations, owning up, clarifying or denying as truth dictates. Otherwise . . . well you should be able to figure it out.
Topic: Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity (Read 6956 times)