CathInfo.com

I would say there is a lack of charity calling something "silly" that has been written by someone who puts forth more effort than most to unite the Bishops as we so desperately need.

And there is certainly no need to call what and advocate states in his effort to unite us "silly".

Okay... someone obviously doesn't follow his own advice:

No offense but the thread is about this particular article, which would have to be read in order to be commented upon.

And John deemed fit to play amateur casuist (again, and with the concomitant rants, disingenuous insinuations, nonsensical rhetoric that garbs itself in words of piety, &c., that have been seen before on this forum) without reading carefully what I had written:

Quote from: Mr. Ruby

So they try the same technique they employed in eclipsing the true Church at Vatican II: Infiltrate, sow division and doubt by casting aspersions against this traditional priest or that true bishop or even devout laity because they know the Traditional Bishops have the true authority handed down by Christ to teach, sanctify and rule. [emphasis mine]

Quote from: Mr. Ruby

I believe these false brothers are in fact paid Novus Ordo plants, craftily inserted among us to spread their confusion and division and overall "rubber-room-ism" that has become far more rampant in exactly the period of time that such problems should all have been winding down. They are the ones who spread the wicked rumors about our clerics being limited to mere supplied jurisdiction or epikeia or what not [...] [emphasis mine]

This is simply inaccurate, and quite silly.

The emphasized pronoun above referred to the errors regarding jurisdiction that Mr. Ruby committed in his essay, which I had underlined in order to emphasize and to clarify that it was this that I was addressing and not whatever else Ruby was writing or what his attempt may have been. I thought that was obvious, but... oh well.

Like Elizabeth, I could not make sense of what Ruby was writing, but his errors regarding jurisdiction were the things I noticed, which is why I provided the citations.

And Griff gets chastized for saying we do. Tough crowd.

Uh, no chastisement here, but I will spare John the grammatical casuistry.

His interpretation and confusing reaction to what I posted are manifestations of the reason why I have kept him on ignore: but there are ways of reading an ignored forum member's posts without deactivating the ignore function...

Thanks to Matthew for that!

I'm a little curious as why someone would tell me he has me on ignore and but has ways of reading what I post (not ignoring me).  Is there some reason to make me aware of this other than to hurt me?  Why would someone go out of his way to let me know he is ignoring me and then also read my posts?

I overestimated Hobbles.

Yeah, I hope others do not commit that mistake too. Really, I truly do: I am not being facetious when I write this.

Not much charity there.

Not much logic here, not at all...

These blogs truly can be a pathway to Hell.

Then John should stop "blogging" then.

I have tried to communicate with Hobbles to learn as I admire his learning and grasp of the faith.  Now I know why I have never received a response.

No rational creature should admire me. Only the Saints are to be admired: no living person who is yet a viator in this world is worth idealizing.

I'm a little curious as why someone would tell me he has me on ignore and but has ways of reading what I post (not ignoring me). Is there some reason to make me aware of this other than to hurt me? Why would someone go out of his way to let me know he is ignoring me and then also read my posts?

To explain to John why I haven't responded to his messages: because I never got them, because he is on ignore.

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.

Thanks Hobbles.

Well, speaking of unanswered questions, John can thank me by answering this:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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...

For someone who is all about "charity," John has been quite remiss in rebuking the foul blogs and their authors who still continue their campaign against the Seminarians. Even when everything's over, and SAG has moved on, Jim, Janet and Craig are still harping on these matters.  

So why hasn't John rebuked these individuals publicly just as he has attacked others in the past, if he is yearning for unity and peace in the "traditional movement"...?