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

Author Topic: Fr. Purdy Doesn't Speak Spanish, Lectures Trads on "Proper" Title of OLGS  (Read 11026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I don’t understand it. They can be so supportive of Fr. Purdy yet have such vitriol for Atila.
Those who love the Truth are often misunderstood by those who do not.
Facts are not vitriol.
Facts are not support.
That is well understood by those of us who love the truth.

Those who love the Truth are often misunderstood by those who do not.
Facts are not vitriol.
Facts are not support.
That is well understood by those of us who love the truth.
Great! Since you love the truth, please answer my question. After all, that is what this thread is about.
What is the correct English translation?


Offline Meg

Those who love the Truth are often misunderstood by those who do not.
Facts are not vitriol.
Facts are not support.
That is well understood by those of us who love the truth.

True. Facts are not vitriol. If there's any vitriol, it is seen in the supporters of Guimaraes against anyone who questions him and says that he is wrong. It has caused them fits of hysteria at times. Not a good sign.

As an aside, I, for one, do question the merit of an SSPX presence at the shrine. After all, the shrine is under the authority of the conciliar church. The only reason why there may be something positive about it is in the fact that the shrine represents Our Lady, and what she foretold for these perilous times. But if the SSPX really does have a permanent presence there (and it's not just some sort of fiction made up by Guimaraes), then I have to wonder if they will be allowed, by the bishop, to speak out against Modernism, Vatican ll, etc.

Has anyone seen any communication from the SSPX that shows that the SSPX are now active at the shrine?

True. Facts are not vitriol. If there's any vitriol, it is seen in the supporters of Guimaraes against anyone who questions him and says that he is wrong. It has caused them fits of hysteria at times. Not a good sign.

As an aside, I, for one, do question the merit of an SSPX presence at the shrine. After all, the shrine is under the authority of the conciliar church. The only reason why there may be something positive about it is in the fact that the shrine represents Our Lady, and what she foretold for these perilous times. But if the SSPX really does have a permanent presence there (and it's not just some sort of fiction made up by Guimaraes), then I have to wonder if they will be allowed, by the bishop, to speak out against Modernism, Vatican ll, etc.

Has anyone seen any communication from the SSPX that shows that the SSPX are now active at the shrine?

Meg,

Please contact the "semi-holy religious", Ms. Jade Liboro for the SSPX's latest Shrine schedule.

Note: And in case you haven't noticed, the SSPX doesn't speak out against Vatican II and Modernism anymore.

This change occurred around the time the SSPX was caught in online public records with the jew, Max Krah.
They were setting-up shell corporations in Europe to shelter the $100 million given to the Society by Krah affiliates.

Krah even admitted to the whole thing in an interview in the Remnant.


Offline Meg

Meg,

Please contact the "semi-holy religious", Ms. Jade Liboro for the SSPX's latest Shrine schedule.

Note: And in case you haven't noticed, the SSPX doesn't speak out against Vatican II and Modernism anymore.

This change occurred around the time the SSPX was caught in online public records with the jew, Max Krah.
They were setting-up shell corporations in Europe to shelter the $100 million given to the Society by Krah affiliates.

Krah even admitted to the whole thing in an interview in the Remnant.

I'm not going to contact anyone at the shrine. But I still don't have to accept what Guimaraes and his supporters have to say about it. If you can find sincere corroboration, I would take a look at it; though preferably it should NOT come from a TIA supporter, since they are extremely biased, obviously. Until someone posts sincere corroboration, I don't have to accept Guimaraes' VERY one-sided opinion on the subject. Didn't Guimaraes have an ax to grind against the SSPX long before the problems began with the SSPX around the year 2012?

The SSPX leadership may not speak out against Modernism, Vll, etc., anymore, but some individual SSPX priests still do, including both current and past priests at the local SSPX chapel here. Also, I seem to recall seeing a video that Fr. Purdy gave about a year ago, where he speaks out against it, but I can't recall any details.