Did anyone read The Four Marks article by the editor that included the defense of Bishop Pivuranus against Father Ramolla and Tom Droleskey in the November issue?
I found it interesting that the editor chose to pick a side without giving both sides of the story or interviewing Father Ramolla, Tom Droleskey, or any of the Seminarians involved. I was a little surprised and disappointed about this. I wonder if anyone complained to the editor about this.
He is worthy of the support of all true Catholics as he has saved his parishioners from the cult of Dolan/Cekeda and does not use the Sacraments as a weapon as Dolan/Cekeda do and does not forbid his parishioners to read The Four Marks as they do. [/b]
I get the Four Marks sometimes (second-hand). What peeves me most is that it is a paper purporting to be "sedevacantist", and pushed mostly among those Catholics favorable to that position.
Yet, when you go to the Four Marks web site, you see loads of links to SSPX sites, and a deliberate lack of links to Bp. Sanborn or Bp. Dolan, two very major "sedevacantist" groups/bishops. There is some talk of Bp. Dolan having unrecommended the paper to those who would listen, and perhaps even personally reprimanded the Editor for something she did, and perhaps she felt slighted or offended.
The SSPX doesn't recommend that paper, and have doctrinal errors about the Church, Infallibility and the magisterium, yet the Four Marks loads up on links to SSPX sites? Why? Is this paper looking to undermine the true position, or help it?
I get the Four Marks sometimes (second-hand). What peeves me most is that it is a paper purporting to be "sedevacantist", and pushed mostly among those Catholics favorable to that position.
Yet, when you go to the Four Marks web site, you see loads of links to SSPX sites, and a deliberate lack of links to Bp. Sanborn or Bp. Dolan, two very major "sedevacantist" groups/bishops. There is some talk of Bp. Dolan having unrecommended the paper to those who would listen, and perhaps even personally reprimanded the Editor for something she did, and perhaps she felt slighted or offended.
The SSPX doesn't recommend that paper, and have doctrinal errors about the Church, Infallibility and the magisterium, yet the Four Marks loads up on links to SSPX sites? Why? Is this paper looking to undermine the true position, or help it?
Are we supposed to accept it as legitimate Catholic reaction that when a Bishop may displease us, or slight us, and we feel offended, to virtually oust him publicly from consideration as a legitimate Catholic Bishop? That is rather schismatic by definition. In a day of universal apostasy and the true position being so important, this looks all the worse.
... But while protesting the supposedly embarrassing publicity to which you (Bp. Dolan) were subjected, should you have gone so hastily to the inexcusable extreme of urging your people to have nothing more to do with The Four Marks paper? Don't you see that your uncontrolled reaction is plainly a vengeful action on your part? How could there possibly be any justification for such an enormous indiscretion?
... If you insist that Kathleen Plumb owes you an apology for not really doing any damage to your good name, while striving to set the facts straight about what you call "una cuм Masses," it is abundantly clear that you owe her an apology, as well as reparation, for the real harm you have done to her and to her truly Catholic Four Marks paper, possibly causing the loss of many subscribers.
If there is anything we as traditional Catholics do not need, it is more division and hostility, but that is exactly what you have brought about with your harsh action against Kathleen Plumb and her paper ...
...If there is anything we as traditional Catholics do not need, it is more division and hostility, but that is exactly what you have brought about with your harsh action against Kathleen Plumb and her paper ...
... the inexcusable extreme of urging your people to have nothing more to do with The Four Marks paper?
You missed the whole point SJB.
Despite what Fr. Stepanich said, do you know he is still friends with Bp. Dolan? He said what he had to say to him at the time, and then he moved on, not holding some grudge. Plumb should also move on and take his example. So should you.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoYou missed the whole point SJB.
Despite what Fr. Stepanich said, do you know he is still friends with Bp. Dolan? He said what he had to say to him at the time, and then he moved on, not holding some grudge. Plumb should also move on and take his example. So should you.
I did move on. I merely quoted Fr. Stepanich because you seemed to be obscuring what really happened in The Four Marks. :-)
Fr. Stepanich moved on. Plumb should take his good example. And, you should take his example of "moving on" regarding Fr. Cekada.
I didn't obscure what really happened. I simply don't know the details and don't really care, so I generalized granting fully that Bp. Dolan may have offended. Why don't I care? Because I am moving on!
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoQuote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoYou missed the whole point SJB.
Despite what Fr. Stepanich said, do you know he is still friends with Bp. Dolan? He said what he had to say to him at the time, and then he moved on, not holding some grudge. Plumb should also move on and take his example. So should you.
I did move on. I merely quoted Fr. Stepanich because you seemed to be obscuring what really happened in The Four Marks. :-)
Fr. Stepanich moved on. Plumb should take his good example. And, you should take his example of "moving on" regarding Fr. Cekada.
I didn't obscure what really happened. I simply don't know the details and don't really care, so I generalized granting fully that Bp. Dolan may have offended. Why don't I care? Because I am moving on!
Why do you comment on things you don't care about? Do you have that much free time?
I didn't comment on what the Dolan-Plumb case was, I am commented on moving on from it, which I do care about. Now, why don't you move on, which you should care about, because it is the moral thing to do?
The "free time" comment? Liberals use it SO much when they are at a loss for anything significant to reply with.[/size]
Fr. Stepanich moved on. Plumb should take his good example. And, you should take his example of "moving on" regarding Fr. Cekada.
Thank you for an interesting thread. I would like to add my thoughts about the comments regarding sacraments being used as weapons.
For myself, I avoid any clergy that use the Sacraments as a means of control, and unlawfully deny Catholics their right to attend mass and receive holy communion. Although this has never happened to me personally, I will not be part of any group or chapel that engages in this uncatholic behavior. The traditional clergy do not have any authority in the church and cannot bind laypeople to conclusions they have formed during the crisis. When I see this sort of behavior, I avoid those who unlawfully deny the sacraments or even entrance to the chapel to Catholics in good standing.
The priesthood does not belong to the priest, it belongs to the Church. When a man becomes an extraordinary priest, he must adhere to the law of charity, justice and the canons of the Church to the absolute best of his ability.
This means that traditional chapels that are open to the public should be treated as pre-Vatican II churches were. All Catholics should be able to show up for mass, assist at the Mass, and receive holy Communion. Catholics must never be denied Holy Communion unless they are a heretic, schismatic, or a public sinner.
Some examples of this cultish, uncatholic, and sinful behavior I have seen personally or heard of over the years are:
1. Catholics denied holy communion for being sedevacantist.
2. Catholics denied holy communion for selling a catholic music cd of hymns too close to a chapel.
3. Catholcis denied holy communion for attending Catholic masses said by a valid priest who erroneously believes in the Vatican II anti-popes.
4. Catholics denied holy communion because they attend masses said by priests ordained through the lines of Archbishop Thuc.
5. Catholics denied holy communion for an unproven assumption that they are a feeneyite, despite no evidence for this, or Catholics denied holy communion because they hold the feeneyite view, but due to a lack of understanding and training think that this is the Catholic teaching. No time was spent teaching these Catholics that correct view, they were just denied communion.
6. Catholics being denied entrance to the church, and thus the Sacraments for being "a member" of a different Catholic group. This despite the fact that the Catholics in question in every case were Catholics in good standing with the Church, not heretics, not schismatics, and not public sinners.
7. Catholics being told by their unauthorized bishop or priest that they cannot attend other Catholic masses. If these Catholics do attend other masses, they risk being denied holy Communion by their regular chapel.
8. Catholics told that they cannot "chapel hop." Why? All traditional chapels are unauthorized, so they are all equal. A Catholic cannot be a member of any of them. They have no standing in the Church, so no Catholic can be told by anyone that he cannot go to one chapel or another.
I have seen in recent years a deterioration of Catholic unity. This was not the case in the early days of the traditional movement, i.e. the 1970's and 80's. Back in the old days, the traditional clergy were those clergy trained in approved seminaries and sent by the Church who had resisted the changes, and knew their place in the Church. They were not members of a group, they were priests of the Church and they knew that their duty was to save souls, not promote sectarian groups or their own chapel.
With the exception of a few clergy still alive from the days of the ordinary functioning church, almost all clergy have been trained and ordained through a traditional group. This poses a grave danger in that if the group loses the principle that Catholic priests are to to be humble and serve all Catholics in this time of crisis, then they will divide the flock further and cause schisms among the few Catholics left.
From what you write, it seems that you would require that the paper's website link to SGG's website. Is this an accurate assessment?
The sedevacantist editors that I know such as Mike Cain who has avoided the issue of Ramolla and Pivuranus, and has not blackballed Father and Tom, but rather promotes both Tom and Kathleen Plumb, is an editor of integrity as is Tom Droleskey who has given both sides of story. You will notice that Tom, instead of judging others harshly, gives them the benefit of the doubt as he did Bishop Petko.
Father Ramolla is a courageous and as a rock solid Priest as there is living today. His sermons should be listened to on the traditional Catholic sermons website. He is worthy of the support of all true Catholics as he has saved his parishioners from the cult of Dolan/Cekeda and does not use the Sacraments as a weapon as Dolan/Cekeda do and does not forbid his parishioners to read The Four Marks as they do.
But how do we regain/restore unity in these days of confusion? I think it safe to say that most so called traditionalist Catholics are people of good will. Prayer, certainly, is essential. What else is missing?
I would share more facts were I not under an imposed confidentiality. I will share privately with anyone who has questions and care about truth rather than gossip.
I will ignore emotional rants but if you have a legitimate question on the issue I will answer it.
Thank you for an interesting thread. I would like to add my thoughts about the comments regarding sacraments being used as weapons.
For myself, I avoid any clergy that use the Sacraments as a means of control, and unlawfully deny Catholics their right to attend mass and receive holy communion. Although this has never happened to me personally, I will not be part of any group or chapel that engages in this uncatholic behavior. The traditional clergy do not have any authority in the church and cannot bind laypeople to conclusions they have formed during the crisis. When I see this sort of behavior, I avoid those who unlawfully deny the sacraments or even entrance to the chapel to Catholics in good standing.
The priesthood does not belong to the priest, it belongs to the Church. When a man becomes an extraordinary priest, he must adhere to the law of charity, justice and the canons of the Church to the absolute best of his ability.
This means that traditional chapels that are open to the public should be treated as pre-Vatican II churches were. All Catholics should be able to show up for mass, assist at the Mass, and receive holy Communion. Catholics must never be denied Holy Communion unless they are a heretic, schismatic, or a public sinner.
Some examples of this cultish, uncatholic, and sinful behavior I have seen personally or heard of over the years are:
1. Catholics denied holy communion for being sedevacantist.
2. Catholics denied holy communion for selling a catholic music cd of hymns too close to a chapel.
3. Catholcis denied holy communion for attending Catholic masses said by a valid priest who erroneously believes in the Vatican II anti-popes.
4. Catholics denied holy communion because they attend masses said by priests ordained through the lines of Archbishop Thuc.
5. Catholics denied holy communion for an unproven assumption that they are a feeneyite, despite no evidence for this, or Catholics denied holy communion because they hold the feeneyite view, but due to a lack of understanding and training think that this is the Catholic teaching. No time was spent teaching these Catholics that correct view, they were just denied communion.
6. Catholics being denied entrance to the church, and thus the Sacraments for being "a member" of a different Catholic group. This despite the fact that the Catholics in question in every case were Catholics in good standing with the Church, not heretics, not schismatics, and not public sinners.
7. Catholics being told by their unauthorized bishop or priest that they cannot attend other Catholic masses. If these Catholics do attend other masses, they risk being denied holy Communion by their regular chapel.
8. Catholics told that they cannot "chapel hop." Why? All traditional chapels are unauthorized, so they are all equal. A Catholic cannot be a member of any of them. They have no standing in the Church, so no Catholic can be told by anyone that he cannot go to one chapel or another.
I have seen in recent years a deterioration of Catholic unity. This was not the case in the early days of the traditional movement, i.e. the 1970's and 80's. Back in the old days, the traditional clergy were those clergy trained in approved seminaries and sent by the Church who had resisted the changes, and knew their place in the Church. They were not members of a group, they were priests of the Church and they knew that their duty was to save souls, not promote sectarian groups or their own chapel.
With the exception of a few clergy still alive from the days of the ordinary functioning church, almost all clergy have been trained and ordained through a traditional group. This poses a grave danger in that if the group loses the principle that Catholic priests are to to be humble and serve all Catholics in this time of crisis, then they will divide the flock further and cause schisms among the few Catholics left.
I do not use the phrase loosely, though it can be taken wrongly and misunderstood as it will.
Cain, Droleskey and Plumb agree with the phrase, I can vouch for that. As would the 100 or so who left immediately when they had someplace else to go.
Remember the purpose of this thread was to get opinions on whether it was in good taste and the Catholic thing to do for the editor of the Four Marks to publically pick a side between Bishop P and Ramolla, rather than avoiding the issue entirely or presenting both sides of the issue.
Remember the purpose of this thread was to get opinions on whether it was in good taste and the Catholic thing to do for the editor of the Four Marks to publically pick a side between Bishop P and Ramolla, rather than avoiding the issue entirely or presenting both sides of the issue. Would a good Catholic editor have interviewed all parties involved instead of picking a side? My opinion on the topic should be obvious without my saying anything. I do not like the "us against them mentality". But if you are going to do it you should do it right. This is not some blog but what the editor considers to be a classy and professional newspaper that the clergy and laypeople are edified by. As she told me it is not meant to be a gossip paper yet she picked one side over the other without doing due diligence, which shows a lack of integrity and intellectual honesty. If what I say is true, and I am sure there will be doubters, am I right to think as I do and to be disappointed that she cannot uphold the standards she would rightly impose on others?
It doesn't sound like you even read the Four Marks as there was a scathing attack on Fr. Cekada in an editorial a few months ago about the Schiavo affair and stating Fr. Cekada was for killing Shiavo, something putrid to that effect.
Would someone please attach the Four Marks article that the initiator of this thread and Lot are so concerned about?
Btw, if this is such a big deal, why are the concerns just being raised now?
Here you quote me about Fr. Cekada and Plumb, and you give an article from Fr. Stepanich that doesn't mention Fr. Cekada.
What's the deal with you?
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoIt doesn't sound like you even read the Four Marks as there was a scathing attack on Fr. Cekada in an editorial a few months ago about the Schiavo affair and stating Fr. Cekada was for killing Shiavo, something putrid to that effect.
For those who may not remember or even seen this, here is Fr. Stephanich in The Four Marks, Nov 2008 (see page 3):
Funny, SJB. You say you don't care what I have to say. Then you continue to read my posts, quote me, and respond with something (respond, I say, not necessarily reply).
Here you quote me about Fr. Cekada and Plumb, and you give an article from Fr. Stepanich that doesn't mention Fr. Cekada.
What's the deal with you?
Can you explain how you care and not care at the same time?
Dear Cathy,
Bishop Sanborn is doing something on the Honorius/Liberius question. I'll forward it to you when it's completed.
As regards your comments on the Schiavo case:
1. In the quote, Pius XII enunciated the general moral principles to be applied, not merely particular ones applicable only to the narrow question of resuscitation.
Otherwise, you would have to maintain that his statements like "Normally one is held to use only ordinary means" or "life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" apply only to the specific case of resuscitation, and that in other cases therefore: a) One is not held to use even ordinary means to preserve life and b) Life is not subordinated to spiritual ends.
Good luck.
2. The expense of Terri Schiavo's maintenance was "socialized" through wealth redistribution ‹ $750,000 via the litigation/insurance company shakedown, and other hidden costs we can only guess at via tax and other insurance subsidies.
(This should be obvious to anyone with the last name Brueggemann.)
Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.
Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.
3. A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his "domestic and paternal authority."
He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.
Compromise on that principle, and the family is toast.
4. Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.
You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.
But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects ‹ chief among them, moral theology.
I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.
But because do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.
Be assured of my prayers.
Yours in Christ,
Father Cekada
Quote from: Cupertino
Here you quote me about Fr. Cekada and Plumb, and you give an article from Fr. Stepanich that doesn't mention Fr. Cekada.
What's the deal with you?
:idea:
Cekada?
SJB, Fr. Stepanich did not mention Fr. Cekada in that article as believing that Schiavo should be exterminated. That is your own terribly false thinking.
1. Letting someone die by removing extraordinary means used to keep him alive is NOT extermination, nor is it a sin.
2. A person who mistakenly thinks a person is being kept alive by extraordinary means and removes that means, does not think he is exterminating the patient, is not guilty of any sin, and does not believe in extermination.
Do you believe both of these statements are true?
What Fr. Cekada was attempting to do, if I understood him, was defend Catholic truth against liberal distortions, without fully analyzing the entire case for all possible moral failures. That remains an accurate comment on Mr Tribbe's efforts, but I see now why Fr. Cekada's intervention produced such a reaction - he did not limit himself to the point of moral theology mentioned - he said in his original intervention:Quote from: Fr. Cekada"Many traditional and "conservative" Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.
It was no such thing...
That (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.
I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.Quote from: Fr. McFaddenIn actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.
Quote from: CupertinoSJB, Fr. Stepanich did not mention Fr. Cekada in that article as believing that Schiavo should be exterminated. That is your own terribly false thinking.
1. Letting someone die by removing extraordinary means used to keep him alive is NOT extermination, nor is it a sin.
2. A person who mistakenly thinks a person is being kept alive by extraordinary means and removes that means, does not think he is exterminating the patient, is not guilty of any sin, and does not believe in extermination.
Do you believe both of these statements are true?
Here, Cupertino, once again:
The question was whether there were any extraordinary means in use. Nobody, except possibly Thomas Fleming of Chronicles magazine, agreed with Fr. Cekada. He (Cekada) told me he'd like to write a "longer article" but his books were "still packed away." I defended him simply because I thought he was just wrong on the facts. Since then however, he's never corrected himself on the facts, even though Bp. Sanborn backed away when he heard Ms. Schiavo could and did receive communion from a priest who visited her.
Now here is a poster on another forum who makes a very interesting point about the imprudence of Fr. Cekada's remarks and the real scandal they caused:
QuoteWhat Fr. Cekada was attempting to do, if I understood him, was defend Catholic truth against liberal distortions, without fully analyzing the entire case for all possible moral failures. That remains an accurate comment on Mr Tribbe's efforts, but I see now why Fr. Cekada's intervention produced such a reaction - he did not limit himself to the point of moral theology mentioned - he said in his original intervention:Quote from: Fr. Cekada"Many traditional and "conservative" Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.
It was no such thing...
That (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.
I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.Quote from: Fr. McFaddenIn actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.
Also, it should be pointed out that:
1. Father Cekada did not make the decision to withdraw extraordinary means;
2. The decision was not made by others based on Father Cekada's recommendation or persuasion.
That (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.
I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.Quote from: Fr. McFaddenIn actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.
Quote from: Simple CatholicAlso, it should be pointed out that:
1. Father Cekada did not make the decision to withdraw extraordinary means;
2. The decision was not made by others based on Father Cekada's recommendation or persuasion.
But he apparently convinced you that food and water are in fact "extraordinary means" in this case, which is very unfortunate. He also scandalized thousands of traditional Catholics, then repeated it again and again with his further comments.QuoteThat (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.
I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.Quote from: Fr. McFaddenIn actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Simple CatholicAlso, it should be pointed out that:
1. Father Cekada did not make the decision to withdraw extraordinary means;
2. The decision was not made by others based on Father Cekada's recommendation or persuasion.
But he apparently convinced you that food and water are in fact "extraordinary means" in this case, which is very unfortunate. He also scandalized thousands of traditional Catholics, then repeated it again and again with his further comments.QuoteThat (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.
I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.Quote from: Fr. McFaddenIn actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.
Initially, he didn't, and I was very surprised by Father Cekada's analysis. No, I was shocked; I admit it. But after reading his arguments, and separating emotion from reason, I began to see his point.
Additional information which had subsequently come to light might very well have changed his position, but, because of the initial reception of his argument, I don't think you'll see him moderate his opinion. There are too many out here gunning for him, and he is not about to give his enemies additional ammunition.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rev. Anthony Cekada [mailto:frcekada@sgg.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:30 PM
To:
Subject: Finish Off Fr. Cekada — Another Shot!
Dear Traditional Catholics,
For two years in a row now, the Anti-Fr. Cekada Club has had a shot at finishing me off at our annual St. Gertrude the Great JOG-A-THON.
I asked you invite any club members you knew -- anti-sedes, SSPX-ers, SSPV-ers, Motu-Mass-goers, Feeneyites, Remnant/CFN fans, Angelqueen-ers, Knights of Malta, Home-Aloners, Opinionists, Ferrara-istas, and anyone on the ever-burgeoning list -- to sponsor the laps I was going to run.
This group was the perfect market. The more they pledged per lap, the more laps I wanted to jog. The more laps I jogged, the higher my heart rate. The higher my heart rate, well, the closer they figured I'd get to a heart attack!
Well, I survived two consecutive Jog-a-Thons -- but maybe I won't this year!
After all, I've been working on a four-volume compilation of all my articles -- all the ones that made me so popular with the AFCC members -- so I haven't gotten out to run for several months.
This may be the AFCC members' lucky year. Get 'em to sponsor me.
Make that compilation posthumous!
Or, sponsor me yourself, for a more edifying reason -- to support our school, youth activities and one-of-a-kind liturgical program at St. Gertrude the Great (now simulcast live on the Internet).
Make your pledge either by returning the e-mail response form, or by printing out and mailing in the snail-mail response form.
Please pass along this e-mail and the forms below to your traditional Catholic friends -- and my traditional Catholic enemies!
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Cekada
-------------------
E-MAIL RESPONSE FORM
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/Jog09Form.jpg
Dear Father Cekada:
I will sponsor you in the St. Gertrude the Great Jog-a-Thon with:
(1) A per-lap pledge of $1___ $2___ $3____ $4____ $5____ $10___ $20 ___
(2) A one-time gift of $____________
Mail check to Jog-a-thon,
St. Gertrude the Great Church,
4900 Rialto Rd. West Chester OH 45069
Your Name:___________________________
Your Address:_______________________________
Your City State Zip: _________________________
Quote from: SJBBut he apparently convinced you that food and water are in fact "extraordinary means" in this case, which is very unfortunate.
That is untrue. The extraordinary means was solely the feeding tube.
Now, how about answering Yes or No to the two points of principle I have presented you, SJB, which you are so obviously evading?
But he apparently convinced you that food and water are in fact "extraordinary means" in this case....
I have already said it very clearly. Allow me to rephrase? If they purport to be a "sedevacantist" newspaper directed to all Catholics, and inconsistently have many links to SSPX sites, and even include Bp. Williamson in their paper, it is a glaring omission to exclude Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan. And since this omission started with the Bp. Dolan-Plumb incident, the omission is a public statement of separation. That is not "moving on" whatsoever.
Here is the editorial. It is understandably vague and sounds like a report on Bp. Pivarunas's reply to a question at a CMRI event. I don't think one can find any fault with her reporting this ... I know I don't.
Quote from: CupertinoI have already said it very clearly. Allow me to rephrase? If they purport to be a "sedevacantist" newspaper directed to all Catholics, and inconsistently have many links to SSPX sites, and even include Bp. Williamson in their paper, it is a glaring omission to exclude Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan. And since this omission started with the Bp. Dolan-Plumb incident, the omission is a public statement of separation. That is not "moving on" whatsoever.
And I ask again, on these principles why do you not criticise Mrs Plumb for omitting to link to the Dimond Brothers? They are sedes.
Here is the editorial. It is understandably vague and sounds like a report on Bp. Pivarunas's reply to a question at a CMRI event. I don't think one can find any fault with her reporting this ... I know I don't.
Quote from: SJBHere is the editorial. It is understandably vague and sounds like a report on Bp. Pivarunas's reply to a question at a CMRI event. I don't think one can find any fault with her reporting this ... I know I don't.
That's it? Was nothing else written in that November edition about the issues LoT is concerned about?
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBHere is the editorial. It is understandably vague and sounds like a report on Bp. Pivarunas's reply to a question at a CMRI event. I don't think one can find any fault with her reporting this ... I know I don't.
That's it? Was nothing else written in that November edition about the issues LoT is concerned about?
I think that was it. It was an answer to a question in the Q&A session at a CMRI event.
I ask Nome de Plume who started this - did SJB quote what you were originally referring to for this thread concerning a 4Marks' article?
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoQuote from: SJBBut he apparently convinced you that food and water are in fact "extraordinary means" in this case, which is very unfortunate.
That is untrue. The extraordinary means was solely the feeding tube.
Now, how about answering Yes or No to the two points of principle I have presented you, SJB, which you are so obviously evading?
I haven't "evaded" anything. Fr. Cekada also considered "ice chips" (hydration) and "jello" (food) as extraordinary. Get a clue, Cupertino. NOBODY agrees with his analysis. He was wrong and then was arrogant about the opposition.
I have asked twice for a Yes or No on the truths labeled 1 and 2, and you have yet to do so. Not evading? Okay, then we can expect a delayed answer from you?
You are spreading a lie about Fr. Cekada. He said the extraordinary means was what was expensive and causing a burden on society. This is the insurance and money going towards the food tube. Hydration and jello are neither expensive nor causing a burden, nor covered by insurance.
Notice that Fr. Cekada said "wicked" husband in his separate comment about withholding hydration and jello? Did you notice that SJB? He knows the principle in a case that is borderline and protected by civil law. Analogously, just as spreading heresy is the most evil crime, the Church guarantees no interference when a Catholic father of a family defects from the Faith and starts to impart his heresies to his wife and baptized children. Fr. Cekada would NEVER counsel anyone in his parish to remove a food tube and not try to continue to give water and food to the person by mouth, because it is "wicked", just like he described a husband for doing that.
Dear Cathy,
Bishop Sanborn is doing something on the Honorius/Liberius question. I'll forward it to you when it's completed.
As regards your comments on the Schiavo case:
1. In the quote, Pius XII enunciated the general moral principles to be applied, not merely particular ones applicable only to the narrow question of resuscitation.
Otherwise, you would have to maintain that his statements like "Normally one is held to use only ordinary means" or "life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" apply only to the specific case of resuscitation, and that in other cases therefore: a) One is not held to use even ordinary means to preserve life and b) Life is not subordinated to spiritual ends.
Good luck.
2. The expense of Terri Schiavo's maintenance was "socialized" through wealth redistribution ‹ $750,000 via the litigation/insurance company shakedown, and other hidden costs we can only guess at via tax and other insurance subsidies.
(This should be obvious to anyone with the last name Brueggemann.)
Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.
Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.
3. A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his "domestic and paternal authority."
He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.
Compromise on that principle, and the family is toast.
4. Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.
You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.
But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects ‹ chief among them, moral theology.
I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.
But because do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.
Be assured of my prayers.
Yours in Christ,
Father Cekada
Here's the entire arrogant, condescending letter again:QuoteDear Cathy,
Bishop Sanborn...
...Yours in Christ,
Father Cekada
Quote from: CupertinoQuote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBHere is the editorial. It is understandably vague and sounds like a report on Bp. Pivarunas's reply to a question at a CMRI event. I don't think one can find any fault with her reporting this ... I know I don't.
That's it? Was nothing else written in that November edition about the issues LoT is concerned about?
I think that was it. It was an answer to a question in the Q&A session at a CMRI event.
I ask Nome de Plume who started this - did SJB quote what you were originally referring to for this thread concerning a 4Marks' article?
I read the entire November issue and actually photographed the entire reference to the issue, which wasn't an editorial at all, it was a report on the 2011 Fatima Conference.
If she were a reporter writing a NEWS REPORT, then we could complain that she had not interviewed all parties involved. The way we would complain is by writing a Letter to the Editor.
QuoteIf she were a reporter writing a NEWS REPORT, then we could complain that she had not interviewed all parties involved. The way we would complain is by writing a Letter to the Editor.
So actually, it was merely a reporter writing a news report, and following your own "side's" advice ... a complaint is justified?
He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello ...
Quote from: Fr. CekadaHe has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello ...
He can only have a right to refuse extraordinary means. Cekada is saying these things are extraordinary in this case.
Fr. Stephanich said it was an extermination. Cekada said it wasn't.
LoT :fryingpan: just tell them what happened.
Quote from: Nome de PlumeLoT :fryingpan: just tell them what happened.
Yes, If Lover of Truth feels compelled to publicize his gripes, then they better be justified and he needs to do things in a much better manner than what he did.
He should not be coming on here presenting no evidence nor details whilst accusing Plumb of picking one side over the other without doing due diligence, and of being lacking in intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her“too much”.
Those are big claims.
Doesn't Plumb have any right to a good name and reputation?
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Nome de PlumeLoT :fryingpan: just tell them what happened.
Yes, If Lover of Truth feels compelled to publicize his gripes, then they better be justified and he needs to do things in a much better manner than what he did.
He should not be coming on here presenting no evidence nor details whilst accusing Plumb of picking one side over the other without doing due diligence, and of being lacking in intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her“too much”.
Those are big claims.
Doesn't Plumb have any right to a good name and reputation?
I just gave you a thumbs up Roman Catholic.
Have you read http://christorchaos.com/JustAnotherDayInTheRubberRoom.htm ?
I will try but I believe this particular article needs to be read in its entirety so you can have the full context of the thing. When it comes to the reputation of various clergy you need to read the whole thing.
---
The past five years have been quite tumultuous. Indeed, they have been the most tumultuous of times.
Although I recognized that there were mine fields aplenty in what my former colleague Paul Likoudis at The Wanderer characterized as the "swampland known as sedevacantism" when I began to write at the beginning of May of 2006 about the plausibility of sedevacantism, nothing of the history that I read concerning the conflicts that had taken place within this swampland prepared me adequately for its reality. Perhaps the phrase "swampland" is an inapt metaphor that should be replaced by "the rubber room of traditionalism" as the madness that we have encountered in the past five years would be enough to drive anyone to bang his head against the padding of a rubber room unless one kept in mind this simple fact: none of the problems or conflicts that exist in the infinitesimally minute world of Catholics who reject the legitimacy of the conciliar "popes" and the liturgy and teachings of their false church makes those conciliar "popes" or their teachings legitimate.
The devil wants to discredit the Faith in general by inspiring us who are known to be Catholics to give bad example to non-practicing, fallen-away Catholics and to non-Catholics alike. He wants to discredit any and all commitment to the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal by inspiring conflicts aplenty to dissuade Catholics from leaving the conciliar church.
It is thus necessary to preface this particular article, which I loathe having to write, by repeating points made in an article posted six days ago, Accepting All Within God's Holy Providence.
---
I think the above intro is important just to show that Tom does not relish writing negative things about the clergy. He waits until he cannot wait anymore. Souls get scandalized and lost if things continue as they are sometimes. There is much negative stuff about clergy that Tom has not written. He is not some guy trying to get ratings because of controversy. He is a stand up man. I can vouch for this. We live in the worst of times from a morality perspective. So very sad.
If this was the case, good readers, then we should all pay our obeisance to Joseph Ratzinger as "Pope" Benedict XVI as he has been a cleric since he was ordained to the subdiaconate in Germany in the 1940s and he has been a priest for sixty years, having observed his sixtieth anniversary of priestly ordination on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.
LoT :fryingpan: just tell them what happened.
LoT :fryingpan: just tell them what happened.
Believe it or not I am cutting parts out:
LOT,
Slow down. You are feverishly posting, but not reading any replies it appears.
It is not even clear which posts are cut and pastes from Droleskey, and which ones, if any, are you writing.
Please don't try to transfer the whole CorC site into this thread.
Servers will crash.
If you will alow me to repeat myself and add to it, as that seems warranted....
This is getting more confusing as it goes on, now even moreso with the flood of Drolesky material.
Please don't just keep channeling Droleskey. You are up to the task; you are capable of writing you own articles.
Please just clear up the confusion and tell us yourself plainly and clearly specifically what you wanted to get across when you slammed Plumb.
And what do you want to achieve by it?
Are CMRI and/or SGG your real targets, with Plumb just being a secondary target?
I am genuinely confused by what you posted originally, and your behavior since then.
Please keep it plain and clear.
The convoluted regurgitation of Droleskey snippets is not helping you to effectively comunicate.
What is this all about?....
Good questions. I meant exactly what I said when I gave my thoughts about Kathleen. My hands are tied as to what I should share. CMRI is not my target. I believe they are the best thing going in the traditional movement when it comes to not being cultish with the laity, though not in regards to the seminarians and the public exchange with Father Ramolla. SGG is not my real target either. My goal now, as it was when I did all I could to defend Kathleen against Dolan and Cekeda is to defend the little guy. To defend a person who is unjustly persecuted or blackballed by a paper for or when he is only doing the right things such as saving his parishioners from having to be systematically ignored by Bishop Dolan and Father Cekeda.
I wrote an article for the Four Marks which I ended with a quote from Father Ramolla that went like this:
I will leave with a quote from Father Ramolla:
And at the end of our road, what joy will fill our hearts when we hear those words of judgment: “Well done, good and faithful servant”? But what must it be like to hear those other fatal words, “Depart from me,” words which will ring in our ears forever as we contemplate every second wasted in our lives, every opportunity and grace from God that we scorned, turned away from, and otherwise ignored in our bounden duty to make the crooked straight and the rough places plain? Let not our Last Judgment be like Christmas when it creeps upon us, with that nagging feeling we did not prepare well enough. http://www.albertthegreat.org
Kathleen responded after mentioning it might be my best article so far:
Unfortunately, ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy not to bring up the names of Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, or Fr. Ramolla – really anyone too closely involved in that situation.
I responded:
The above statement would be a reason not to avoid bringing up his name as he extracted himself from that situation for the same reason you would have had him do so. He runs a transparent parish that is held accountable and avoids all the evils the Dolan and Cekada involved themselves in. He listens to the parishioners complaints and does not ignore them. So the above reason, in my estimation, is no reason at all to disassociate yourself from him. Forbidding people from receiving the Sacraments over the una cuм issue is far worse than having an dispassionate opinion of the topic which differs from yours. These are confusing times and we may find out that we were technically wrong on the topic. Using the Sacraments as weapons is what is wrong with what AC/DC did and Father Ramolla would never do that. He does not make debatable opinions binding on all the faithful or make that a criterion as to whether one should be associated with or not. Perhaps you disagree with Father Stepanich on things, such as the depiction of Christ at his birth, some things he has written about Pius XII and his opinion being for SSG and against Saint Albert the Great. You were hurt very badly over the issue and now distance yourself completely from it, perhaps for your mental well-being, but the primary issue was forbidding the Sacraments from worthy recipients and binding a confusing opinion on the faithful, not having the opinion itself so much. I do not see why both B.P. and Father Ramolla cannot represent the same Church among the SV’s. They are both about the best we have to offer.
I then changed the last quote to this:
I will leave with a quote from Dr. Thomas Droleskey:
He gives us countless opportunities to see Him in those whom He sends our way in our daily lives, starting with our family members. We are to welcome them as we would have welcomed Him on Christmas Day, as we welcome Him into our souls every day we receive Him in Holy Communion. We are to treat others as we would treat Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, something that is so very easy to forget in the sturm and drang of our daily lives. Having received the Father's choicest gift of His only-begotten Son, Co-Eternal with Him, we must give a gift of ourselves to Him by remaining in a state of grace always and by consecrating ourselves totally to His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as her slaves of love. We are called to give this gift of the true Faith to all we see and meet, starting with our own spouses and our children. There is no greater gift than we can give. We must give him hearts that are grateful for all that He has given to us, adoring Him with the purity, humility, and devotion of the Blessed Mother herself. christorchaos.com
---
I found out that he is not quotable either. Though I quoted him with success in her paper in the recent past. I asked her who else was on her black list so I don’t keep quoting the wrong people (Father Hall perhaps). She did not respond.
I like to give plugs to people I believe help with unity. I have plugged Kathleen in the Daily Catholic many times. I have given her generous donations. I have given free subscriptions of her paper to others. I have plugged the CMRI on the Daily Catholic and The Four Marks numerous times. But now, I cannot give a plug to Father Ramolla or Tom in The Four Marks. I was confused as to why she had this policy. I was saddened that the first thing Kathleen said when I tried to unite her and Mike Cain and when Mike offered to let her have his entire site at her disposal was:
Thanks for the vote of confidence. However, while he has generously offered his materials to me previously, I think Mike and I were on opposite sides concerning una cuм Benedicto, Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada.
This showed me that she is biased against those who disagree with her on the most confusing subject of the day. The important thing here is to stop clergy from using the Sacraments as a weapon over non-defined issues. Instead Kathleen is biased against those who do not agree with her on the una cuм issue. I played a small role in getting Tom D. in her good graces but months later she was shocked that he did not change his opinion on the una cuм issue as if that was a condition for him being back in her good graces. You will notice that he no longer writes for The Four Marks. I do not pretend to know why though I have some ideas.
My goal, is unity, and to hold people accountable as you do. People should ask Kathleen why she sided with the CMRI as if there are not two sides of the story. Her side and the correct side. Her report in which Bishop P. responded to Tom D’s article implies that Tom does not know what he is talking about and that Father Ramolla is in the wrong. To right a report like that but to not allow a quote from Father Ramolla and Tom is an “us against them mentality” that is divisive rather than unifying. I had an issue with that. I let it sit but she brought it up again, wanting me to disagree with her. Ultimately, since I do not agree with her I cannot wrote for the paper or have my subscription renewed. The donations and free subscriptions I gave away for her paper are forgotten about because I sided with the bad boy camp. Those dastardly Romalla’s and Cekeda’s whom she links with Dolan and Cekeda as proven by her response to me above.
I think that along with other things she said show a needless bias and substantiate the claims about her. All that being said I would still recommend the paper though I think she should have to answer why Romalla and Droleskey (and whoever else) are blackballed from the paper.
My goal, is unity, and to hold people accountable as you do. People should ask Kathleen why she sided with the CMRI as if there are not two sides of the story. Her side and the correct side. Her report in which Bishop P. responded to Tom D’s article implies that Tom does not know what he is talking about and that Father Ramolla is in the wrong. To right a report like that but to not allow a quote from Father Ramolla and Tom is an “us against them mentality” that is divisive rather than unifying.
I had an issue with that. I let it sit but she brought it up again, wanting me todisagreewith her.
Should read:
I had an issue with that. I let it sit but she brought it up again, wanting me to AGREE with her.
Ultimately, since I do not agree with her I cannot wrote for the paper or have my subscription renewed. The donations and free subscriptions I gave away for her paper are forgotten about because I sided with the bad boy camp.
Those dastardly Romalla’s andCekeda’swhom she links with Dolan and Cekeda as proven by her response to me above.
Should read:
Those dastardly Romalla’s and DROLESKEY’s whom she links with Dolan and Cekeda as proven by her response to me above.
You will notice that he no longer writes for The Four Marks. I do not pretend to know why though I have some ideas.Quote from: [/quote
Actually I don't subscribe to the paper and have ever hardly read anything from it. I have scanned it a handful of times, that's all. I did not even recall that either you or Droleskey contributed, and no offence, but I don't think I have read anything you or he contributed. I have only visited four marks website a few times, very briefly.
LOT used to write about the saints and very uplifting articles they were.
Nom(e) de Plume started this thread, and he/she mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks.
Elizabeth said it was an "editorial".
What SJB presented appeared to be neither an editorial nor an article.
Now we have "Lover of Truth" verbosely quoting Droleskey verbosity.
Okay, so, just what are we discussing here? Can someone truly point out the "article" that Nom(e) de Plume was referring to?
:popcorn:
Nom(e) de Plume started this thread, and he/she mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks.
Elizabeth said it was an "editorial".
What SJB presented appeared to be neither an editorial nor an article.
Now we have "Lover of Truth" verbosely quoting Droleskey verbosity.
Okay, so, just what are we discussing here? Can someone truly point out the "article" that Nom(e) de Plume was referring to?
I am beginning to think, by the tone of Nom(e) de Plume's words, he/she was asked by someone else to post that. C'mon Nom, what were your specifically referring to?
:popcorn:
Elizabeth said it was an "editorial".
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoNom(e) de Plume started this thread, and he/she mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks.
Elizabeth said it was an "editorial".
What SJB presented appeared to be neither an editorial nor an article.
Now we have "Lover of Truth" verbosely quoting Droleskey verbosity.
Okay, so, just what are we discussing here? Can someone truly point out the "article" that Nom(e) de Plume was referring to?
:popcorn:
I think the issue was mentioned as being in the November issue of The Four Marks. I provided that article reporting on the 2011 Fatima Conference at CMRI.
Unless you can admit being in collusion with NdP behind the scene, we really should wait for him/her to tell us what he/she was actually referring to as the "article". Why presume?
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoQuote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoNom(e) de Plume started this thread, and he/she mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks.
Elizabeth said it was an "editorial".
What SJB presented appeared to be neither an editorial nor an article.
Now we have "Lover of Truth" verbosely quoting Droleskey verbosity.
Okay, so, just what are we discussing here? Can someone truly point out the "article" that Nom(e) de Plume was referring to?
:popcorn:
I think the issue was mentioned as being in the November issue of The Four Marks. I provided that article reporting on the 2011 Fatima Conference at CMRI.
Unless you can admit being in collusion with NdP behind the scene, we really should wait for him/her to tell us what he/she was actually referring to as the "article". Why presume?
I didn't presume, I found and read the referenced issue of the Four Marks and then photographed the entire reference to the issue at hand. I did all of this while you were busy feeding your face with popcorn.
I don't have the issue (yet). BTW, yummy popcorn! Still, did you SJB understand the OP after seeing the issue
Quote from: SJBQuote from: SJBQuote from: Fr. CekadaHe has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello ...
He can only have a right to refuse extraordinary means. Cekada is saying these things are extraordinary in this case.
Fr. Stephanich said it was an extermination. Cekada said it wasn't.
Well, it's the truth.
(http://www.cathinfo.com/skins/default/images/thumbsdown.gif)
Read the lives of the Saints and their careful and diligent submission to clergy for being their Spiritual directors. This is sadly overlooked by traditionalists, and campaigning against authority in traditional priests is doing a great disservice to oneself as well as to the Church.
I think the above intro is important just to show that Tom does not relish writing negative things about the clergy. He waits until he cannot wait anymore. Souls get scandalized and lost if things continue as they are sometimes. There is much negative stuff about clergy that Tom has not written. He is not some guy trying to get ratings because of controversy. He is a stand up man.
We have Nome de Plume telling LOT to just tell us what happened, when he/she is the one who started this thread, and mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks!
Nome de Plume should explain.
Funny how he/she joined up and then less than a day later the long-absent LOT re-appears to post here!
Just a coincidence?
Quote from: Roman CatholicWe have Nome de Plume telling LOT to just tell us what happened, when he/she is the one who started this thread, and mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks!
Nome de Plume should explain.
Funny how he/she joined up and then less than a day later the long-absent LOT re-appears to post here!
Just a coincidence?
Of course not. Giving LoT the benefit of the doubt, I'll go with the theory that NdP is his wife. Whatever the case, they post from the same place.
LOT used to write about the saints and very uplifting articles they were.
Forgive me LOT but you were so long winded I couldn't plow through all you posted. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are mostly on about the bishop's lack of response to others. Is that correct?
Kathy Plumb was quoted as saying, "Unfortunately, ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy not to bring up the names of Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, or Fr. Ramolla – really anyone too closely involved in that situation. "
However, Plumb has not kept to her policy. I read in the June 2011 issue, where her Guest editorial went out of its way to mention Fr. Cekada as approving of the "murder" of Schiavo:
"Fr. Cekada publicly defended Terri Schiavo's murder, arrogantly and vehemently refusing to retract his errors even after he was shown to be completely wrong."
Let's face it, everyone has a conscience (however formed or ill-formed it may be), and there will be biases according as one thinks and is guided to act. Don't expect the 4Marks to be perfect. Overall the paper supports the CMRI and SSPX mostly (which is a major inconsistency right there). Plumb goes way back with John Lane and John Daly, and these two are friends and advisors to Plumb. Both of them also are rather sweet on the SSPX and don't care much for Fr. Cekada. Their names are listed along with several CMRI priests on the second page boiler plate of the paper. The priests' names give the paper a feeling of clergy approval (not that the CMRI necessarily agrees with everything, but it works.) The 4Marks doesn't want to lose that. Personally, I think the CMRI should take a stronger stand with approvals and disapproval, since the appearance they give the public of several priests being official writers.
Kathy Plumb was quoted as saying, "Unfortunately, ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy not to bring up the names of Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, or Fr. Ramolla – really anyone too closely involved in that situation. "
However, Plumb has not kept to her policy. I read in the June 2011 issue, where her Guest editorial went out of its way to mention Fr. Cekada as approving of the "murder" of Schiavo:
"Fr. Cekada publicly defended Terri Schiavo's murder, arrogantly and vehemently refusing to retract his errors even after he was shown to be completely wrong."
Let's face it, everyone has a conscience (however formed or ill-formed it may be), and there will be biases according as one thinks and is guided to act. Don't expect the 4Marks to be perfect. Overall the paper supports the CMRI and SSPX mostly (which is a major inconsistency right there). Plumb goes way back with John Lane and John Daly, and these two are friends and advisors to Plumb. Both of them also are rather sweet on the SSPX and don't care much for Fr. Cekada. Their names are listed along with several CMRI priests on the second page boiler plate of the paper. The priests' names give the paper a feeling of clergy approval (not that the CMRI necessarily agrees with everything, but it works.) The 4Marks doesn't want to lose that. Personally, I think the CMRI should take a stronger stand with approvals and disapproval, since the appearance they give the public of several priests being official writers.
He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello ...
I wrote an article criticizing a pompous doctor who presumed to pronounce on matters of moral theology.
Quote from: Lover of TruthI believe this is a recent policy...
I don't see how you can say that, since Plumb said, "ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy".
The so-called troubles began in November 2009. No?
Quote from: SJBQuote from: CupertinoQuote from: Lover of TruthI believe this is a recent policy...
I don't see how you can say that, since Plumb said, "ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy".
The so-called troubles began in November 2009. No?
Maybe she meant mentioning that particular situation.
True, she could have meant something opposed to what she herself said. Then, she either misspoke, or, it simply has been a policy since 2009, just that she had made an exception to her own policy, for whatever reason, and didn't want to make an exception for LoT. I think we can figure out the reason for the exception.
Quote from: CupertinoQuote from: Lover of TruthI believe this is a recent policy...
I don't see how you can say that, since Plumb said, "ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy".
The so-called troubles began in November 2009. No?
Maybe she meant mentioning that particular situation.
Quote from: CupertinoQuote from: Lover of TruthI believe this is a recent policy...
I don't see how you can say that, since Plumb said, "ever since the trouble began at SGG, I have had a policy".
The so-called troubles began in November 2009. No?
Maybe she meant mentioning that particular situation.
Although Father Ramolla had expressed a wish as early as December of 2009 to have a seminary one day, there were no concrete plans for such a seminary as he his own deportation case was still pending, not to be resolved until May 12, 2011 (see Removing All Doubt).
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Bishop Pivarunas misconstrued the general discussion of the possibility of a future seminary, whose general idea had been broached in an interview that Father Ramolla gave in late-2009, as meaning that there had been active plans made to launch one this year. Believing that he had been deceived, Bishop Pivarunas, acting in a fit of anger, dismissed the nineteen year-old seminarian and the two European seminarians right then and there over the telephone. That's when the dismissals took place. Everything else is revisionist history.[/color] [/b]
_________________________________________________________________
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Although Father Ramolla had expressed a wish as early as December of 2009 to have a seminary one day, there were no concrete plans for such a seminary as he his own deportation case was still pending, not to be resolved until May 12, 2011 (see Removing All Doubt).
This quote, actually from Tom Droleskey, is revealing. One of Fr. Ramolla's first thoughts, after leaving SGG, is to start a seminary? Kind of makes you wonder if the events of late 2009 at SGG didn't have more planning than he would like you to think.
And the 'loss' of Bp. Petko to the cause could only lead to one thing, and, no, it is not asking Bp. Slupski to ordain the seminarians of his nascent seminary: accept episcopal consecration himself, and which Bp. Slupski has encouraged him to do.
So we'll have one more traditional bishop. And further splintering.
Quote from: Simple CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Although Father Ramolla had expressed a wish as early as December of 2009 to have a seminary one day, there were no concrete plans for such a seminary as he his own deportation case was still pending, not to be resolved until May 12, 2011 (see Removing All Doubt).
This quote, actually from Tom Droleskey, is revealing. One of Fr. Ramolla's first thoughts, after leaving SGG, is to start a seminary? Kind of makes you wonder if the events of late 2009 at SGG didn't have more planning than he would like you to think.
And the 'loss' of Bp. Petko to the cause could only lead to one thing, and, no, it is not asking Bp. Slupski to ordain the seminarians of his nascent seminary: accept episcopal consecration himself, and which Bp. Slupski has encouraged him to do.
So we'll have one more traditional bishop. And further splintering.
If you went through what Father Ramolla went through in the seminary you would want to start one as well I imagine.
I suppose revoking visas without notifying those who will be deported can be excused away as well.
What is this about, Elizabeth? I never heard of those sites before.
Quote from: Simple CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthI suppose revoking visas without notifying those who will be deported can be excused away as well.
Speaking of immigration issues, did you know that Fr. Hall was preparing to return to the States from England under the sponsorship of SAG, but will not now that Fr. Ramolla has recently (last weekend?) fired Fr. Hall? Apparently, he blames him for the halving of the congregation since the Bp. Petko scandal broke.
What a huge piece of news!
If you went through what Father Ramolla went through in the seminary you would want to start one as well I imagine.
Bishop Pivarunas knew full well that the two European seminarians intended to work with Father Ramolla after their priestly ordination as they had discussed this with him personally. His Excellency told me on numerous occasions in the past that he didn't care where men who had studied under him and were not joining the CMRI went after spending some time with a more experienced priest. He told this also to Mr. Timothy Duff in the 1990s. Bishop Pivarunas had found one reason after another in recent weeks to justify this decision before, it appears, settling on Father Ramolla's association with Bishop Petko and Bishop Slupski. Talk about banging one head against in room full of rubber padded walls. Which is it?
Father Ramolla had asked Bishop Pivarunas in a letter sent late last month to transfer the European seminarians to Saint Athanasius Seminary until their new visas had been approved, thus sparing them the expense of having to return to Europe unexpectedly. It is a common practice for administrators of educational institutions to issue such transfers when foreign students leave one school to study at another. His Excellency, who had told the mother of one seminarian and others, including Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI, that he would not "touch" the visas, saw this request, made very respectfully by Father Ramolla, as an invitation to "lie to the government."
It was shortly after this that the visas were lifted, noting that there was a phone call made to Bishop Pivarunas by a traditional priest who has a bit of experience in lifting visas and pursuing deportation cases. We will know on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead if there was any cause and effect between his phone call and the decision by Bishop Pivarunas, who never once telephoned Father Ramolla or the seminarians concerned to discuss the matter. Bishop Pivarunas simply proceeded to cancel the students' visas without notifying the seminarians, who had to find out about the matter when they wrote to him. The seminarians received a short e-mail from Sister Jacinta, Bishop Pivarunas's secretary, informing them that the visas had been canceled. Thus it was that both had to leave the country while their new student visas are being processed. This was unnecessary. This was vindictive. It was petty.
The complaints made by the two European seminarians, one of whose angelic voice as raised in chant was very inspiring to some of the parishioners of Mary Immaculate Catholic Church in Omaha, Nebraska, about the spiritual, intellectual and liturgical formation at Mater Dei Seminary are nothing new. Others who have left Mater Dei Seminary have brought these objections to my attention in the past five years, which coincide with those that I have seen with my own eyes during our visits to Omaha. Bishop Daniel Dolan, who will align himself with his consecrating bishop when necessity arises even though the latter cut off relations because of his "cattle rustling" of priests and seminarians away from the CMRI in the 1990s, told me, in happier days, Your Excellency, that he found the lack of preparation of some of the CMRI priests to be "embarrassing." Bishop Pivarunas would reject that characterization, but that is apart from the point, which is that the dismissed seminarians simply made observations that have been made to numerous people by Bishop Dolan and Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada and some of the clergy associated with them. Whether the seminarians who are returning to Mater Dei Seminary this year share those observations has not been stated publicly at this time.
Quote from: GertrudetheGreatAnd I ask again, on these principles why do you not criticise Mrs Plumb for omitting to link to the Dimond Brothers? They are sedes.
I saw you ask this, and I thought the answer was SO obvious that I didn't bother.
Did I really present a principle that I thought links should go out to sedes no matter what their other doctrines are? No, I didn't.
Do you, Gertrude, have some knowledge that Plumb is favorable to the idea that there cannot be any soul in purgatory or heaven right now (that died after, say, 90 A.D.) that is unbaptized with physical water?
And the 'loss' of Bp. Petko to the cause could only lead to one thing, and, no, it is not asking Bp. Slupski to ordain the seminarians of his nascent seminary: accept episcopal consecration himself, and which Bp. Slupski has encouraged him to do.
So we'll have one more traditional bishop. And further splintering.
I think it would be unwise for him to consecrate Fr. Ramolla, if only because we don't need anymore traditional bishops.
So we'll have one more traditional bishop. And further splintering.
That is what she said but what she means is that because of the Ramolla/Pivuranus deal she does not mention Ramolla as he admitted to me that she mentioned him before but was advised by two "objective" "non-CMRI" Priests not to mention him again. This kind of shows a slight flaw in her honesty. No?
Quote from: Lover of TruthThat is what she said but what she means is that because of the Ramolla/Pivuranus deal she does not mention Ramolla as he admitted to me that she mentioned him before but was advised by two "objective" "non-CMRI" Priests not to mention him again. This kind of shows a slight flaw in her honesty. No?
LoT,
I don't know what her policy is in any detail, but I have been a subscriber of The Four Marks and read it off and on since it was founded, and it's ridiculous to suggest that Kathleen Plumb is anything but honest. She is notorious for her candour. In this she differs markedly from some of the well-known clergy around the place.
Quote from: Thomas DroleskeyBishop Pivarunas knew full well that the two European seminarians intended to work with Father Ramolla after their priestly ordination as they had discussed this with him personally. His Excellency told me on numerous occasions in the past that he didn't care where men who had studied under him and were not joining the CMRI went after spending some time with a more experienced priest. He told this also to Mr. Timothy Duff in the 1990s. Bishop Pivarunas had found one reason after another in recent weeks to justify this decision before, it appears, settling on Father Ramolla's association with Bishop Petko and Bishop Slupski. Talk about banging one head against in room full of rubber padded walls. Which is it?
Father Ramolla had asked Bishop Pivarunas in a letter sent late last month to transfer the European seminarians to Saint Athanasius Seminary until their new visas had been approved, thus sparing them the expense of having to return to Europe unexpectedly. It is a common practice for administrators of educational institutions to issue such transfers when foreign students leave one school to study at another. His Excellency, who had told the mother of one seminarian and others, including Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI, that he would not "touch" the visas, saw this request, made very respectfully by Father Ramolla, as an invitation to "lie to the government."
It was shortly after this that the visas were lifted, noting that there was a phone call made to Bishop Pivarunas by a traditional priest who has a bit of experience in lifting visas and pursuing deportation cases. We will know on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead if there was any cause and effect between his phone call and the decision by Bishop Pivarunas, who never once telephoned Father Ramolla or the seminarians concerned to discuss the matter. Bishop Pivarunas simply proceeded to cancel the students' visas without notifying the seminarians, who had to find out about the matter when they wrote to him. The seminarians received a short e-mail from Sister Jacinta, Bishop Pivarunas's secretary, informing them that the visas had been canceled. Thus it was that both had to leave the country while their new student visas are being processed. This was unnecessary. This was vindictive. It was petty.
The complaints made by the two European seminarians, one of whose angelic voice as raised in chant was very inspiring to some of the parishioners of Mary Immaculate Catholic Church in Omaha, Nebraska, about the spiritual, intellectual and liturgical formation at Mater Dei Seminary are nothing new. Others who have left Mater Dei Seminary have brought these objections to my attention in the past five years, which coincide with those that I have seen with my own eyes during our visits to Omaha. Bishop Daniel Dolan, who will align himself with his consecrating bishop when necessity arises even though the latter cut off relations because of his "cattle rustling" of priests and seminarians away from the CMRI in the 1990s, told me, in happier days, Your Excellency, that he found the lack of preparation of some of the CMRI priests to be "embarrassing." Bishop Pivarunas would reject that characterization, but that is apart from the point, which is that the dismissed seminarians simply made observations that have been made to numerous people by Bishop Dolan and Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada and some of the clergy associated with them. Whether the seminarians who are returning to Mater Dei Seminary this year share those observations has not been stated publicly at this time.
Do any of you "gossip" loving knuckleheads dispute what was said here?
Kathleen Plumb is very much against Feeneyism.
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
Bishop Pivuranus revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite? Great! Wonderful! Saints be praised! Because he is Bishop Pivuranus and he can do no wrong.
I have been told by a poster on this site whom I have great respect for that he does not believe Dolan and Cekeda refuse the Eucharist to those who go to una cuм Masses. I have been known to say that they use the Sacraments as weapons and are cultish. One Hundred people immediately leaving the parish as soon as another became available to go with Father Ramolla would seem to verify that fact.
But to make sure I was not incorrect I checked and Dolan and Cekeda DO NOT deny Communion at the Communion rail to those they know go to una cuм Masses.
BUT Dolan and Cekeda warn such people not to approach the altar. And many good Catholics rightly believe the paastors of souls should be obeyed. When people known to attend una cuм Masses are seen before Mass they are spoken to beforehand and given a stern warning.
Quote from: Lover of TruthI have been told by a poster on this site whom I have great respect for that he does not believe Dolan and Cekeda refuse the Eucharist to those who go to una cuм Masses. I have been known to say that they use the Sacraments as weapons and are cultish. One Hundred people immediately leaving the parish as soon as another became available to go with Father Ramolla would seem to verify that fact.
But to make sure I was not incorrect I checked and Dolan and Cekeda DO NOT deny Communion at the Communion rail to those they know go to una cuм Masses.
BUT Dolan and Cekeda warn such people not to approach the altar. And many good Catholics rightly believe the paastors of souls should be obeyed. When people known to attend una cuм Masses are seen before Mass they are spoken to beforehand and given a stern warning.
Do they really warn people who attend una cuм Masses not to approach the altar?
I don't get it. Are you saying they warn them, but then allow it?
Do they tell people to confess it?
Who speaks to those people before Mass? Does a cleric stand guard, or is there a porter?
I know that SGG clerics advise people that they think they should not atend una-cuм Masses, but I have never heard these claim before about warning una-cuм attendees not to recieve communion.
Quote from: CupertinoQuote from: Simple CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthI suppose revoking visas without notifying those who will be deported can be excused away as well.
Speaking of immigration issues, did you know that Fr. Hall was preparing to return to the States from England under the sponsorship of SAG, but will not now that Fr. Ramolla has recently (last weekend?) fired Fr. Hall? Apparently, he blames him for the halving of the congregation since the Bp. Petko scandal broke.
What a huge piece of news!
Oh, isn't this just gossip? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthI have been told by a poster on this site whom I have great respect for that he does not believe Dolan and Cekeda refuse the Eucharist to those who go to una cuм Masses. I have been known to say that they use the Sacraments as weapons and are cultish. One Hundred people immediately leaving the parish as soon as another became available to go with Father Ramolla would seem to verify that fact.
But to make sure I was not incorrect I checked and Dolan and Cekeda DO NOT deny Communion at the Communion rail to those they know go to una cuм Masses.
BUT Dolan and Cekeda warn such people not to approach the altar. And many good Catholics rightly believe the paastors of souls should be obeyed. When people known to attend una cuм Masses are seen before Mass they are spoken to beforehand and given a stern warning.
Do they really warn people who attend una cuм Masses not to approach the altar?
I don't get it. Are you saying they warn them, but then allow it?
Do they tell people to confess it?
Who speaks to those people before Mass? Does a cleric stand guard, or is there a porter?
I know that SGG clerics advise people that they think they should not atend una-cuм Masses, but I have never heard these claim before about warning una-cuм attendees not to recieve communion.
RC, using sacarments as a weapon isn't an application of a principle (false principle or not), it is a tactic.
I asked you once if you were concerned about the bishop's lack of response and you didn't answer me, LOT. But now it seems that you are upset about his actions, particularly cancelling the visas. I have no idea why he did that. If it was me it would be spite, but this is the bishop who advised me to forgive when I had the makings of a lawsuit against a medical entity. You know Ramolla and Drolesky. I know Bishop Pivarunas. You are incensed over a perceived injustice. I think there is possibly another explanation.
Let's do the Catholic two step and see if there is another direction this could be taken. In the first place we are supposed to think the best of others. In the second place His Excellency has earned our good opinion. Again, in the first place it is a sin to be so thin skinned and in the second place this man has a job to do and it's not soothing ruffled feathers. Come judgment day is he to explain to God that he was too busy satisfying various sensibilities to do his job? That would go over like a lead balloon.
Perhaps the bishop acted as a human rather than a saint in this case. None of us are privy to his thoughts so it can neither be proved or disproved and no one but the bishop knows the truth of that one. You have your opinion and the best you can get from us is our opinion. His excellency has earned our regard for him and your sojourn here seems to be an attempt to destroy that regard. If I'm wrong, then tell us what it really is you wish to accomplish.
Quote from: TrinityI asked you once if you were concerned about the bishop's lack of response and you didn't answer me, LOT. But now it seems that you are upset about his actions, particularly cancelling the visas. I have no idea why he did that. If it was me it would be spite, but this is the bishop who advised me to forgive when I had the makings of a lawsuit against a medical entity. You know Ramolla and Drolesky. I know Bishop Pivarunas. You are incensed over a perceived injustice. I think there is possibly another explanation.
Let's do the Catholic two step and see if there is another direction this could be taken. In the first place we are supposed to think the best of others. In the second place His Excellency has earned our good opinion. Again, in the first place it is a sin to be so thin skinned and in the second place this man has a job to do and it's not soothing ruffled feathers. Come judgment day is he to explain to God that he was too busy satisfying various sensibilities to do his job? That would go over like a lead balloon.
Perhaps the bishop acted as a human rather than a saint in this case. None of us are privy to his thoughts so it can neither be proved or disproved and no one but the bishop knows the truth of that one. You have your opinion and the best you can get from us is our opinion. His excellency has earned our regard for him and your sojourn here seems to be an attempt to destroy that regard. If I'm wrong, then tell us what it really is you wish to accomplish.
I have never known LOT not to answer a question. He has answered all my questions.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Bishop Pivuranus revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite? Great! Wonderful! Saints be praised! Because he is Bishop Pivuranus and he can do no wrong.
Are you alleging that Bishop Pivarunas revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite?
The question mark at end your sentence made it unclear if you were posing it as a hypothetical example, or if you are aleging that Bishop Pivarunas was motivated by spite.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthI have been told by a poster on this site whom I have great respect for that he does not believe Dolan and Cekeda refuse the Eucharist to those who go to una cuм Masses. I have been known to say that they use the Sacraments as weapons and are cultish. One Hundred people immediately leaving the parish as soon as another became available to go with Father Ramolla would seem to verify that fact.
But to make sure I was not incorrect I checked and Dolan and Cekeda DO NOT deny Communion at the Communion rail to those they know go to una cuм Masses.
BUT Dolan and Cekeda warn such people not to approach the altar. And many good Catholics rightly believe the paastors of souls should be obeyed. When people known to attend una cuм Masses are seen before Mass they are spoken to beforehand and given a stern warning.
Do they really warn people who attend una cuм Masses not to approach the altar?
I don't get it. Are you saying they warn them, but then allow it?
Do they tell people to confess it?
Who speaks to those people before Mass? Does a cleric stand guard, or is there a porter?
I know that SGG clerics advise people that they think they should not atend una-cuм Masses, but I have never heard these claim before about warning una-cuм attendees not to recieve communion.
RC, using sacarments as a weapon isn't an application of a principle (false principle or not), it is a tactic.
You use the hyperbolic phrase "using sacraments as a weapon". That does not mean it has any credence.
You neglected to answer any of my questions.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Quote from: Lover of TruthI have been told by a poster on this site whom I have great respect for that he does not believe Dolan and Cekeda refuse the Eucharist to those who go to una cuм Masses. I have been known to say that they use the Sacraments as weapons and are cultish. One Hundred people immediately leaving the parish as soon as another became available to go with Father Ramolla would seem to verify that fact.
But to make sure I was not incorrect I checked and Dolan and Cekeda DO NOT deny Communion at the Communion rail to those they know go to una cuм Masses.
BUT Dolan and Cekeda warn such people not to approach the altar. And many good Catholics rightly believe the paastors of souls should be obeyed. When people known to attend una cuм Masses are seen before Mass they are spoken to beforehand and given a stern warning.
Do they really warn people who attend una cuм Masses not to approach the altar?
I don't get it. Are you saying they warn them, but then allow it?
Do they tell people to confess it?
Who speaks to those people before Mass? Does a cleric stand guard, or is there a porter?
I know that SGG clerics advise people that they think they should not atend una-cuм Masses, but I have never heard these claim before about warning una-cuм attendees not to recieve communion.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Technically precise. All are good. Even the Devil. That is Catholic theology. Why is the devil good? Because God created him and because he exists and to exist is good. But the Devil is called evil because he does evil things. In fact he does no intended good.
Try to get the gist of the message without straining a gnat. Do you get my point or did you miss it.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthI have been told by a poster on this site whom I have great respect for that he does not believe Dolan and Cekeda refuse the Eucharist to those who go to una cuм Masses. I have been known to say that they use the Sacraments as weapons and are cultish. One Hundred people immediately leaving the parish as soon as another became available to go with Father Ramolla would seem to verify that fact.
But to make sure I was not incorrect I checked and Dolan and Cekeda DO NOT deny Communion at the Communion rail to those they know go to una cuм Masses.
BUT Dolan and Cekeda warn such people not to approach the altar. And many good Catholics rightly believe the paastors of souls should be obeyed. When people known to attend una cuм Masses are seen before Mass they are spoken to beforehand and given a stern warning.
Do they really warn people who attend una cuм Masses not to approach the altar?
I don't get it. Are you saying they warn them, but then allow it?
Do they tell people to confess it?
Who speaks to those people before Mass? Does a cleric stand guard, or is there a porter?
I know that SGG clerics advise people that they think they should not atend una-cuм Masses, but I have never heard these claim before about warning una-cuм attendees not to recieve communion.
RC, using sacarments as a weapon isn't an application of a principle (false principle or not), it is a tactic.
You use the hyperbolic phrase "using sacraments as a weapon". That does not mean it has any credence.
You neglected to answer any of my questions.
Your questions assume there is some principle involved when there isn't.
Here is my question and it's on page 11. I don't knowwhere your answer is.
Forgive me LOT but you were so long winded I couldn't plow through all you posted. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are mostly on about the bishop's lack of response to others. Is that correct?
Here is my question and it's on page 11. I don't knowwhere your answer is.
Forgive me LOT but you were so long winded I couldn't plow through all you posted. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are mostly on about the bishop's lack of response to others. Is that correct?
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Technically precise. All are good. Even the Devil. That is Catholic theology. Why is the devil good? Because God created him and because he exists and to exist is good. But the Devil is called evil because he does evil things. In fact he does no intended good.
Try to get the gist of the message without straining a gnat. Do you get my point or did you miss it.
I think I got your point. And I was just giving you a friendly warning about some of the shenanigans that go on. No need to imply I was straining a gnat. Sheesh
Yet you insist on calling St Gertrude the Great,” the Dolan/Cekada cult centre” rather than SGG or Bishop Dolan’s/Father Cekada’s Mass centre.
Quote from: Roman Catholic
Yet you insist on calling St Gertrude the Great,” the Dolan/Cekada cult centre” rather than SGG or Bishop Dolan’s/Father Cekada’s Mass centre.
What's to stop the former cult members of SGG from being St. Albert cult members now? We can always make a geographical change, but we always bring ourselves along.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Technically precise. All are good. Even the Devil. That is Catholic theology. Why is the devil good? Because God created him and because he exists and to exist is good. But the Devil is called evil because he does evil things. In fact he does no intended good.
Try to get the gist of the message without straining a gnat. Do you get my point or did you miss it.
I think I got your point. And I was just giving you a friendly warning about some of the shenanigans that go on. No need to imply I was straining a gnat. Sheesh
This is all I will say about the cult of Dolan/Cekeda. Did I say this before? As the thread is about something else. I made the mistake of responding to the question again and the thread will go 50 pages about the allegation. :argue:
So this is the last time I'll mention it on this thread again. :roll-laugh1:
The don't listen to grievances that are legitimate. They systematically ignore legitimate complaints. They let a strange man dictate all the policies and never repremend him no matter how warranted. The bind-nonbinding policies on thier parishoners and inform them that they should not approach the altar if they go to una cuм Masses. These are facts you can believe them or not. All will be revealed on the last day or before.
Okay. I'm done with that. Respond as you will. Forever and ever. Amen.
Lot,
Will you answer the specific questions I asked you or not?
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Quote from: Roman Catholic
Lot,
Will you answer the specific questions I asked you or not?
I stand by the statements I made until proven otherwise and cannot clarify any further.
I'm losing track of who is asking me what. Feel free to ask me in a PM.
Or just post some good stuff about Dolan/Cekeda to undo the damage I have down as I am trying to do for Ramolla and Droleskey.
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Technically precise. All are good. Even the Devil. That is Catholic theology. Why is the devil good? Because God created him and because he exists and to exist is good. But the Devil is called evil because he does evil things. In fact he does no intended good.
Try to get the gist of the message without straining a gnat. Do you get my point or did you miss it.
I think I got your point. And I was just giving you a friendly warning about some of the shenanigans that go on. No need to imply I was straining a gnat. Sheesh
This is all I will say about the cult of Dolan/Cekeda. Did I say this before? As the thread is about something else. I made the mistake of responding to the question again and the thread will go 50 pages about the allegation. :argue:
So this is the last time I'll mention it on this thread again. :roll-laugh1:
The don't listen to grievances that are legitimate. They systematically ignore legitimate complaints. They let a strange man dictate all the policies and never repremend him no matter how warranted. The bind-nonbinding policies on thier parishoners and inform them that they should not approach the altar if they go to una cuм Masses. These are facts you can believe them or not. All will be revealed on the last day or before.
Okay. I'm done with that. Respond as you will. Forever and ever. Amen.
Lot,
A few minutes ago you wrote:
"I take pride in answering all legitimate questions asked of me as when the positions are reversed and the question is not answered I take it as their not being to give an answer that suits their position and their inability to grant a legitimate point."
So how about it?
You can transfer the discussion to a new thread if you don't want to derail this thread any further. The only reason I am asking the questions in this thread is because this thread is where you made the accusations a couple times.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb or Dolan or Cekada or Pivarunas (for examples!) says xxx and that is an error because xxxx."
Rather than: "xxxxxx lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her too much"?
Or say that xxxxx do xxxxx and it;s wrong because xxxx
Rather than calling them cult leaders or calling their chapel where Holy Mass is offered a cult centre?
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb or Dolan or Cekada or Pivarunas (for examples!) says xxx and that is an error because xxxx."
Rather than: "xxxxxx lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her too much"?
Or say that xxxxx do xxxxx and it;s wrong because xxxx
Rather than calling them cult leaders or calling their chapel where Holy Mass is offered a cult centre?
People believe what they want to believe. I do not assert things that are made up. You do not believe me. You can post your mental gymnastics but you have made your conclusion and I will not change your beliefs because you doubt my motives and credibility.
You are good at baiting people into wasting tons of time with no result. I'm not sure what it does. You will have some answer but the truth is known.
I will start a new thread for me and you on this topic.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Technically precise. All are good. Even the Devil. That is Catholic theology. Why is the devil good? Because God created him and because he exists and to exist is good. But the Devil is called evil because he does evil things. In fact he does no intended good.
Try to get the gist of the message without straining a gnat. Do you get my point or did you miss it.
I think I got your point. And I was just giving you a friendly warning about some of the shenanigans that go on. No need to imply I was straining a gnat. Sheesh
This is all I will say about the cult of Dolan/Cekeda. Did I say this before? As the thread is about something else. I made the mistake of responding to the question again and the thread will go 50 pages about the allegation. :argue:
So this is the last time I'll mention it on this thread again. :roll-laugh1:
The don't listen to grievances that are legitimate. They systematically ignore legitimate complaints. They let a strange man dictate all the policies and never repremend him no matter how warranted. The bind-nonbinding policies on thier parishoners and inform them that they should not approach the altar if they go to una cuм Masses. These are facts you can believe them or not. All will be revealed on the last day or before.
Okay. I'm done with that. Respond as you will. Forever and ever. Amen.
Lot,
A few minutes ago you wrote:
"I take pride in answering all legitimate questions asked of me as when the positions are reversed and the question is not answered I take it as their not being to give an answer that suits their position and their inability to grant a legitimate point."
So how about it?
You can transfer the discussion to a new thread if you don't want to derail this thread any further. The only reason I am asking the questions in this thread is because this thread is where you made the accusations a couple times.
Lot, is this the one you deleted?
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Thomas DroleskeyBishop Pivarunas knew full well that the two European seminarians intended to work with Father Ramolla after their priestly ordination as they had discussed this with him personally. His Excellency told me on numerous occasions in the past that he didn't care where men who had studied under him and were not joining the CMRI went after spending some time with a more experienced priest. He told this also to Mr. Timothy Duff in the 1990s. Bishop Pivarunas had found one reason after another in recent weeks to justify this decision before, it appears, settling on Father Ramolla's association with Bishop Petko and Bishop Slupski. Talk about banging one head against in room full of rubber padded walls. Which is it?
Father Ramolla had asked Bishop Pivarunas in a letter sent late last month to transfer the European seminarians to Saint Athanasius Seminary until their new visas had been approved, thus sparing them the expense of having to return to Europe unexpectedly. It is a common practice for administrators of educational institutions to issue such transfers when foreign students leave one school to study at another. His Excellency, who had told the mother of one seminarian and others, including Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI, that he would not "touch" the visas, saw this request, made very respectfully by Father Ramolla, as an invitation to "lie to the government."
It was shortly after this that the visas were lifted, noting that there was a phone call made to Bishop Pivarunas by a traditional priest who has a bit of experience in lifting visas and pursuing deportation cases. We will know on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead if there was any cause and effect between his phone call and the decision by Bishop Pivarunas, who never once telephoned Father Ramolla or the seminarians concerned to discuss the matter. Bishop Pivarunas simply proceeded to cancel the students' visas without notifying the seminarians, who had to find out about the matter when they wrote to him. The seminarians received a short e-mail from Sister Jacinta, Bishop Pivarunas's secretary, informing them that the visas had been canceled. Thus it was that both had to leave the country while their new student visas are being processed. This was unnecessary. This was vindictive. It was petty.
The complaints made by the two European seminarians, one of whose angelic voice as raised in chant was very inspiring to some of the parishioners of Mary Immaculate Catholic Church in Omaha, Nebraska, about the spiritual, intellectual and liturgical formation at Mater Dei Seminary are nothing new. Others who have left Mater Dei Seminary have brought these objections to my attention in the past five years, which coincide with those that I have seen with my own eyes during our visits to Omaha. Bishop Daniel Dolan, who will align himself with his consecrating bishop when necessity arises even though the latter cut off relations because of his "cattle rustling" of priests and seminarians away from the CMRI in the 1990s, told me, in happier days, Your Excellency, that he found the lack of preparation of some of the CMRI priests to be "embarrassing." Bishop Pivarunas would reject that characterization, but that is apart from the point, which is that the dismissed seminarians simply made observations that have been made to numerous people by Bishop Dolan and Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada and some of the clergy associated with them. Whether the seminarians who are returning to Mater Dei Seminary this year share those observations has not been stated publicly at this time.
Do any of you "gossip" loving knuckleheads dispute what was said here?
No one has answered SJB. Is there no answer?
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb or Dolan or Cekada or Pivarunas (for examples!) says xxx and that is an error because xxxx."
Rather than: "xxxxxx lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her too much"?
Or say that xxxxx do xxxxx and it;s wrong because xxxx
Rather than calling them cult leaders or calling their chapel where Holy Mass is offered a cult centre?
People believe what they want to believe. I do not assert things that are made up. You do not believe me. You can post your mental gymnastics but you have made your conclusion and I will not change your beliefs because you doubt my motives and credibility.
You are good at baiting people into wasting tons of time with no result. I'm not sure what it does. You will have some answer but the truth is known.
I will start a new thread for me and you on this topic.
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb or Dolan or Cekada or Pivarunas (for examples!) says xxx and that is an error because xxxx."
Rather than: "xxxxxx lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her too much"?
Or say that xxxxx do xxxxx and it;s wrong because xxxx
Rather than calling them cult leaders or calling their chapel where Holy Mass is offered a cult centre?
People believe what they want to believe. I do not assert things that are made up. You do not believe me. You can post your mental gymnastics but you have made your conclusion and I will not change your beliefs because you doubt my motives and credibility.
You are good at baiting people into wasting tons of time with no result. I'm not sure what it does. You will have some answer but the truth is known.
I will start a new thread for me and you on this topic.
I deleted one where you ask questions that I don't answer.
You just like to fight. I started a new link for you to prove that Dolan and Cekeda are not a cult.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Others have a personal bias against this or that poster, say because they claim Dolan/Cekeda are cultish or said something the other person did not like in a PM.
On that note I know from experience not to believe everything that certain biased parties say about other people in PM's.
Technically precise. All are good. Even the Devil. That is Catholic theology. Why is the devil good? Because God created him and because he exists and to exist is good. But the Devil is called evil because he does evil things. In fact he does no intended good.
Try to get the gist of the message without straining a gnat. Do you get my point or did you miss it.
I think I got your point. And I was just giving you a friendly warning about some of the shenanigans that go on. No need to imply I was straining a gnat. Sheesh
This is all I will say about the cult of Dolan/Cekeda. Did I say this before? As the thread is about something else. I made the mistake of responding to the question again and the thread will go 50 pages about the allegation. :argue:
So this is the last time I'll mention it on this thread again. :roll-laugh1:
The don't listen to grievances that are legitimate. They systematically ignore legitimate complaints. They let a strange man dictate all the policies and never repremend him no matter how warranted. The bind-nonbinding policies on thier parishoners and inform them that they should not approach the altar if they go to una cuм Masses. These are facts you can believe them or not. All will be revealed on the last day or before.
Okay. I'm done with that. Respond as you will. Forever and ever. Amen.
Lot,
A few minutes ago you wrote:
"I take pride in answering all legitimate questions asked of me as when the positions are reversed and the question is not answered I take it as their not being to give an answer that suits their position and their inability to grant a legitimate point."
So how about it?
You can transfer the discussion to a new thread if you don't want to derail this thread any further. The only reason I am asking the questions in this thread is because this thread is where you made the accusations a couple times.
Lot, is this the one you deleted?
Where is your proof against the accusations?
What do you want, LOT? What would you like to see done?
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb or Dolan or Cekada or Pivarunas (for examples!) says xxx and that is an error because xxxx."
Rather than: "xxxxxx lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her too much"?
Or say that xxxxx do xxxxx and it;s wrong because xxxx
Rather than calling them cult leaders or calling their chapel where Holy Mass is offered a cult centre?
What do you want, LOT? What would you like to see done?
Why can't we all just get along? Why do non-binding opinions divide us? Why do we have an “us against them” mentality against our brothers?
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Why can't we all just get along? Why do non-binding opinions divide us? Why do we have an “us against them” mentality against our brothers?
Why are you letting your non-binding opinions divide us.
You have an “us against them” mentality against some of your brothers and you get upset when other brothers do not go along with your non-binding opinion and condemn the other brothers.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Try to condemn the purported error without condemning the person who purportedly made that error.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb or Dolan or Cekada or Pivarunas (for examples!) says xxx and that is an error because xxxx."
Rather than: "xxxxxx lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity because the uncompromised truth will cost her too much"?
Or say that xxxxx do xxxxx and it;s wrong because xxxx
Rather than calling them cult leaders or calling their chapel where Holy Mass is offered a cult centre?
Ok, you don't want to talk about Bishop Dolan or Father Cekada anyome here, so I will rephrase it.
Do you mean try saying something like: "Plumb said xxx and that is an error because xxxx."?
Rather than: "Plumb lacks intellectual honesty and in integrity [because] the uncompromised truth will cost her too much."?
I pointed out what she quoted the bishop as saying and proved to the contrary in a previous quote unless Tom D. who has first-hand knowledge of the situation is lying. Or let's say it is up for debate, and we don't know if Tom's report is correct, what would your opinion be on the topic if he was correct.
What do you think of the "us against them" mentality? Is right to have to chose Pivuranus to the exclusion of Ramolla or vice versa. Can we acknowledge the both to be good Catholics and hope for their happy reconciliation.
I guess I’m on the bad side of the SV tracks in the land of tattoos, body piercings, cussing, scary looking people who spit, smoke and drink whiskey out of a paper bag and don’t cover their mouths when they sneeze. I have to sit over here with warped individuals like Ramolla and Droleskey and look at the land of perfection which is Piruranas and Kathleen from afar because, after all, it is us against them, if you are with Ramolla and Droleskey you cannot be mentioned in a sedevacantist paper and you really are not to be trusted.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Why can't we all just get along? Why do non-binding opinions divide us? Why do we have an “us against them” mentality against our brothers?
Why are you letting your non-binding opinions divide us.
You have an “us against them” mentality against some of your brothers and you get upset when other brothers do not go along with your non-binding opinion and condemn the other brothers.
This gets back to Dolan/Cekeda. Do you deny the SSPV is wrong to refuse the Sacraments to those who go to CMRI?
Is that an invalid us against them mentality? Do you like to argue for argument sake?
Blogs seem to be a place to be vindictive rather than objective.
Okay. That is the last statement I'll make on the topic :sign-surrender:
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Why can't we all just get along? Why do non-binding opinions divide us? Why do we have an “us against them” mentality against our brothers?
Why are you letting your non-binding opinions divide us.
You have an “us against them” mentality against some of your brothers and you get upset when other brothers do not go along with your non-binding opinion and condemn the other brothers.
This gets back to Dolan/Cekeda. Do you deny the SSPV is wrong to refuse the Sacraments to those who go to CMRI?
Is that an invalid us against them mentality? Do you like to argue for argument sake?
I have seen the official SSPV policy in print and I do not agree with it.
Show us the official SGG policy please.
I have seen the official SSPV policy in print and I do not agree with it.
Show us the official SGG policy please.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Blogs seem to be a place to be vindictive rather than objective.
Okay. That is the last statement I'll make on the topic :sign-surrender:
I pray that you know I have not any bad feelings toward you whatsoever- and I apologise if anything I have said is misunderstood otherwise.
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Blogs seem to be a place to be vindictive rather than objective.
Okay. That is the last statement I'll make on the topic :sign-surrender:
I pray that you know I have not any bad feelings toward you whatsoever- and I apologise if anything I have said is misunderstood otherwise.
Quote from: Lover of TruthI guess I’m on the bad side of the SV tracks in the land of tattoos, body piercings, cussing, scary looking people who spit, smoke and drink whiskey out of a paper bag and don’t cover their mouths when they sneeze. I have to sit over here with warped individuals like Ramolla and Droleskey and look at the land of perfection which is Piruranas and Kathleen from afar because, after all, it is us against them, if you are with Ramolla and Droleskey you cannot be mentioned in a sedevacantist paper and you really are not to be trusted.
The following is not a response to you personally, but only general comments:
This is the impression I had too, when I allowed myself to be swayed by the lay agitators whom I have denounced. But it is not as simple as this.
Yes, people do have the habit of compartmentalizing things: it's human nature.
Yes, some people of bad will shall harbor prejudices against anyone whom they perceive to be "on the other side."
However, it behooves one, for the sake of charity and tranquility, to not look at everything from the point of view of "sides:" unfounded paranoia is often a real danger and obstacle for the spiritual life. And going on and on about past incidents of injustices, especially when one is not part of the affected parties, does not help things either.
If you wish for the reputation of whoever Priest or Bishop to be defended from those of ill-will, it is not expedient for you to suppose that all who put forth questions are necessarily of bad will. Furthermore, the best manner in which to help a Priest or Bishop is for you yourself to be an example of the good fruit that they have borne: that is, by exercising oneself in self-detachments and temperance of emotion, and dealing with one's fellow neighbor with charity and benignity.
Personally, I know myself too well to get embroiled in "sides:" I would just go back to my former ways of disedification and sins against peace and charity.
I haven't much to offer, LOT, but perhaps this will get us started. Even the saints disagreed, starting with Peter and Paul. In fact, God had to step in and settle that argument. It is possible for both sides to be correct from their perspective. What we need here is God's perspective, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Why can't we all just get along? Why do non-binding opinions divide us? Why do we have an “us against them” mentality against our brothers?
Why are you letting your non-binding opinions divide us.
You have an “us against them” mentality against some of your brothers and you get upset when other brothers do not go along with your non-binding opinion and condemn the other brothers.
This gets back to Dolan/Cekeda. Do you deny the SSPV is wrong to refuse the Sacraments to those who go to CMRI?
Is that an invalid us against them mentality? Do you like to argue for argument sake?
Quote from: ElizabethQuote from: Lover of Truth
Blogs seem to be a place to be vindictive rather than objective.
Okay. That is the last statement I'll make on the topic :sign-surrender:
I pray that you know I have not any bad feelings toward you whatsoever- and I apologise if anything I have said is misunderstood otherwise.
For the record Lot, I hope that you know I also do not have any bad feelings whatsoever toward you, and whether you are disposed to see it or not, due to the heat generated here; I am of good will.
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: Lover of Truth
Why can't we all just get along? Why do non-binding opinions divide us? Why do we have an “us against them” mentality against our brothers?
Why are you letting your non-binding opinions divide us.
You have an “us against them” mentality against some of your brothers and you get upset when other brothers do not go along with your non-binding opinion and condemn the other brothers.
This gets back to Dolan/Cekeda. Do you deny the SSPV is wrong to refuse the Sacraments to those who go to CMRI?
Is that an invalid us against them mentality? Do you like to argue for argument sake?
Ok is this is better:
You have an “us against them” mentality against one of your sisters and you get upset when others here do not go along with your non-binding opinion and condemn the sister.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: ElizabethQuote from: Lover of Truth
Blogs seem to be a place to be vindictive rather than objective.
Okay. That is the last statement I'll make on the topic :sign-surrender:
I pray that you know I have not any bad feelings toward you whatsoever- and I apologise if anything I have said is misunderstood otherwise.
For the record Lot, I hope that you know I also do not have any bad feelings whatsoever toward you, and whether you are disposed to see it or not, due to the heat generated here; I am of good will.
That also means alot to me RC. There is a place for your extensive questioning when you can be reasonably sure that the one you are questioning is not of good will.
If you believe them to be of good will you might want to waltz them along in the direction of what you believe to be true rather than to call them out in a way that appears to be harsh and assumes that the one you disagree with to be definitively wrong.
But your disagreeing with me meant alot because I see you as sincere. And I do applaud your defending those when you deem it warranted. I also admire a the courage of a Muslim who is willing to die for his faith if he really believes he is doing what God would want in the subjective realm. :roll-laugh2:
Seriously I do admire those traits of yours. Thanks for the post, it has made me feel better. :smile:
I don't want her condmened. I believe Pivuranus and Ramolla are on the same side, the Catholic side. Am I wrong?
LoT, you are going about this all wrong. You were hurt by Plumb and have grievances. You think you are going to change her by coming here and griping about her while she is not here to give her side? No. You are going to make people angry, and they will say you don't know their stories, but they are not here to give it.
Greivances with Bp. Pivarunas, and you think griping here is going to change him? That's like communist rabble tactics. That's not Catholic.
Feel frustrated and helpless? Why not offer up the suffering for remedy, pray, and try talk directly with the people it concerns. It has proven VERY valuable, and it is the Catholic way.
You are hurting yourself, LoT, and hurting the traditional movement by coming here and griping in public, and having all this indexed in search engines.
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: SJB
Do any of you "gossip" loving knuckleheads dispute what was said here?
No one has answered SJB. Is there no answer?
I know I haven't weighed in on this specifically because I don't know if it is true. It could be true; it could be false. I don't know. I would like to think it is false. As far as I know Droleskey could be making all of this up, but I don't like to think that Droleskey would lie about it, either. Some of this (re: 'rustling' of seminarians) he has shared with me personally; I didn't necessarily believe it then. Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada are bogey men to Droleskey.
But just because I or anyone else can't prove it is false doesn't mean it is necessarily true.
Really, the excerts from Droleskey do no shed any light on this subject. It is basically one man's (very prejudiced) opinion. He says he vets all of his articles, and shortly thereafter is repudiating what he is written. He did it with Petko; he's done it with other issues. What's to say he won't do it here?
The sad part is that Tom is probably right. The good part is the bishop is a source of much sanctifying grace in the world!
Quote from: Nome de PlumeThe sad part is that Tom is probably right. The good part is the bishop is a source of much sanctifying grace in the world!
How is that so? It is not a foregone conclusion that Tom is right. It is probably what he believes is right, I'll grant you, and I do think that he truly means well. The trouble is, he has had to recant or repudiate or revise more often than not. That's not a good track record, unfortunately.
LoT just answered that. He is correct. Making a moral call is not doctrine. (I personally don't agree with the moral call, but the underlying pastoral policy is incidentally valuable).
Quote from: GertrudetheGreatAnd RC has pointed out, they actively discourage people from reading her paper. That alone would be reason not to link to them.
Silly. If that were the case she shouldn't have SSPX links either!
On the other hand, manifestly excluding Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan from the sede scene WHILE advertizing to be mainly a sede paper, is not at all proportionate to the circuмstances. It is tantamount to a public statement, and rather schismatical.
Because she is not a Feeneyite, and you were the one bringing up about Feeneyite links.
I would like us to be on the same side. I want a good sedevacantist paper to hold Bishop Pivuranus AND Father Ramolla in high regard.
What is really strange is that I would say "moral call" and then you yourself turn it into "moral doctrines". No, I said moral call purposely, because it refers to the application of moral doctrine. The application of moral principle does not create a doctrine. And, if a "new" (novel) situation arises, the application of moral principle to it doesn't make the principle novel; it's the situation that is.
You missed the point. The SSPX does not recommend the FourMarks even more so than Bp. Dolan. So, the SSPX links are quite a contradiction in Plumb's reaction.
The definition of "schismatic" is not only separating yourself from the pope, it also is defined as separation from other Catholics. Calling one's paper "sede" while excluding Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan in a remnant Church, and linking to SSPX, is accurately schismatical.
You mentioned the "Dimond Brothers" as if you were oblivious to the fact they were Feeneyites!!
Quote from: GertrudetheGreatNo, they have not applied an old principle to a new situation. They have applied a new principle to a situation that has not changed from when they applied an old principle (and they have never retracted their old position).
Well, now, here you will have to explain what you are referring to specifically. Your two thumbs-uppers, I'm sure, could not tell, but they liked your post anyway. :rolleyes:
The SSPX are significantly heretical and schismatic
Because someone doesn't "recommend a paper" is a petty reason,
How would Gertrude know that Cupertino dislikes Mrs. Plumb?
(if the two of you have conversed privately I retract the question)
He has displayed an almost unique capacity for not understanding simple statements before now.
Quote from: GertrudetheGreatQuote from: CupertinoLoT just answered that. He is correct. Making a moral call is not doctrine. (I personally don't agree with the moral call, but the underlying pastoral policy is incidentally valuable).
How strange.
Moral doctrines are doctrines just as much as factual ones. Try and keep your approval of their novel doctrine out of the question.
What is really strange is that I would say "moral call" and then you yourself turn it into "moral doctrines". No, I said moral call purposely, because it refers to the application of moral doctrine. The application of moral principle does not create a doctrine. And, if a "new" (novel) situation arises, the application of moral principle to it doesn't make the principle novel; it's the situation that is.Quote from: GertrudetheGreatAnd RC has pointed out, they actively discourage people from reading her paper. That alone would be reason not to link to them.Quote from: CupertinoSilly. If that were the case she shouldn't have SSPX links either!Quote from: GertrudetheGreatThe SSPX ignores her, surely. And the SSPX is significant.
You missed the point. The SSPX does not recommend the FourMarks even more so than Bp. Dolan. So, the SSPX links are quite a contradiction in Plumb's reaction.Quote from: GertrudetheGreatQuote from: CupertinoOn the other hand, manifestly excluding Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan from the sede scene WHILE advertizing to be mainly a sede paper, is not at all proportionate to the circuмstances. It is tantamount to a public statement, and rather schismatical.
I agree that their position tends to schism, like the Dimond Brothers do, but it's too much to call them "rather schismatical". They're just a bit self-sufficient and superior, and it leads to a few bits of oddness here and there.
The definition of "schismatic" is not only separating yourself from the pope, it also is defined as separation from other Catholics. Calling one's paper "sede" while excluding Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan in a remnant Church, and linking to SSPX, is accurately schismatical.Quote from: GertrudetheGreatQuote from: CupertinoBecause she is not a Feeneyite, and you were the one bringing up about Feeneyite links.
I don't recall that. I seriously doubt it!
Here is the quote from you:
"And I ask again, on these principles why do you not criticise Mrs Plumb for omitting to link to the Dimond Brothers? They are sedes."
You mentioned the "Dimond Brothers" as if you were oblivious to the fact they were Feeneyites!! Not a good sign.
Quote from: Nome de PlumeDid anyone read The Four Marks article by the editor that included the defense of Bishop Pivuranus against Father Ramolla and Tom Droleskey in the November issue?
I found it interesting that the editor chose to pick a side without giving both sides of the story or interviewing Father Ramolla, Tom Droleskey, or any of the Seminarians involved. I was a little surprised and disappointed about this. I wonder if anyone complained to the editor about this.
Funny how you would join in November and not post. That is until today. And then to try and turn the guns of hate on Mrs. Plumb. Nome de Plume? Clearly you show what side you are on. I bet you are smart enough not to tip who you really are.
DivaEl, almost your entire post is absolute nonsense. I don't know if you are just desparate to get attention or what, but that was crazy. There were some parts of your posts where I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. The rest of your post is simply false and utterly absurd.
What a disgusting Post.
You might begin by addressing the Bishops and priests as they should be addressed.
If you dont have anything good to say, dont say anything at all.
:argue:
What valid points did you make in this post!
I guess because Mrs Plumb did not take your advice, now its time to bring out the claws!
Diva
androgynous troll
Quote from: SpiritusSanctusDivaEl, almost your entire post is absolute nonsense. I don't know if you are just desparate to get attention or what, but that was crazy. There were some parts of your posts where I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. The rest of your post is simply false and utterly absurd.
I'm sorry to learn that English is not your native language.
Not that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Piv-hater. In fact, the reverse is true. Despite all of the mistakes I've heard Piv has made, he strikes me as someone who is sincerely trying to do the right thing -- even if he's sometimes harsh and misguided and overreacts to criticism. (But what would you expect from someone who grew up with Schuckardt as a role model?) :king:
Quote from: DivaEl
Not that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Piv-hater. In fact, the reverse is true. Despite all of the mistakes I've heard Piv has made, he strikes me as someone who is sincerely trying to do the right thing -- even if he's sometimes harsh and misguided and overreacts to criticism. (But what would you expect from someone who grew up with Schuckardt as a role model?) :king:
Well with friends like you, Bishop Pivarunas doesn't need any ememies, does he?
Your note only sounds like a lot of sour grapes, are you sure your real name isn't Eamon?
Keep in mind the Four Marks is not the same as the L'Osservatore Romano, the Four Marks is a private publication and the editor has the right to publish, print writers of her choice, and promote her ideals, if you don't agree, don't read the publication; or better yet publish your own opinion publication. Everyone else is doing it!!!
"To blog or not, that is the question"
To blog or not to blog, that is the question.
Quote from: MyrnaMQuote from: DivaEl
Not that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Piv-hater. In fact, the reverse is true. Despite all of the mistakes I've heard Piv has made, he strikes me as someone who is sincerely trying to do the right thing -- even if he's sometimes harsh and misguided and overreacts to criticism. (But what would you expect from someone who grew up with Schuckardt as a role model?) :king:
Well with friends like you, Bishop Pivarunas doesn't need any ememies, does he?
Your note only sounds like a lot of sour grapes, are you sure your real name isn't Eamon?
Ultimately it isn't about friends.
Ultimately it is about truth. Seems like an accurate description to me. Do we want it that way? No. Should he pretend it is not so when it is? No.
I will go on record to say that Diva, despite the name and putting it under the Blessed Virgin Mary which confuses me, is right on. Sad. I hear many things in confidence and which I could just quote these people directly. But Kathleen did not interview Dolan before she wrote against him. That is a fact. Diva got that right for sure. People don't want to like her and prefer to judge her harshly, cause charity is gone and the truth hurts.
Diva, thanks for having the courage to speak the truth as you know despite knowing you would have hatred spewed at you. That took some courage.
:applause:
Nome de Plume, you are a biased provocateur, as is your husband, who is trying to present himself as unbiased party who is just after the truth. Maybe you both mean well but if that is the case, it appears you are both self-deluded, believing that you are balanced about the subjects under discussion.
Both of you appeared here recently because you are annoyed and have gripes against Plumb, and other people including some traditional clergy.
So far you two have added considerably to the substantial confusion that was already present here.
No one “spewed hatred.” Are you aware of the concept of legitimate disdain for stupidities being posted here? If you are genuine, please just forget all the hype, and cunning tactics.
If what your husband wrote recently on this forum is the calibre of what we could expect to see from him in Four Marks, then just as well he was dismissed. Of course, maybe Plumb would never allow that type of garbage in her paper any more that she would allow the garbage another one of her contributors is posting on this forum. I don’t know.
Quote from: Roman CatholicNome de Plume, you are a biased provocateur, as is your husband, who is trying to present himself as unbiased party who is just after the truth. Maybe you both mean well but if that is the case, it appears you are both self-deluded, believing that you are balanced about the subjects under discussion.
Both of you appeared here recently because you are annoyed and have gripes against Plumb, and other people including some traditional clergy.
So far you two have added considerably to the substantial confusion that was already present here.
No one “spewed hatred.” Are you aware of the concept of legitimate disdain for stupidities being posted here? If you are genuine, please just forget all the hype, and cunning tactics.
If what your husband wrote recently on this forum is the calibre of what we could expect to see from him in Four Marks, then just as well he was dismissed. Of course, maybe Plumb would never allow that type of garbage in her paper any more that she would allow the garbage another one of her contributors is posting on this forum. I don’t know.
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
Diva, thanks for having the courage to speak the truth as you know despite knowing you would have hatred spewed at you. That took some courage.
:applause:
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicNome de Plume, you are a biased provocateur, as is your husband, who is trying to present himself as unbiased party who is just after the truth. Maybe you both mean well but if that is the case, it appears you are both self-deluded, believing that you are balanced about the subjects under discussion.
Both of you appeared here recently because you are annoyed and have gripes against Plumb, and other people including some traditional clergy.
So far you two have added considerably to the substantial confusion that was already present here.
No one “spewed hatred.” Are you aware of the concept of legitimate disdain for stupidities being posted here? If you are genuine, please just forget all the hype, and cunning tactics.
If what your husband wrote recently on this forum is the calibre of what we could expect to see from him in Four Marks, then just as well he was dismissed. Of course, maybe Plumb would never allow that type of garbage in her paper any more that she would allow the garbage another one of her contributors is posting on this forum. I don’t know.
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
Robert, I am discussing what has been posted here for all to see.
I am not naming traditional clergy and accusing them of being sodomites like you do, or accusing them of grand theft, or being cult leaders, or inveterate liars, etc. etc. while hiding behind the 3 letters: SJB.
Do you see the difference Robert? I am confident that good-willed people will recognize the difference at once.
Are you prepared to man up and stop making your anonymous allegations against the clergy, accusing them of depravity and serious sins?
What do you say Robert?
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicNome de Plume, you are a biased provocateur, as is your husband, who is trying to present himself as unbiased party who is just after the truth. Maybe you both mean well but if that is the case, it appears you are both self-deluded, believing that you are balanced about the subjects under discussion.
Both of you appeared here recently because you are annoyed and have gripes against Plumb, and other people including some traditional clergy.
So far you two have added considerably to the substantial confusion that was already present here.
No one “spewed hatred.” Are you aware of the concept of legitimate disdain for stupidities being posted here? If you are genuine, please just forget all the hype, and cunning tactics.
If what your husband wrote recently on this forum is the calibre of what we could expect to see from him in Four Marks, then just as well he was dismissed. Of course, maybe Plumb would never allow that type of garbage in her paper any more that she would allow the garbage another one of her contributors is posting on this forum. I don’t know.
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
Robert, I am discussing what has been posted here for all to see.
I am not naming traditional clergy and accusing them of being sodomites like you do, or accusing them of grand theft, or being cult leaders, or inveterate liars, etc. etc. while hiding behind the 3 letters: SJB.
Do you see the difference Robert? I am confident that good-willed people will recognize the difference at once.
Are you prepared to man up and stop making your anonymous allegations against the clergy, accusing them of depravity and serious sins?
What do you say Robert?
Joe, I understand this is your new angle or strategy.
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
Quote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Quote from: ElizabethQuote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Because he doesn't argue with those who make strange convoluted posts like Diva's. He argues against those who don't accept all the anonymous accusations he makes here.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: ElizabethQuote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Because he doesn't argue with those who make strange convoluted posts like Diva's. He argues against those who don't accept all the anonymous accusations he makes here.
I don't "argue" with quite a few rather strange posters here. If your cabal thinks I'm one of those, then just ignore me.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: ElizabethQuote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Because he doesn't argue with those who make strange convoluted posts like Diva's. He argues against those who don't accept all the anonymous accusations he makes here.
I don't "argue" with quite a few rather strange posters here. If your cabal thinks I'm one of those, then just ignore me.
No you mainly reserve your arguments for those who oppose your campaign of anonymous accusations against the clergy whom you despise.
I am not in a cabal Robert or part of any organised campaign like you or your buddies at Pistrina etc.
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: ElizabethQuote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Because he doesn't argue with those who make strange convoluted posts like Diva's. He argues against those who don't accept all the anonymous accusations he makes here.
I don't "argue" with quite a few rather strange posters here. If your cabal thinks I'm one of those, then just ignore me.
No you mainly reserve your arguments for those who oppose your campaign of anonymous accusations against the clergy whom you despise.
I am not in a cabal Robert or part of any organised campaign like you or your buddies at Pistrina etc.
I think you are.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: ElizabethQuote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Because he doesn't argue with those who make strange convoluted posts like Diva's. He argues against those who don't accept all the anonymous accusations he makes here.
I don't "argue" with quite a few rather strange posters here. If your cabal thinks I'm one of those, then just ignore me.
No you mainly reserve your arguments for those who oppose your campaign of anonymous accusations against the clergy whom you despise.
I am not in a cabal Robert or part of any organised campaign like you or your buddies at Pistrina etc.
I think you are.
Well that would be your problem not mine. I am not a liar.
You are obsessed Robert. I understand that you seem to feel grieved, and seem to think you have some sort of legitimate case. (Aside from your sodomite accusations.)
Are you prepared to stop the anonymous accusations and own up to who you are and to your alliances and associations in your campaign against the clergy?
LOL. Robert, you are so unoriginal.
LOL. Robert, you are so unoriginal.
But more importantly, what exactly are you trying to achieve here by your continual anonymous accusations against the clergy?
And much more importantly, are you prepared to remove your cloak of anonymity in order to make some real headway?
Quote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: SJBQuote from: Roman CatholicQuote from: ElizabethQuote from: SJB
Mr. Anonymous Roman Catholic, why do you make these accusations and judgments? Or is this just "legitimate disdain for stupidities?" Or are you just a "self-deluded" and "biased provocateur?"
meow
why not ask your Diva the same questions?
Because he doesn't argue with those who make strange convoluted posts like Diva's. He argues against those who don't accept all the anonymous accusations he makes here.
I don't "argue" with quite a few rather strange posters here. If your cabal thinks I'm one of those, then just ignore me.
No you mainly reserve your arguments for those who oppose your campaign of anonymous accusations against the clergy whom you despise.
I am not in a cabal Robert or part of any organised campaign like you or your buddies at Pistrina etc.
I think you are.
Pathetic, desperate mewling. You know full well that RC is not involved in
Mater Dei Watch
The Purification
RC-Corner
PistrinaLiturgica
LayPopes
Vipers of Vaudeville Watch
Christ or Chaos
nor has he had anything whatsoever to do with what you people have done.
QuotePathetic, desperate mewling. You know full well that RC is not involved in
Mater Dei Watch
The Purification
RC-Corner
PistrinaLiturgica
LayPopes
Vipers of Vaudeville Watch
Christ or Chaos
nor has he had anything whatsoever to do with what you people have done.
Do we know for sure all those sites or bad or are you not saying they are?
Quote from: AMDGQuotePathetic, desperate mewling. You know full well that RC is not involved in
Mater Dei Watch
The Purification
RC-Corner
PistrinaLiturgica
LayPopes
Vipers of Vaudeville Watch
Christ or Chaos
nor has he had anything whatsoever to do with what you people have done.
Do we know for sure all those sites or bad or are you not saying they are?
I haven't any of them except Droleskey's site, but from the various data emerging from the same sources elsewhere it is easy to decide that they ought not to be consulted.
Why is that? Can you save me some time?
QuotePathetic, desperate mewling. You know full well that RC is not involved in
Mater Dei Watch
The Purification
RC-Corner
PistrinaLiturgica
LayPopes
Vipers of Vaudeville Watch
Christ or Chaos
nor has he had anything whatsoever to do with what you people have done.
Do we know for sure all those sites or bad or are you not saying they are?
Quote from: AMDGQuotePathetic, desperate mewling. You know full well that RC is not involved in
Mater Dei Watch
The Purification
RC-Corner
PistrinaLiturgica
LayPopes
Vipers of Vaudeville Watch
Christ or Chaos
nor has he had anything whatsoever to do with what you people have done.
Do we know for sure all those sites or bad or are you not saying they are?
I am emphatically stating that these sites are utterly disgraceful.
Start with Vipers of Vaudeville. SJB is involved with that and he was on the members list of RC-Corner.
Those who support and contribute to to calumnies and gossip post here, and not one of them have the integrity to sign their names to the filth.
Quote from: AMDGQuotePathetic, desperate mewling. You know full well that RC is not involved in
Mater Dei Watch
The Purification
RC-Corner
PistrinaLiturgica
LayPopes
Vipers of Vaudeville Watch
Christ or Chaos
nor has he had anything whatsoever to do with what you people have done.
Do we know for sure all those sites or bad or are you not saying they are?
I am emphatically stating that these sites are utterly disgraceful.
Start with Vipers of Vaudeville. SJB is involved with that and he was on the members list of RC-Corner.
Those who support and contribute to to calumnies and gossip post here, and not one of them have the integrity to sign their names to the filth.
I am wrong to lump Christ or Chaos with the other websites. Droleskey's purpose in his mission was clearly NOT hatred of clergy and seminarians.
The others are in a category of their own.
AMDG would you go back to regular type. Bold is usually reserved for shouting. I will try to help you here since you are too new to receive pms. The MO for SJB and those of his group is to attack and then when confronted to disappear like a puff of smoke. You don't have to believe me.....you can read it in old threads or just hang around and watch it happen. One old thread that really shows it is the Litmus Test in the Resistence fora. This got old early on but we have been enduring it for two years. Right now we are pretty raw from it all. Unfortunately you showed up in the middle of a veritable blitz of these trolls. Good luck.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: TrinityAMDG would you go back to regular type. Bold is usually reserved for shouting. I will try to help you here since you are too new to receive pms. The MO for SJB and those of his group is to attack and then when confronted to disappear like a puff of smoke. You don't have to believe me.....you can read it in old threads or just hang around and watch it happen. One old thread that really shows it is the Litmus Test in the Resistence fora. This got old early on but we have been enduring it for two years. Right now we are pretty raw from it all. Unfortunately you showed up in the middle of a veritable blitz of these trolls. Good luck.
I think Cupertino abandoned that thread. It also was the disappearance of skifast/gunfighter.
Well, I could only ride your merry-go-round for so long!
I asked you once if you were concerned about the bishop's lack of response and you didn't answer me, LOT. But now it seems that you are upset about his actions, particularly cancelling the visas. I have no idea why he did that. If it was me it would be spite, but this is the bishop who advised me to forgive when I had the makings of a lawsuit against a medical entity. You know Ramolla and Drolesky. I know Bishop Pivarunas. You are incensed over a perceived injustice. I think there is possibly another explanation.
Let's do the Catholic two step and see if there is another direction this could be taken. In the first place we are supposed to think the best of others. In the second place His Excellency has earned our good opinion. Again, in the first place it is a sin to be so thin skinned and in the second place this man has a job to do and it's not soothing ruffled feathers. Come judgment day is he to explain to God that he was too busy satisfying various sensibilities to do his job? That would go over like a lead balloon.
Perhaps the bishop acted as a human rather than a saint in this case. None of us are privy to his thoughts so it can neither be proved or disproved and no one but the bishop knows the truth of that one. You have your opinion and the best you can get from us is our opinion. His excellency has earned our regard for him and your sojourn here seems to be an attempt to destroy that regard. If I'm wrong, then tell us what it really is you wish to accomplish.
I suppose revoking visas without notifying those who will be deported can be excused away as well.
Bishop Pivuranus revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite? Great! Wonderful!
Roman Catholic said:
We have Nome de Plume telling LOT to just tell us what happened, when he/she is the one who started this thread, and mentioned an "article" of the editor of Four Marks!
Nome de Plume should explain.
Funny how he/she joined up and then less than a day later the long-absent LOT re-appears to post here!
Just a coincidence?
Of course not. Giving LoT the benefit of the doubt, I'll go with the theory that NdP is his wife. Whatever the case, they post from the same place.
I'm posting the article in question again for those who missed it to point out how incorrect it is to suggest that this would constitute a "taking of sides" by The Four Marks.
Mr. Gregory (aka LOT, NDP, AMDG), please refrain from having conversations with yourself.
I'm all for extending the benefit of the doubt, but I just saw in another thread where one is asking for a PM from the other despite the fact that they are in the same physical location.
And Kastil, I asked you to not sign up for sock-puppet accounts anymore.
I helped you out by changing your "kastil" posts to Lover of Truth (you) just like I did with your other 2 sock-puppet accounts.
Don't do it again.
AMDG and Nome de Plume have been banned for being duplicate accounts.
They are both "Lover of Truth".
Frankly, Lover of Truth is lucky I don't ban all THREE accounts. Holding multiple accounts is against the rules, after all.
I have modified all posts of the 2 banned accounts to reflect the TRUE authorship of the posts -- in the interests of truth.
I think Bishop P is a very good Bishop and perhaps the best thing that has happened to the traditional movement overall.
In favor of Bp. Pivarunas....I remember Fr. Cekada (or someone close to him) mentioning that reporting to the government that some foreign student is no longer associated with one's educational institution is a moral obligation itself which could have bad ramifications for the educational institution if not done, especially with all the hype about terrorism and homeland security. One's obligation to his own institution comes first. I gather that Bp. Pivarunas was not all that fond of the idea of Fr. Ramolla having a seminary in the first place, so just that alone is sufficient reason for him not to go above & beyond the call of duty to cooperate to get those seminarians quickly transitioned.
Sede Catholic,
Do you really want me to rehash on this site all that Tom wrote about the Bishop?
Bishop Pivuranus revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite? Great! Wonderful!
AMDG and Nome de Plume have been banned for being duplicate accounts.
They are both "Lover of Truth".
Frankly, Lover of Truth is lucky I don't ban all THREE accounts. Holding multiple accounts is against the rules, after all.
I have modified all posts of the 2 banned accounts to reflect the TRUE authorship of the posts -- in the interests of truth.
I'm posting the article in question again for those who missed it to point out how incorrect it is to suggest that this would constitute a "taking of sides" by The Four Marks.
Bishop Pivarunas had not revoked their visas. A Bishop cannot revoke visas. Only the government can revoke visas.
QuoteBishop Pivarunas had not revoked their visas. A Bishop cannot revoke visas. Only the government can revoke visas.
This is true, yet it does not help explain the situation at all. Would you like to tell us what happened and how you know what happened?
Bishop Pivuranus revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite? Great! Wonderful!
AMDG and Nome de Plume have been banned for being duplicate accounts.
They are both "Lover of Truth".
Frankly, Lover of Truth is lucky I don't ban all THREE accounts. Holding multiple accounts is against the rules, after all.
I have modified all posts of the 2 banned accounts to reflect the TRUE authorship of the posts -- in the interests of truth.
I'm posting the article in question again for those who missed it to point out how incorrect it is to suggest that this would constitute a "taking of sides" by The Four Marks.
QuoteBishop Pivarunas had not revoked their visas. A Bishop cannot revoke visas. Only the government can revoke visas.
This is true, yet it does not help explain the situation at all. Would you like to tell us what happened and how you know what happened?
Sede,
I'm trying to remember. Are you a man or a woman.
I am a traditional Catholic layman.
Also if I find out Tom D. lied about B.P. I will act accordingly. But guess what. Tom didn't lie.
Sede,
I'm trying to remember. Are you a man or a woman. You seem very emotional.
...
I am a traditional Catholic layman.
Bishop Pivarunas had not revoked their visas. A Bishop cannot revoke visas. Only the government can revoke visas.
Sede,
You seem very emotional...
Perhaps you should pray for a stronger faith...
If his digestive system can handle 10 lbs of humble pie -- which will be necessary if he is to face the membership here in the future -- he's welcome to stay with his ONE account.
Quote from: SJBQuoteBishop Pivarunas had not revoked their visas. A Bishop cannot revoke visas. Only the government can revoke visas.
This is true, yet it does not help explain the situation at all. Would you like to tell us what happened and how you know what happened?
The Bishop has already answered this on the CMRI Website.
First of all - Bishop Pivarunas is extremely busy. He delegates a lot of the issues to do with the School and the Seminary. Father Gronenthal is the Mater Dei Academy principal and both he and Father Gregory teach both at the School and the Seminary.
The Seminarians in question chose to leave Mater Dei Academy. Each had their own reason as explained in Bishop Pivarunas Letter.
As for the Visas - Since we have foreign students that attend the Seminary - CMRI has always been upfront with the various government agencies so as to maintain good relations with them. If CMRI had chosen to tell the government that the seminarians in question still attend the Seminary when in fact that wasnt the case - then not only would that be dishonest - but it would likewise be risking the good reputation that CMRI has built with the government that may jeaopardize future foreign seminarians from entering the seminary. Those Seminarians who chose to leave jeopardized their own student visas by leaving.
As for Dr Droleskey - In my view he simply gets caught up in the drama , if not here in this instance with CMRI then at "St Gertude the Great" before that - or with Bishop Petko for than against or With Bishop Slupski - or Attacking Father Cekada or Bishop Dolan - supporting Father Ramolla (At least today) when does it all end ? IMO the best course of action I have taken in regard to Dr Droleski is to merely read some of his expose's on the Novus Ordo and to largely ignore anything he has to say regarding Tradition. I have never been a fan of soap operas.
Pax
Sede Catholic,
Do you really want me to rehash on this site all that Tom wrote about the Bishop?Quote
I think Bishop P is a very good Bishop and perhaps the best thing that has happened to the traditional movement overall.
Did you overlook the above quote from me?
I am more than glad to discuss the issue privately unless you want to rehash it all again publicly.
First calm down so you want say anything more that you would regret. I'm here to talk anytime. It seems there is something below the surface that is really bothering you. I will talk with you anytime.
May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John
Didnt finish the above post.
John, we dont want you to rehash anything! We just want you to go away. You are a "muckraker"
Quote from: Sede CatholicQuote from: Lover of TruthSede,
I'm trying to remember. Are you a man or a woman.
In the my post, which immediately preceeds yours, I say:QuoteI am a traditional Catholic layman.
I think LoT shouldn't be concerned about gender. However, the word "layman" can include either gender. That is traditional.
Quote from: Lover of TruthAlso if I find out Tom D. lied about B.P. I will act accordingly. But guess what. Tom didn't lie.
If what Tom Droleskey wrote about Bishop Pivarunas was true, then why has Droleskey published a retraction and
an apology ?
He has been accused of revoking visas which is ridiculous, because only the government can revoke visas
"As for the Visas - Since we have foreign students that attend the Seminary - CMRI has always been upfront with the various government agencies so as to maintain good relations with them. If CMRI had chosen to tell the government that the seminarians in question still attend the Seminary when in fact that wasnt the case - then not only would that be dishonest - but it would likewise be risking the good reputation that CMRI has built with the government that may jeaopardize future foreign seminarians from entering the seminary. Those Seminarians who chose to leave jeopardized their own student visas by leaving."
"Father Ramolla had asked Bishop Pivarunas in a letter sent late last month to transfer the European seminarians to Saint Athanasius Seminary until their new visas had been approved, thus sparing them the expense of having to return to Europe unexpectedly. It is a common practice for administrators of educational institutions to issue such transfers when foreign students leave one school to study at another. His Excellency, who had told the mother of one seminarian and others, including Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI, that he would not "touch" the visas, saw this request, made very respectfully by Father Ramolla, as an invitation to "lie to the government."
It was shortly after this that the visas were lifted, noting that there was a phone call made to Bishop Pivarunas by a traditional priest who has a bit of experience in lifting visas and pursuing deportation cases. We will know on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead if there was any cause and effect between his phone call and the decision by Bishop Pivarunas, who never once telephoned Father Ramolla or the seminarians concerned to discuss the matter. Bishop Pivarunas simply proceeded to cancel the students' visas without notifying the seminarians, who had to find out about the matter when they wrote to him. The seminarians received a short e-mail from Sister Jacinta, Bishop Pivarunas's secretary, informing them that the visas had been canceled. Thus it was that both had to leave the country while their new student visas are being processed. This was unnecessary. This was vindictive. It was petty.
...I doubt anyone said he revoked a visa...
I suppose revoking visas without notifying those who will be deported can be excused away as well.
Bishop Pivuranus revoked the visas of his seminarians for spite? Great! Wonderful!
It is up to the Bishop to report or not report to the Government that so and so is still with a religious institution or not.
In effect Bishop P. revoked the visa if what Tom writes is true.
And Kastil, I asked you to not sign up for sock-puppet accounts anymore.
I helped you out by changing your "kastil" posts to Lover of Truth (you) just like I did with your other 2 sock-puppet accounts.
Don't do it again.
Matthew said:
And Kastil, I asked you to not sign up for sock-puppet accounts anymore.
I helped you out by changing your "kastil" posts to Lover of Truth (you) just like I did with your other 2 sock-puppet accounts.
Don't do it again.
I sincerely did not see you make that request. Can you show it to me?
Also, you do not let me log on as Lover of Truth at my computers. So I am in effect banned as well.
Does presenting SV arguments that you cannot refute have anything at all to do with it?
The above warning is the first I have seen from you public or private.
Will you let me use my computers to log on as "Lover of Truth" again. Then ban me if you see others use my computer under a different name, now that I have been warned not to do it.
You can write me at sedevacantistpauliv@gmail.com.
You are very quick with the banning.
I don't have to explicitly ask you "Please stop using sock-puppet accounts."
1. It's in the Forum Rules.
2. I publicly banned your other 2 sock-puppet accounts, and converted the posts of those accounts to your main account, "Lover of Truth"
That's about as close to a formal request to cease-and-desist with the sock-puppet accounts as you can get.
If you really "love the truth", you wouldn't be creating sock-puppet accounts. Isn't a sock-puppet account inherently deceitful? As some members already pointed out, it's already cost you quite a chunk of your credibility.
And since you bring up "the Cause" (sedevacantism) I can only say that you're not helping the Sede cause by your behavior either. To many readers of CathInfo, you're the latest character tossed onto a large heap of dodgy characters holding to the Sede thesis.
Lover of Truth said:
Also, you do not let me log on as Lover of Truth at my computers. So I am in effect banned as well.
Will you let me use my computers to log on as "Lover of Truth" again. Then ban me if you see others use my computer under a different name, now that I have been warned not to do it.
You are sorely mistaken -- to the point of your excuse being B.S.
If you really had an issue with logging in, you would have e-mailed me (using the public link at the bottom of every forum page, at the very least) with your dilemma.
Dozens of other members have done so when they've had login difficulties.
And no, your Lover of Truth account is not banned or blocked in any way. If you forget your password, you can reset it using the software itself. If that doesn't work for some reason, you e-mail me.
And you certainly don't need multiple accounts to replace the one you supposedly can't log in with. :wink:
You are sorely mistaken -- to the point of your excuse being B.S.
Is this how you feel about me Sede? Did you look up to me and get disappointed?
It is up to the Bishop to report or not report to the Government that so and so is still with a religious institution or not. In effect Bishop P. revoked the visa if what Tom writes is true.
Quote from: Lover of TruthIt is up to the Bishop to report or not report to the Government that so and so is still with a religious institution or not. In effect Bishop P. revoked the visa if what Tom writes is true.
I don't think it is fair to criticize Bishop Pivarunas on this point, and I think Dr. Droleskey was wrong to do so.
CMRI over the years had problems on and off getting visas for foreign clergy, and one of their priests, Fr. Gilchrist, even had to go back to New Zealand. It is understandable that Bp. Pivarunas would want to be very careful in dealing with the immigration service. Why should he risk good relations with a federal agency that could cause him a lot of future problems, especially for the sake of some ex-seminarians who caused him problems?
And who here knows enough about immigration law anyway to say anything about it one way or another? It was Bp. Pivarunas's business to handle it as saw fit because he (not Dr. Droleskey or anyone here) would suffer the consequences of a bad decision.
But you wanted to ruin my reputation by repeatedly speaking ill and misrepresenting my actions.
You seem highly scandalized. Perhaps you should pray for a stronger faith.
These are facts. I wish they weren’t true. People will believe what they want to believe. I have stated my case. You bring it up again and add Bishop Pivuranus into the mix. You do this not so much to defend him but to publicly slam me. This too is obvious by your constantly rehashing the various names posted from my computers; which does not seem that bad to me even now. I wanted to get people’s opinion when they were not talking against me. It wasn’t some evil plot.
Lover of Truth said:QuoteThese are facts. I wish they weren’t true. People will believe what they want to believe. I have stated my case. You bring it up again and add Bishop Pivuranus into the mix. You do this not so much to defend him but to publicly slam me. This too is obvious by your constantly rehashing the various names posted from my computers; which does not seem that bad to me even now. I wanted to get people’s opinion when they were not talking against me. It wasn’t some evil plot.
Then your sense of morality is seriously lacking. You talked to yourself and tried to create an impression that people were agreeing with you, this approach is dishonest, especially on a small site like this where a gang of two or three can have a lot of influence. Luckily, you were very bad at it. I remember just thinking it was your wife and that she had the same style as you.
Quote from: Droleskey, a few months ago,Bishop Pivarunas simply proceeded to cancel the students' visas without notifying the seminarians, who had to find out about the matter when they wrote to him. The seminarians received a short e-mail from Sister Jacinta, Bishop Pivarunas's secretary, informing them that the visas had been canceled. Thus it was that both had to leave the country while their new student visas are being processed. This was unnecessary. This was vindictive. It was petty.
LoT posted Droleskey at-length again, which is why I am quoting this. I thought I would give it another careful read. I have already given my opinion about Bp. Pivarunas and the visas (click on the link, below (http://HTTP://WWW.CATHINFO.COM/?a=search&id=1852&min=0&num=578), in my signature to more quickly find it). After reading this carefully.... I haven't changed my opinion; I am even more convinced that Bp. Pivarunas acted very prudently. So much so that I would even say what he did was a "no-brainer".
Put yourself in his shoes. His Excellency has a well-established seminary, often dealing with the government red tape (at least indirectly) for foreign students, and knowing full well that the gov't is not at all Catholic-friendly, and some would say downright Masonic. The government is like a bully, and the slightest spark could shut down his seminary, or at least disallow or make difficult & expensive any foreign vocations. Let's add the atmosphere of foreign terrorist-hysteria. Then we add to it that some young, green, seminarians criticized the formation at his seminary, which effectively criticizes the training of ALL the CMRI priests. As well, they plan to go to Fr. Ramolla to "start" a seminary....Fr. Ramolla who has proven example of his public criticisms of other seminaries and well as airing out private matters publicly. His Excellency knows that it would be an instant red flag to the government to see him go out of his way to vouch for foreign students to a seminary that doesn't really exist but is just starting up.
His Excellency made an easy and excellent decision.
LoT posted Droleskey at-length again, which is why I am quoting this. I thought I would give it another careful read. I have already given my opinion about Bp. Pivarunas and the visas (click on the link, below (http://HTTP://WWW.CATHINFO.COM/?a=search&id=1852&min=0&num=578), in my signature to more quickly find it). After reading this carefully.... I haven't changed my opinion; I am even more convinced that Bp. Pivarunas acted very prudently.
His Excellency knows that it would be an instant red flag to the government to see him go out of his way to vouch for foreign students to a seminary that doesn't really exist but is just starting up.
His Excellency made an easy and excellent decision.
Mr Gregory,
It might be a good idea for you to SHUT YOUR MOUTH and quit airing dirty laundry.
The devil works in trad groups to create misunderstanding and division.
My suggestion to you during this Lenten season is:
Recite the Peace Prayer of St Francis several times a day.
2: Meditate on Christ's Passion. Recall how he was calumniated.
Under no circuмstances should anyone publicly slander the clergy. What you have to say is nothing but a rehash of gripes people have. It will only do one thing; scandalize newcomers and New Catholics who come on here. Will it accomplish anything else? Create further division, and bolster your importance as a messenger (muckraker).
I guess you thought you were an important layman. You might have been in the past.....but not any longer. The trad community is small. Once you are discredited as a writer, you are finished! Learn to accept that, and do severe penance for your sins!
Mr Gregory,
... What you have to say is nothing but a rehash of gripes people have. It will only do one thing; scandalize newcomers and New Catholics who come on here. Will it accomplish anything else? Create further division, and bolster your importance as a messenger (muckraker).
I guess you thought you were an important layman... Once you are discredited as a writer, you are finished! Learn to accept that, and do severe penance for your sins!
You are nailing Our Lord again to the Cross, pretending to be Catholic ... acting pagan like.
It is a mortal sin to make false accusations against a traditional Catholic Bishop.
Dear Roscoe,
in answer to your second question:
Unfortunately I do not know if that would be a sin or not.
God Bless you
You are to be commended for your abstinence from the mj
I did not want to confuse the matter about the Bishop by going into something else, which sounded quite complicated.
With all due respect, in past years many laity referred to their living saints as being holy, and your right Bishop Pivarunas would certainly object to being called holy.
Yet, by the fact that he is doing the Will of God, makes him holy as we all should strive for.
It is hard for those of you who do not know Bishop to understand how we who do know him object to those who accuse him falsely and just on hear say.
There are many enemies of the Traditional Catholic church that jump for joy when someone says something evil about another religious these days. They want so much to believe the worse, and it is not only CMRI, or sedevacantist religious, it is SSPX and independents as well. We as Catholics must not believe everything we hear about the religious. Especially when you hear it from Eamon and his ilk, they are out to get everyone who is good.
Yes, these religious make their mistakes, not in Faith and Morals, in that sense, but we are all weak and are victims of original sin. None of us are perfect as the Virgin Mary was perfect, without sin.
These religious go to Confession just as we all do, or should do.
in past years many laity referred to their living saints as being holy
Yes, these religious make their mistakes, not in Faith and Morals, in that sense, but we are all weak and are victims of original sin. None of us are perfect as the Virgin Mary was perfect, without sin.
We as Catholics must not believe everything we hear about the religious. Especially when you hear it from Eamon and his ilk, they are out to get everyone who is good.
Quote from: MyrnaMWe as Catholics must not believe everything we hear about the religious. Especially when you hear it from Eamon and his ilk, they are out to get everyone who is good.
Myrna, I agree that we shouldn't believe everything we hear. This does not mean we can't believe what we see with our own eyes. I don't think anybody is " out to get everyone who is good" anymore than you are out to defend everyone who is not good. You and yours have no problem saying the nastiest things about others, and nobody ever calls you on it.
It seems that Myrna has forgotten Jesus.
This is the kind of thing that gives Prots ammunition: IOW it gives the false impression that Catholics put Mary above Jesus.
Myrna(and all females) are not to meddle in Theological matters and she continues to demonstrate why.
Talk about nasty, have you ever read what Eamon says to people here who disagree with him, talk about nasty. Maybe you should review his notes here during his last days on cathinfo.
He has discredited himself, and too bad because he is very intelligent, and can really be a great help these days, instead of a hindrance. He has in the past made some very good points, till that thread about Bishop Pivarunas came up.
Quote from: MyrnaMTalk about nasty, have you ever read what Eamon says to people here who disagree with him, talk about nasty. Maybe you should review his notes here during his last days on cathinfo.
He has discredited himself, and too bad because he is very intelligent, and can really be a great help these days, instead of a hindrance. He has in the past made some very good points, till that thread about Bishop Pivarunas came up.
Myrna, you are including me in the "ilk" comment. What precisely have I said that could be construed as an attack on Bp. Pivarunas? Please quote the offensive comments.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: MyrnaMTalk about nasty, have you ever read what Eamon says to people here who disagree with him, talk about nasty. Maybe you should review his notes here during his last days on cathinfo.
He has discredited himself, and too bad because he is very intelligent, and can really be a great help these days, instead of a hindrance. He has in the past made some very good points, till that thread about Bishop Pivarunas came up.
Myrna, you are including me in the "ilk" comment. What precisely have I said that could be construed as an attack on Bp. Pivarunas? Please quote the offensive comments.
Sounds like you have a guilty conscience, if your so concerned you go back and read the thread.
With all due respect, in past years many laity referred to their living saints as being holy, and your right Bishop Pivarunas would certainly object to being called holy.
Yet, by the fact that he is doing the Will of God, makes him holy as we all should strive for.
It is hard for those of you who do not know Bishop to understand how we who do know him object to those who accuse him falsely and just on hear say.
There are many enemies of the Traditional Catholic church that jump for joy when someone says something evil about another religious these days. They want so much to believe the worse, and it is not only CMRI, or sedevacantist religious, it is SSPX and independents as well. We as Catholics must not believe everything we hear about the religious. Especially when you hear it from Eamon and his ilk, they are out to get everyone who is good.
Yes, these religious make their mistakes, not in Faith and Morals, in that sense, but we are all weak and are victims of original sin. None of us are perfect as the Virgin Mary was perfect, without sin.
These religious go to Confession just as we all do, or should do.
Quote from: SJB, to Myrna,You made an accusation and I'm asking you to substantiate it.
I have also asked you more than once to substantiate your accusation that a certain couple of traditional Catholic clergy men are sodomites.
Do you, SJB, have a standard for all others, and another standard exclusively for yourself? What word do you think would define that?
I won't say if he does or not, but that often happens when someone becomes agenda-driven. They become cultish, like Scientologists. Their whole job is maintaining their own reputations, and smearing those who threaten them.
Quote from: raoul76I won't say if he does or not, but that often happens when someone becomes agenda-driven. They become cultish, like Scientologists. Their whole job is maintaining their own reputations, and smearing those who threaten them.
Well, I haven't smeared Myrna, I only asked her to quote the offensive passages where I've attacked Bp. Pivarunas. She is saying this happened on a thread on this forum, so I'm asking her to prove it. She has previously included me in the "Eamon and his ilk" and hasn't denied this, only said she never used my name.
Quote from: SJBSo rawhide/bazz/nonno/Cupertino, do you have one standard for me and one for Myrna?
Nice attempts. I am Cupertino. Should I call you something else here beside SJB? I don't know what you are talking about in regard to Myrna and standards, but since we, as humans, cannot talk about two things simultaneously, first things first...without evasion. Please substantiate your despicable charge against those two traditional Catholic clergy men, if you truly hold to the principle that one must substantiate an accusation.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: raoul76I won't say if he does or not, but that often happens when someone becomes agenda-driven. They become cultish, like Scientologists. Their whole job is maintaining their own reputations, and smearing those who threaten them.
Well, I haven't smeared Myrna, I only asked her to quote the offensive passages where I've attacked Bp. Pivarunas. She is saying this happened on a thread on this forum, so I'm asking her to prove it. She has previously included me in the "Eamon and his ilk" and hasn't denied this, only said she never used my name.
How can I include you, if I haven't use your name!
I am beginning to believe that you SJB are really roscoe! :stare:
Look at Tele's behavior on this site. He is fanatically sensitive to his own reputation. Even if you say something that's true, he will call you a liar. Yet he calls me a drunk and a liar constantly. He knows nothing about my drinking habits; all he knows is I collect French wine. Yet that is enough for him to call me a drunk.
Quote from: MyrnaMQuote from: SJBQuote from: raoul76I won't say if he does or not, but that often happens when someone becomes agenda-driven. They become cultish, like Scientologists. Their whole job is maintaining their own reputations, and smearing those who threaten them.
Well, I haven't smeared Myrna, I only asked her to quote the offensive passages where I've attacked Bp. Pivarunas. She is saying this happened on a thread on this forum, so I'm asking her to prove it. She has previously included me in the "Eamon and his ilk" and hasn't denied this, only said she never used my name.
How can I include you, if I haven't use your name!
Are you confirming then you are not including me?
I am beginning to believe that you SJB are really roscoe! :stare:
The thought never crossed my mind that you would, but I'm glad for the support :)
Father Dominic did take me down to one glass of wine per day. I have an obsessive nature and there was danger there. I had built up a giant wine collection in six months, just like before that I had to collect every single Catholic CD practically. I think I am a "hoarder." I am very curious, whenever I develop a passion I have to know everything there is to know about that subject. Now why can't I turn that obsessive nature to God? It will help now that I am moving to be near church and can go every day they have Mass.
Quote from: SJBSo you have no answer Myrna?
Myrna, why answer him at all since SJB repeatedly and flagrantly evades answering pertinent and direct questions. If he complains in the least, you know he has a double standard.
Did you sell your house? Good move to be near mass.
Quote from: CupertinoQuote from: SJBSo you have no answer Myrna?Myrna, why answer him at all since SJB repeatedly and flagrantly evades answering pertinent and direct questions. If he complains in the least, you know he has a double standard.Quote from: SJBThis is proof of your double standard.
Ah, now you need to "substantiate" this new accusation, SJB!
You plan on moving to France, Raoul?
I was disappointed in the actions of Pivuranus when I read Tom's article on the subject and I do not doubt the veracity of what Tom wrote.
WOW! I CAN SEE WHY CHAIR CATHOLIC WENT INTO VIOLENT CONVULSION OVER THE WHOLE THING. HIS REACTION WOULD BE AKIN TO JESUS KNOCKING OVER ALL THE TABLES IN THE TEMPLE, PICKING THEM UP AND KNOCKING THEM DOWN AGAIN, AND REPEATING THAT ACTION 50 OR 60 TIMES.
IF RATIONAL PEOPLE WERE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE THEY MIGHT SAY THE FOLLOWING:
PERHAPS THE BISHOP DID INDEED ACT IMPRUDENTLY. BUT EVEN IF EVERYTHING TOM SAID IS TRUE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR TOM TO AIR IT OUT PUBLICLY. OKAY. I CAN ACCEPT THAT.
BUT HERE IT IS TOM IS A LIAR, HE HAS ALL HIS FACTS WRONG, THE BISHOP IS IMMACULATE. HOW DARE YOU BE DISTURBED ABOUT WHAT TOM WROTE!!!
BESIDES YOU POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. OH BY THE WAY DID YOU KNOW HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. AND... HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES.
WHY DO YOU TELL US TO DISOBEY ALL THE CLERGY. WHY DO YOU CLAIM ELEPHANTS ARE LARGE. WHY DID YOU ROB THE BANK. WHY DID YOU KILL MY GRANDMOTHER. BTW DID YOU KNOW HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. WHAT A VILE FOOL THIS BASTARD IS.
WELL THANKS FOR THE CHARITABLE RESPONSE GUYS. YOU HAVE INSPIRED ME.
TO FIGHT PERCEIVED EVIL WITH EVIL BY REPEATED, AND I MEAN REPEATED CALUMNY AND DETRACTION AGAINST ME BY CHAIR CATHOLIC IS AKIN TO SITTING ON MY FACE AND LETTING IT RIP. PERHAPS WITH AN ELEGANT ENGLISH ACCENT. FINGER EXTENDED IN THE AIR AS IF YOU ARE MAKING A GOOD POINT. ELLO!
I WAS PICTURING CHAIR CATHOLIC LOCKED IN A ROOM WITH PICTURES AND WRITINGS OF ME EVERYWHERE THROWING DARTS AT ME AND SYSTEMATICALLY PLOTTING TO PULL THE BOWLS OF MY TWO-YEAR-OLD THROUGH HER NOSE. WAS WHAT I WROTE THAT BAD? REALLY? WOW! ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
I WAS ALSO THINKING HOW CHAIR CATHOLIC'S REACTION LOOKS TO THE NONE-SV'S OUT THEIR. LOOK AT THAT SV ATTACK THE OTHER SV. WOW, HE STILL IS NOT DONE. THAT MUST BY 10 RESPONSES IN A ROW TO A SIMPLE QUESTION. LOOK HE IS STILL NOT DONE YET! THE SV POSITION CAN'T BE RIGHT. LOOK HOW ANGRY AND VENGEFUL HE IS. HE IS PUTTING LOT IN THE WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS. THESE GUYS THINK THEY'RE CATHOLIS! NOT.
CHRIST WILL BARELY FIND FAITH WHEN HE COMES AGAIN BUT LESS CHARITY.
VERY FACTUALLY,
TABLE CATHOLIC
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.
All to lead up to this:
http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2012/03/top-reasons-for-lay-governance-5.html
...
(1) You do not know the whole situation, neither does Tom
(2) Some more charitable interpretations of what Bp. Pivarunas did have been provided to you, which you ignore without giving any explanation ...(3) You would have to REALLY stretch to find an uncharitable interpretation, as Tom did, and you know that Tom nitpicks CMRI just as he does with virtually everybody.
Why would Bp. Pivarunas vouch for some fly-by-night seminary, putting himself at risk with the government...You can't grasp this concept, that he had no obligation to do so, ...he may have had an obligation NOT to do so?
Thomas Droleskey later turned against Bp. Petko, for reasons I won't repeat here. So by Thomas Droleskey's own logic, Bp. Petko is not fit for his office. Yet you still are complaining that Bp. Pivarunas wouldn't support the seminarians who were seeking to associate himself with this bishop? You still complain he didn't vouch for their seminary?
... if someone is being petty here, I think it's you ...you are keeping this going ).
QuoteWOW!
...PERHAPS THE BISHOP DID INDEED ACT IMPRUDENTLY. BUT EVEN IF EVERYTHING TOM SAID IS TRUE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR TOM TO AIR IT OUT PUBLICLY. ...BUT HERE IT IS TOM IS A LIAR, HE HAS ALL HIS FACTS WRONG, THE BISHOP IS IMMACULATE. HOW DARE YOU BE DISTURBED ABOUT WHAT TOM WROTE!!!
...WHY DO YOU TELL US TO DISOBEY ALL THE CLERGY. WHY DO YOU CLAIM ELEPHANTS ARE LARGE. ... WHY DID YOU KILL MY GRANDMOTHER. BTW DID YOU KNOW HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. WHAT A VILE FOOL THIS BASTARD IS.
WELL THANKS FOR THE CHARITABLE RESPONSE GUYS. YOU HAVE INSPIRED ME.
...IS AKIN TO SITTING ON MY FACE AND LETTING IT RIP. PERHAPS WITH AN ELEGANT ENGLISH ACCENT. FINGER EXTENDED IN THE AIR AS IF YOU ARE MAKING A GOOD POINT. ELLO!
I WAS PICTURING CHAIR CATHOLIC LOCKED IN A ROOM WITH PICTURES AND WRITINGS OF ME EVERYWHERE THROWING DARTS AT ME AND ...
TO PULL THE BOWLS OF MY ...THROUGH HER NOSE. WAS WHAT I WROTE THAT BAD? REALLY? WOW! ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
... LOOK AT THAT SV ATTACK THE OTHER SV. WOW, HE STILL IS NOT DONE...THE SV POSITION CAN'T BE RIGHT. LOOK HOW ANGRY AND VENGEFUL HE IS. HE IS PUTTING LOT IN THE WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS. THESE GUYS THINK THEY'RE CATHOLIS! NOT.
...
VERY FACTUALLY,
TABLE CATHOLIC
I'm not sure what much of this means, but I get the gist, you are the poor persecuted one.
Do you think by playing the martyr you're going to make people forget that you are the one levelling accusations and that it is up to you to prove them?
The lack of charity is not in the responses here, it is in YOUR interpretation of the actions of Bp. Pivarunas. You are trying to denigrate this man without having any good reason; and when you are caught, you resort to whining.
Your whiny passive-aggressiveness is not going to win you any fans -- I tried to tell you this long ago. Aggressive -- attacking Bp. Pivarunas. Passive -- playing the martyr and the victim.
I guess telling you to SHUT YOUR MOUTH didnt work! Please go away.
We can all put you on ignore. Do you have any friends in here? ...
If there are any, maybe they will come to your aid, you detractor and muckraker!
Quote from: Lover of TruthIF 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 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...
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...
Quote from: Lover of TruthI said some clergy:
1. Prohibit their flock from reading The Four Marks
2. Some prohibit them from attending una cuм Bendictio Masses
3. Some prohibit them from not attending una cuм Benedictio Masses
4. Some prohibit them from reading the Daily Catholic
5. Some prohibit them from attending CMRI Masses.
6. Some tell them not to come to the Communion rail if they attend CMRI Masses
I then ask, sincerely ask, are we to obey them on all this.
What is "some clergy"? Why don't you make that clear? You sort of give the impression that there is a priest out there that does all these things.
"1. Prohibit their flock from reading The Four Marks" ?
"4. Some prohibit them from reading the Daily Catholic" ?
The only parish I know of forbidding the Four Marks might be SGG. But I don't even think it is strictly forbidden there. It is recommended not to read it. But I say, what if it is actually prohibited? So, what? ...
Besides, the Four Marks promotes the SSPX, so staying away is just plain good itself. As well, the Daily Catholic promotes Griff Ruby's strange theories including pushing that laymen should withhold their money from their priests to force them to do their "duty" and help elect a pope.
"2. Some prohibit them from attending una cuм Bendictio Masses" ?
I say, so what? ...Stop acting like you are being forced to sin out of obedience.
I could go on, but I won't. LoT...You are creating a worry for yourself where there is no need to worry, jurisdiction or no jurisdiction. The Saints have said that even where there is no authority, it is quite in accord with humility to obey someone else (even a layman) in matters that are not sinful, especially in regard to a man who is ordained "another Christ", has the grace of his state, absolves you from sin, and provides you the Holy Sacrifice and Blessed Sacrament.
Quote from: Lover of TruthIF 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...
I'm not a "sock puppet," yet you've ignored the questions I've asked you. I believe you've heard one side of a complex story then just pretended there's nothing else to know.
Isn't that your campaign, Hobbles?
HANG THE BASTARD. HOW DARE HE SAY SUCH A THING.
…BUT HERE IT IS TOM IS A LIAR, HE HAS ALL HIS FACTS WRONG, THE BISHOP IS IMMACULATE.
…BESIDES YOU POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. OH BY THE WAY DID YOU KNOW HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. AND... HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES.
WHY DO YOU TELL US TO DISOBEY ALL THE CLERGY. WHY DO YOU CLAIM ELEPHANTS ARE LARGE. WHY DID YOU…WHY DID YOU…. BTW DID YOU KNOW HE POSTED UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. WHAT A VILE FOOL THIS BASTARD IS.
…IS AKIN TO SITTING ON MY FACE AND LETTING IT RIP. PERHAPS WITH AN ELEGANT ENGLISH ACCENT. FINGER EXTENDED IN THE AIR AS IF YOU ARE MAKING A GOOD POINT. ELLO!
I WAS PICTURING…LOCKED IN A ROOM WITH PICTURES AND WRITINGS OF ME EVERYWHERE THROWING DARTS AT ME AND…
TO PULL THE BOWLS OF MY…THROUGH HER NOSE.
…I WAS ALSO THINKING HOW…LOOKS TO THE NONE-SV'S OUT THEIR…
THESE GUYS THINK THEY'RE CATHOLIS! NOT.
…
VERY FACTUALLY,
TABLE CATHOLIC
HANG THE BASTARD.
WHAT A VILE FOOL THIS BASTARD IS.
…IS AKIN TO SITTING ON MY FACE AND LETTING IT RIP.
I WAS PICTURING… TO PULL THE BOWLS OF MY…THROUGH HER NOSE.
TABLE CATHOLIC
VERY FACTUALLY
…IS AKIN TO SITTING ON MY FACE AND LETTING IT RIP… I WAS PICTURING…
TO PULL THE BOWLS OF MY…THROUGH HER NOSE.
We should now let this thread end.
Let us continue any other business on a separate thread.
We should let this wicked thread that was started by the dishonest and malicious John Gregory,
misnamed the “Lover of Truth”, finish here.
Quote from: SJBI'm not a "sock puppet," yet you've ignored the questions I've asked you. I believe you've heard one side of a complex story then just pretended there's nothing else to know.
What else is there to know? If you think it important enough you should make it known.
Your questions have also been mostly irrelevant tangents: overt attempts to derail the threads dealing with the cօռspιʀαcιҽs of Toth, gαye-Hall and Gebel against Father Ramolla, the Priest who is giving you the Sacraments, and against the Seminarians. It's clear on whose side you stand...
You never directly addressed Peregrine when he admonished the above-mentioned conspirators,
just as you never directly addressed the major points I myself had made regarding their agenda. I conceded in your favor regarding the lay-boards in themselves, that point was the only one I remember you making that was actually valid.
You believe erroneously regarding what I know, but you can believe what you want, or whom you wish. It's a "democracy" in Sede Vacante, right...? So do as you please.
Quote from: SJBIsn't that your campaign, Hobbles?
A meaningless provocation... oh well, carry on :D
I've never tried to "derail" a thread.
Quote from: SJBI've never tried to "derail" a thread.
Wrong.
Quote from: SpiritusSanctusQuote from: SJBI've never tried to "derail" a thread.
Wrong.
(http://www.talkaboutgiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/thumbs.jpg)
Quote from: SpiritusSanctusQuote from: SJBI've never tried to "derail" a thread.
Wrong.
No, it's not wrong. Threads often go places you don't like, but that's not necessarily because someone is "derailing" it.
Actually, I don't think it needs to be discussed here. I'm pointing out to you that you are spreading misinformation about a situation you don't know about in sufficient detail. You've taken a side, and from quite a distance.
I've never tried to "derail" a thread.
I've said where I think you are wrong on the facts.
I understand you don't like it.
Why do I need to comment on her admonishments?
I disagreed with your major points by saying they're not factual.
You seem to be doing as you please.
It's not a provocation, but a call for you to possibly realize you don't have all the facts and are speaking in a manner that will eventually cause you to write another of your famous retractions. But oh well, carry on ...
Quote from: SJBQuote from: SpiritusSanctusQuote from: SJBI've never tried to "derail" a thread.
Wrong.
No, it's not wrong. Threads often go places you don't like, but that's not necessarily because someone is "derailing" it.
No, smart guy. It's not about where I want threads to go, it's about the fact that you discuss the SGG in nearly every thread you post in. Even, of course, in threads that originally had nothing to do with the SGG.
Quote from: SJBActually, I don't think it needs to be discussed here. I'm pointing out to you that you are spreading misinformation about a situation you don't know about in sufficient detail. You've taken a side, and from quite a distance.
I don't need to be in Ohio to see what should be obvious to everyone
In fact, those things which I have written have come to pass, such as the attack against the Seminarians, and now a new smear campaign is being engineered against Father Ramolla [with former "parishioners," of course]. But you don't care about that at all, so...
Quote from: SJBI understand you don't like it.
I understand you don't like it that I am exposing your Confirmation sponsor and his "emotional" friends...
Quote from: SJBWhy do I need to comment on her admonishments?
Because they substantiate what I have been writing, what you have been attempting to downplay.
Quote from: SJBIt's not a provocation, but a call for you to possibly realize you don't have all the facts and are speaking in a manner that will eventually cause you to write another of your famous retractions. But oh well, carry on ...
"Famous retractions"? If I really deserve any fame for apologizing, then I'd be a better man.
Maybe it is you who does not have all the facts. I have enough to form a clear picture. I am far from idealizing Father Ramolla, who should have dealt effectively with Toth a great while ago, and who should have realized how subversive gαye and Gebel would be. But those are his problems.
That's the problem Hobbles, it's NOT obvious to everyone. You think it is, but it simply isn't.
I have addressed these things with Perregrine. She didn't follow up, she gave up. She contradicted you, btw, as I pointed out.
As far as I know, gαye and Gebel are removed from the picture now.
"You just want things to be resolved so you can have simplicity back."
I'm not saying you should, just that you should stop doing what you're doing, which is an attack.
In this then, how are you different than gαye and Gebel?
Quote from: HobblesIn fact, those things which I have written have come to pass, such as the attack against the Seminarians, and now a new smear campaign is being engineered against Father Ramolla [with former "parishioners," of course]. But you don't care about that at all, so...
There is no attack, only the typical scandalous nonsense which you choose to ignore. [emphases mine]
There are some other pertinent facts, that you must know but don't care to mention, which would shed some hard light on the situation, but you can't push your agenda and expose those facts. [emphasis mine]
Fr. Ramolla, on whom there IS real evidence, has suffered no such injury. But the truth will eventually come out, and so will Fr. Ramolla’s credibility evaporate. The lid will not stay on the kettle for long.
You've stuck your ignorant nose into many discussions where you freely admit you don't know the facts. You want somebody to explain a complex situation to you in a few sentences because you didn't take the time to follow it. That's your business, but don't start whining when others discuss it.
Quote from: SJBYou've stuck your ignorant nose into many discussions where you freely admit you don't know the facts. You want somebody to explain a complex situation to you in a few sentences because you didn't take the time to follow it. That's your business, but don't start whining when others discuss it.
Listen, I'm sick of your arrogance and the disgusting calumny that you post on this forum. I'll "stick my nose" into any discussion I please. I didn't ask you to explain anything to me, nor do I need you to. You spend nearly your entire time on this forum rambling about the same stuff. If you can't handle someone attempting to give you a much-needed dose of humility, that is just too bad.
You are one the most arrogant people here.
I didn't say you couldn't comment, just that you don't know what you're talking about in these cases.
Btw, I spend very little time on this forum and that should be apparent in the number of posts here as well as the brevity of what I do post.
Now what exactly is the "disgusting calumny?" Be specific, SS.
Fr. Ramolla, on whom there IS real evidence, has suffered no such injury. But the truth will eventually come out, and so will Fr. Ramolla’s credibility evaporate. The lid will not stay on the kettle for long.
Quote from: SJBYou are one the most arrogant people here.
In your opinion.
QuoteI didn't say you couldn't comment, just that you don't know what you're talking about in these cases.
Oh, yes, you are the ONLY one here who knows what they're talking about when it comes to the SGG. Anyone who even questions you is clueless.
QuoteBtw, I spend very little time on this forum and that should be apparent in the number of posts here as well as the brevity of what I do post.
Yet the "very little time" you spend here is spent attacking the SGG and those who disagree with you.
QuoteNow what exactly is the "disgusting calumny?" Be specific, SS.
I've told you before. Your incessant rambling about how bad the SGG is.
The only point you've raised that you've been able to defend is that Fr. Cekada took the wrong position on the Schiavo case. Every other point you raise is simply your opinion.
Not at all, but you don't even know the story so you can't comment as to facts or much else ... yet you pop in and complain.
You'd better look up calumny because you don't understand it in the least.
You actually think he just "took a wrong position?"
Quote from: SJBNot at all, but you don't even know the story so you can't comment as to facts or much else ... yet you pop in and complain.
This is a discussion forum. Do YOU realize that?QuoteYou'd better look up calumny because you don't understand it in the least.
No, I know its definition. Apparently you don't.QuoteYou actually think he just "took a wrong position?"
Ok, thanks for that info you provided me. Though, I don't know how saying he took the wrong position is somehow not good enough for you.
Quote from: SJBYou actually think he just "took a wrong position?"
... Though, I don't know how saying he took the wrong position is somehow not good enough for you.
Quote from: SpiritusSanctusQuote from: SJBYou actually think he just "took a wrong position?"
... Though, I don't know how saying he took the wrong position is somehow not good enough for you.
Because that would imply the possibility of even a little good will on Fr. Cekada's part, something which unfortunately SJB is never able to admit.
Quote from: CanuteQuote from: SpiritusSanctusQuote from: SJBYou actually think he just "took a wrong position?"
... Though, I don't know how saying he took the wrong position is somehow not good enough for you.
Because that would imply the possibility of even a little good will on Fr. Cekada's part, something which unfortunately SJB is never able to admit.
Well, it was not enough to make him go public against Fr. C or leave his chapel then, either.
It is only now, in the wake of the Petco scandal, that SJB wants to bring up the subject of his Boogyman.
You may recall I asked a really simple question and tried to respond to a vague question that was asked of me:
Here question was,
"Are you concerned about the Bishop's lack of response?"
In addressing this entire issue including Dr Tom Drolesky let me merely state that Bishop Pivarunas rarely if ever engages in petty "he said, she said" theological debates.
When appropriate - he simply will issue a short letter explaining CMRI's Position on any given subject if it has become a source of contradiction so as to qwell discussions like the one going on here in this forum.
He prefers to focus instead on teaching , spreading , and demonstrating what the Catholic Faith is in action. I submit that the Bishop has indeed responded by seeing the entire situation for what it is and thereby disengaging , as many arguments are won by merely not responding in kind.
I sit here reading thread after thread after thread and I have to ask myself - what good really comes of any of this. I read Christ or Chaos or Daily Catholic - but then I could just as easily spend the same time reading Chesterton or Bellarmine. Instead of feeding the egos of modern day pseudo theologians - there does come a time where the serious Catholic has to ask himself (or herself) Is more damage done by perpetuating discord and divisiveness? That would appear to be the lesson Dr Drolesky has yet to learn.
We cannot pick and choose how Catholic we want to be and then become lay attack dogs when a fellow Catholic disagrees with our own opinion. No , we have to be Catholic at all times , and to fight the battle not only in Charity but in the Unity of cause so that our actions reflect what each of us asks for in the practise of our faith or we risk being hypocritical in both. Our Lord will furnish us with all the answers we seek - in due time. Therefore - the answers lie there , with him , not in our ability to out reason the next guy , but in our ability to do the will of GOD in all things - both spiritually and temporily so as to obtain the necessary grace to open the eyes of all Catholics and to unite them in that common cause - to serve GOD so as to merit Heaven.
Let us be doers and not hearers who spend so much time yearning to be heard- that they have no time to spend praying , sacrificing , and practising the virtues they claim to be defending.
Pax
We cannot pick and choose how Catholic we want to be and then become lay attack dogs when a fellow Catholic disagrees with our own opinion. No , we have to be Catholic at all times , and to fight the battle not only in Charity but in the Unity of cause so that our actions reflect what each of us asks for in the practise of our faith or we risk being hypocritical in both. Our Lord will furnish us with all the answers we seek - in due time. Therefore - the answers lie there , with him , not in our ability to out reason the next guy , but in our ability to do the will of GOD in all things - both spiritually and temporily so as to obtain the necessary grace to open the eyes of all Catholics and to unite them in that common cause - to serve GOD so as to merit Heaven.
Pax
Quote from: Malleus 01
We cannot pick and choose how Catholic we want to be and then become lay attack dogs when a fellow Catholic disagrees with our own opinion. No , we have to be Catholic at all times , and to fight the battle not only in Charity but in the Unity of cause so that our actions reflect what each of us asks for in the practise of our faith or we risk being hypocritical in both. Our Lord will furnish us with all the answers we seek - in due time. Therefore - the answers lie there , with him , not in our ability to out reason the next guy , but in our ability to do the will of GOD in all things - both spiritually and temporily so as to obtain the necessary grace to open the eyes of all Catholics and to unite them in that common cause - to serve GOD so as to merit Heaven.
Pax
Hi Malleus, this makes good Catholic sense. I know that many of us beg God's pardon as we have tried to navigate confusing and unexpected situations while trying to form our children in the Catholic tradition. For many of us isolation has been an issue, so we are extremely grateful for Matthew putting up with us.