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

Author Topic: Thuc condemnding Thuc  (Read 5532 times)

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 506
  • Reputation: +138/-408
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2025, 05:57:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • R&R ain't more sane.


    You've gone down the dogmatic sede rabbit hole where every one is trying to out do eachother in their toughness and moral lecturing, so you would think that.

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1201
    • Reputation: +970/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #16 on: December 23, 2025, 06:22:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Hey if you want to do us all the favor of posting that up with links etc, I would return the favor, more than happily of retracting that statement.

    It's no skin of my back, Thuc has already so much madness in his line, that I have plenty of other ammunition.
    There's confusion and problems in any "trad bishop" line... It's part of the chastisement.
    And a lot of calumny goes along with that.


    Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 506
    • Reputation: +138/-408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #17 on: December 23, 2025, 07:51:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's confusion and problems in any "trad bishop" line... It's part of the chastisement.
    And a lot of calumny goes along with that.


    No more will I stand by and let people equivocate Thuc line nonsense with the resistance line.


    Do not try to muddy the waters. There is simply NO COMPARISON between the madness of 400 bishops Thuc line/  constant division within sede land and the Lefebvre/Williamson line. NONE. Are the resistance priests and bishops sinners? Most definitely! But the stability of things is very clearly a sign that the remnant is with the resistance.

    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1201
    • Reputation: +970/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #18 on: December 23, 2025, 08:44:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • No more will I stand by and let people equivocate Thuc line nonsense with the resistance line.


    Do not try to muddy the waters. There is simply NO COMPARISON between the madness of 400 bishops Thuc line/  constant division within sede land and the Lefebvre/Williamson line. NONE. Are the resistance priests and bishops sinners? Most definitely! But the stability of things is very clearly a sign that the remnant is with the resistance.
    Why is Thuc the problem of others? Should we spit on the grave of the Bishop that ordained Luther? You're being irrational and you need to stop. 

    And don't tell me to try and not muddy the waters. lol. The irony...

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +54/-49
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #19 on: December 23, 2025, 08:53:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • You've gone down the dogmatic sede rabbit hole where every one is trying to out do eachother in their toughness and moral lecturing, so you would think that.

    You are confusing DOCTRINE/MORALS with VALIDITY. Thuc was deceived into performing consecrations. The morals and doctrines of the men are not Thuc's results. Just the validity (if it still exists down the bad lines). The fault lies with the deceivers, NOT the deceived.

    In the case of the R&R, there may be some question here or there about validity also, but the main thing is that in PRINCIPLE "r&r" is schismatic thinking and acting, definitively.



    Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 506
    • Reputation: +138/-408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #20 on: December 23, 2025, 08:59:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are confusing DOCTRINE/MORALS with VALIDITY. Thuc was deceived into performing consecrations. The morals and doctrines of the men are not Thuc's results. Just the validity (if it still exists down the bad lines). The fault lies with the deceivers, NOT the deceived.

    In the case of the R&R, there may be some question here or there about validity also, but the main thing is that in PRINCIPLE "r&r" is schismatic thinking and acting, definitively.



    Lol, a Thuc-ite giving me lectures about confusion.

    I'm very calm and clear about this. Maybe ask the question; Why did he allow himself to be deceived? because, as we can see, he was clearly unstable.  

    Was he deceived when he recanted from his traditionalism years later? Or when he con celebrated the novus ordo?

    Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 506
    • Reputation: +138/-408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #21 on: December 23, 2025, 09:00:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why is Thuc the problem of others? Should we spit on the grave of the Bishop that ordained Luther? You're being irrational and you need to stop.

    And don't tell me to try and not muddy the waters. lol. The irony...

    I think you've missed the point.


    That the true Faith lies with the resistance, and not the 400 thuc bishops, or multiple mom-elected-me Popes.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +54/-49
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #22 on: December 23, 2025, 09:03:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Lol, a Thuc-ite giving me lectures about confusion.

    I'm very calm and clear about this. Maybe ask the question; Why did he allow himself to be deceived? because, as we can see, he was clearly unstable. 

    Was he deceived when he recanted from his traditionalism years later? Or when he con celebrated the novus ordo?

    Tell me what's wrong in my mini-lecture. Is every post a lecture to you?




    Offline Everlast22

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1201
    • Reputation: +970/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #23 on: December 23, 2025, 09:20:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think you've missed the point.


    That the true Faith lies with the resistance, and not the 400 thuc bishops, or multiple mom-elected-me Popes.
    No one here has missed the point.. You are insane.. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48141
    • Reputation: +28406/-5312
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #24 on: December 23, 2025, 10:34:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since Gubbins here claims to represent for the Resistance, and then give other notable examples like Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo ...

    does "The Resistance" lead to insanity and mental imbalance?

    Scuмmage is also a liar, a slanderer, and shows other signs of malice.  If that's the "True Faith", he's not exactly being a good ambassador for said faith.  I think that most people running into this psychologically-disturbed clown would run, not walk, but run as fast as possible in the other direction.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48141
    • Reputation: +28406/-5312
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #25 on: December 23, 2025, 10:40:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Hey if you want to do us all the favor of posting that up with links etc, I would return the favor, more than happily of retracting that statement.

    It's no skin of my back, Thuc has already so much madness in his line, that I have plenty of other ammunition.

    Not only do you need to retract the statement but should apologize to the world for your slander.  It is not my obligation to post the links.  Simple Google searches uncovered the answers, but you're so deranged with hatred, malice, and other psychological disturbances that you're too lazy to do a 5-minute Google search before making sure that you're not slandering people.  But you don't care.

    You're a filthy, malicious, lying slanderer ... where you care absolutely nothing about truth.  You exaggerate, lie, and make stuff up on a regular basis and are constantly exposed for it.

    So unless YOU can prove that Michael II is Thuc line (he's not, as a 2-minute Google search and clicking on some links would immediately indicate) and that Michael I is Thuc line (he's also not, as another Google search would reveal).  When you make accusations, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence.  Of course, the moral obligation rested on you to do a tiny bit of research BEFORE you posted these smear-jobs ... but that ship has sailed, and can be dealt with at this point only in the Sacrament of Confession, except of course that you're not the least bit contrite.

    You're literally just making stuff up, slandering and shit-posting without any regard for truth whatsoever.  For all that you claim to promote the "True Faith" Resistance, you're actually disgracing and discrediting it.

    If I didn't know any better, you're a troll deliberately trying to make the Resistance look bad.  If so, you're doing a great job.

    Can any of you who claim to be Resistance vouche for this lying, slandering, malicious shit-poster as being one of you?  Or do you disown this fool?  If you do not disown him, he's bringing completely disgrace upon all of you just like Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo have.


    Offline TomGubbinsKimmage

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 506
    • Reputation: +138/-408
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
    « Reply #26 on: December 23, 2025, 04:33:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • thuc-pope-michael" border="0




    Your apology can go as follows:


    "Dear Tom Gubbins Kimmage, 
    I offer my sincere and unreserved apology for my arrogant behavior towards you, and  in particular for erroneously stating that Pope Michael is not Thuc line.
    Please allow me to kiss the ground in front of you as a token of my sorrow.
    Signed,
    Ladislaus"