Author Topic: Why was StSimonofTrent banned? (Read 2870 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** November 25, 2009, 06:35:16 PM »

I would like to ask Alex if she believes there is such a thing as an anti-pope?

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** November 25, 2009, 07:04:57 PM »

Alex will not be able to answer the question.

Alex · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2009, 01:50:41 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

I would like to ask Alex if she believes there is such a thing as an anti-pope?

I never said there wasn't such a thing as an anti-pope. We have had several who were anti-popes because they were not canonically elected. I just don't agree with the sedesvacantists assertion that our modern Popes are anti-popes.

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** November 27, 2009, 01:27:37 PM »

It certainly is true that when a pope is not legit elected that he is an anti-pope. There is another way however to be an anti-pope. That is to say or do something(s) that is heretical or blasphemous. This turns a Pope into a de facto anti-pope.

BOTH of these scenarios apply to the v2 anti-popes.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2009, 01:28:56 PM »

But thank U for the answer( as insincere as it was).

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2009, 03:02:53 PM »

Alex,

It wasn't that post, per se, that I disagreed with.

It was the application, and the context, that I disagreed with.

I'm not going to play games with these "SGG defenders" -- they put us on the defensive, get us all disorganized, send us off on wild goose chases, and muddy the waters so we can't get to the bottom of anything.

Again: Why didn't "St. Simon of Trent" criticize Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan for using the PULPIT (for crying out loud!) to lambast another priest? How unprofessional is that, let alone uncharitable!

So you have Fr. Cekada/Bishop Dolan lambasting "the annointed of God" -- do those quotes from the saints only apply to "everyone else"?

Matthew

WhollyRoaminCatholic · « **Reply #7 on:** November 27, 2009, 10:13:02 PM »

Did anyone else get the unsolicited email?

What a whiner.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2009, 10:13:34 PM »

No, I did not. What did the spam say?

You should post it here.

Did any other CathInfo members get this unsolicited e-mail?
It is important to find out.

Let's just say that St. Simon of Trent joined AFTER everyone's e-mail was made private. So if he sent such an e-mail to a bunch of people on CathInfo, he's "like this" with Robert Rawhide, or he's Robert Rawhide himself.

Matthew

WhollyRoaminCatholic · « **Reply #9 on:** November 27, 2009, 10:30:14 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

No, I did not. What did the spam say?

You should post it here.

Did any other CathInfo members get this unsolicited e-mail?
It is important to find out.

Let's just say that St. Simon of Trent joined AFTER everyone's e-mail was made private. So if he sent such an e-mail to a bunch of people on CathInfo, he's "like this" with Robert Rawhide, or he's Robert Rawhide himself.

Matthew

Aha, whoops. I conflated the two characters in my head. It was the Rawhide email.

Sorry for the confusion.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** November 27, 2009, 10:34:29 PM »

So he "did it", eh?

Carried out his threat, I mean, to spam everyone on CathInfo.

If only I had made e-mail addresses private sooner...

Oh well. I guess it took Rawhide to bring such an oversight to my attention.

Matthew

WhollyRoaminCatholic · « **Reply #11 on:** November 27, 2009, 10:39:05 PM »

Yes, and he signed me up for a newsletter.

What a peachy guy. I'm gonna miss him.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2009, 10:46:32 PM »

Everyone who gets anything from him should report it to his ISP. There are websites where you can forward spam, and have it processed for you (abuse reports get sent to the appropriate places, etc.)

When his ISP gets ANY number of reports, they will easily be able to look it up in their server logs and find, "Hey, this guy sent an e-mail to 500+ people on this day over here..."

Matthew

Alex · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2009, 03:19:13 AM »

Quote from: ChantCd

Alex,

It wasn't that post, per se, that I disagreed with.

It was the application, and the context, that I disagreed with.

I'm not going to play games with these "SGG defenders" -- they put us on the defensive, get us all disorganized, send us off on wild goose chases, and muddy the waters so we can't get to the bottom of anything.

Again: Why didn't "St. Simon of Trent" criticize Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan for using the PULPIT (for crying out loud!) to lambast another priest? How unprofessional is that, let alone uncharitable!

So you have Fr. Cekada/Bishop Dolan lambasting "the annointed of God" -- do those quotes from the saints only apply to "everyone else"?

Matthew

Oh, Ok.

Alex · « **Reply #14 on:** November 28, 2009, 03:31:28 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

It certainly is true that when a pope is not legit elected that he is an anti-pope. There is another way however to be an anti-pope. That is to say or do something(s) that is heretical or blasphemous. This turns a Pope into a de facto anti-pope.

BOTH of these scenarios apply to the v2 anti-popes.

Been there, done that. Not even going to waste my time with an issue that has been argued in thousands of forum thousands of times.