As vandeler was so kind to point out to me, the article about gαy priest getting aprroval from Benedict was not correct. Though his bishop is aware of his lifestyle (as well as I guess 50% of the priests in Quebec being gαy) there is no reason for anyone to believe that Benedict is personally aware of this man in particular.

Naughty girl, you read my mind. I was going to suggest the same for him but chickened out.

A Sede and a neoCatholic fightin'?  

Don't let me stop you two.  

Well Vandeler I too will wait to see the Nancy boys piroutte out of the priest hood. It will not happen and you know this as well as I do. And he will run and will speak ouot against the Chruch and nothing will happen. As a matter of fact, some one help me out here, did not Ratzinger as Cardinal during the good Senator Kerry's last run for the White House, actually soften the stance so that it was perfectly o.k.for this sodomite loving pro-baby killing politician to receive what mose took to be Jesus Christ in the Holly Eucharist from his liberal priest friends every Sunday. Never mind the fact that it was most likely not the Eucharist, is appeared so to the secular world and Pius X would have yelled from the top of his saintly lungs EXCOMUNICATED the bunch of ya's

It will not happen and you know this as well as I do. And he will run and will speak ouot against the Chruch and nothing will happen.

Yes, we will see.

I'll point out though, that you clearly have no grasp of Quebec's politics and it's language.  Something I am in a priviledge position of being involved for the last 20 years.

What I mean is that the Church will not be discussed as a politician.  As a priest though, he will probably continue his activism.  The line is blurry when you accomplish two functions.  This is what will be interesting to monitor.

My objective is simple.

Dis-associate Tradition with the type of conspiracy laden distrust this board seem quite fond off.

I don't seek to necessarely change anyones point of view, but at least, provide outsiders an occasion to see that there is dissent from your point of view. So that one can approach Tradition without having this particular mindset.

Why I defend Tradition while not considering myself a "Trad" is my reason only to know.

 

Let me put it like this...

I won't say a word against an impeccably docuмented claim, with fairly good reasoning even if I don't agree with it.  To the contrary, I will investiguate it, as this is my nature (And it does get annoying at times).

If it's not docuмented and if it relies clearly faulty logic, out of context quotes, or outright speculation without any basis in fact, I will take it down, not with my militant feeling. But rather with a critical eye, and lit with opposing facts that are verifiable.

Other times, like the Rove bit, I'll just run the clock, as there is nothing to debunk but wait.

No there is no law against cօռspιʀαcιҽs... allthough I sometimes wonder if in some cases it's not clear diffamation.  My quest is not against cօռspιʀαcιҽs who exist all around us, but against gross contraptions claiming to be cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

Frankly, I think that distrust is the basis of the Traditional church today.

I agree, and I think it's a not the noblest of foundations. I've been searching high and low for other sentiments driving the Traditional movement. I've seen others, but distrust is certainly a strong driver.

That's the problem with cօռspιʀαcιҽs.  They aren't advertised.  If they were they wouldn't be cօռspιʀαcιҽs, now would they?  And for some unfathomable reason, people these days seem to think that if they aren't advertised, they are merely theories.

True... I'm not one to think that the narrative as played out in the media is all it.  Truely, the world is far more complex then the simple, easy to follow narrative presented.  

So what you have here is a jury which has declared these people guilty on the evidence we have before us.  It would be stupid to withhold judgment until the mainstream media confess, because they aren't going to.  That's like saying no man is guilty unless he confesses.  When you look at the film of the FEMA camp and listen to the eyewitness accounts, you are reviewing evidence as good or better than any in a courtroom.  When you read the old teachings of the Church and read the latter day writings and see the pictures which stand in contradiction of traditional teaching, you have enough evidence for a "reasonable" man.

So you have come to some understanding and you seek validation of it in some events, reports, films etc... perfectly fine.  I do the same to validate my own assumptions.
Problem is, you need, just like I need to be cautious and flexible and learn from mistakes.  If your short term outlooks and expections keeps failing you, and are allways playing catchup by seeking anomalies in reported events, it's not looking to good.

If you really nailed it, and you undertand how the world turns, your bang on most of the time, and everything unfolds without much surprises.. Except of course, when a real surprise comes along.. but even then, if your model is right, your able to reconstitute and undertand why it happen.  If it don't you need to sit down and re-figure out the whole thing and be willing to consider you might got it wrong. I changed my mind many times, and still do.

So, while I do not claim to know all, It's my hope through better reality model, I can demonstrate the unlikelyness of a shadow governement. That all party actually are motivated by their own geo-political situation and it all makes a perfect integrated sense, once you get it.

Pretty ambitous uh ?  Yes.  :dancing: