And in an attempt to hush Archbishop Vigano's "traditionalist"critics, Bishop Williamson must have coached him?



"Your Excellency, for your traditional Catholic credibility, please try to use the word "Jєω" at least once in your writings."


But the best +AB Vigano could bring himself to do was:  "αѕнкenαzι financiers"  

Lol exactly

And in an attempt to hush Archbishop Vigano's "traditionalist"critics, Bishop Williamson must have coached him?


"Your Excellency, for your traditional Catholic credibility, please try to use the word "Jєω" at least once in your writings."


But the best +AB Vigano could bring himself to do was:  "αѕнкenαzι financiers"  

Perhaps you could also take it up with Our Blessed Mother for using the term "errors of Russia" without any mention of the Jєωs behind it.  She mentions or alludes to "Russia" many times without once using the word "Jєω".

Sure, +Vigano would persuade many people toward Traditional Catholicism by going off on a 5-paragraph rant about Jєωs in every speech and letter of his.  Those who are aware of the Jєω conspiracy don't need more than an oblique allusion to it.  Those who are not aware of it would be turned off by a "raving lunatic" spouting off about Jєωs.

Just wondering.  Have you guys every heard about this mysterious virtue called "prudence"?  Look it up.  It's generally considered the "mother" of all virtues, the one which weighs the pros and cons, and the consequences of each exercise of the other virtues.  Yet I'm sure that some of you clowns would consider it a virtue to get in some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ's face and berate them constantly, "You filthy sodomite." ... as if that kind of behavior will cause you to win their conversion.  No, it only makes you feel superior in your own tiny minds.

One example comes from St. Thomas.  While it's a virtue to rebuke the sinner, St. Thomas holds that not only is it not obligatory IF someone in prudence judges that it would do no good, but it could even be a vice to rebuke someone IF prudence suggests that the rebuke would only cause them to become more hardened in their sin.  That is because the END or the GOAL of rebuking the sinner is to win their conversion.  So in some cases, the material act of rebuking the sinner actually militates against the true formal end of the act, thereby making it a vice against charity rather than a virtue, by accomplishing the exact opposite of the rationale for its being a virtue.

You guys are really terrible and won't accept any correction on this matter whatsover.  Take 5 seconds to think what would happen (clearly +Vigano did) if +Vigano was constantly spoutinig off about the "Jєωs".  Sure, you clowns would fist-bump each other and celebrate, but you already are "convinced" and it would be just preaching to the choir.  Now imagine you're a conservative Novus Ordite programmed by Jєω conditioning so that you would consider this Anti-Semitic.  You would be much less receptive to what he has to say about Vatican II, Modernist, Bergoglio, etc.  Is it more important for someone's salvation to believe that V2 and the NOM are bad (Traditional Catholicism good) or to believe that the Jєωs run the world?

Also, take 5 seconds to think what would have happened had +Vigano written a 10-paragraph condemation of Trump.  +Vigano is a good judge of character, and he realizes that Trump has a yuge (yet fragile) ego and that any such criticism would simply cause Trump to lash out and dig his heels in, whereas the flattery (with carefully-chosen words that did not endorse or justify the bad things he's done) would elicit a positive reaction.  Trump ended up proudly re-tweeting the latter.  In it, +Vigano said that he "dared hope" that Trump was on the side of good, admitting that he wasn't certain of it, but attempting to elicit whatever good might lurk somewhere inside that (dark, evil) heart of his.

You guys think it's a major virtue on your part as you thump your chest acting like bigshots (while condemning those who do not follow suit and do likewise) and excoriate the Jєωs anonymously on a relatively-minor website.

This is both arrogant and idiotic.

... Those who are not aware of it would be turned off by a "raving lunatic" spouting off about Jєωs.

...  Yet I'm sure that some of you clowns would consider it a virtue to get in some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ's face and berate them constantly, "You filthy sodomite." ... as if that kind of behavior will cause you to win their conversion.  No, it only makes you feel superior in your own tiny minds.

...

You guys are really terrible and won't accept any correction on this matter whatsover. ...

...

You guys think it's a major virtue on your part as you thump your chest acting like bigshots (while condemning those who do not follow suit and do likewise) and excoriate the Jєωs anonymously on a relatively-minor website.

This is both arrogant and idiotic.

You need to shut your uncharitable, arrogant mouth (i.e. keyboard).  ...  Perhaps they were put off by what sounds to them like crazed rantig.  Some of the stuff you have posted and promoted here is just plain nuts.

...

Lad at work, winning hearts and minds. Charity for murdering, lying Communists and people who defend them, but not for those who have a contrary opinion about them. Hey Lad, maybe it would be prudential for you to type fewer sentences and really think about what you are writing? Your ability to belt out huge paragraphs of fluff and broad strokes is definitely no virtue on your part.

Not sure what he means by that.  Could he be referring to the fact that many Catholics and even traditionalists caved to the jab?  That might be what he means by "the deadly poison of revolutionary demands"?  He also used the term "infect".  So my first take would be to say this is a reference to the Plandemic and the jab, and then a call to reject any future demands that might be made of us vis-a-vis their Masonic Luciferian agenda.  I read "revolutionary demands" as being "demands by the revolutionaries".  It's also possible that he also means Modernistic thinking.  Bishop Williamson has said that we're all infected to one degree or another with Modernistic thinking (even if it's subtle).

Yes, that is possible.  It could be a problem with the English translation.

This criticism is based on people's ACTUAL posts rather than unfounded speculation.

No, there is unfounded speculation.

It's more than appropriate to criticize someone for actual behavior and their actual words vs. attempting to read minds and making stuff up without actual evidence.

Pot meet kettle.

It is perfectly OK to criticize Mel Gibson for adultery, since it's proven and admitted by him.  It is not OK to accuse someone of adultery without evidence.

Agreed.

That is embedded even in this absurd post, where you refer to "murdering, lying Communists" (alluding to Putin) where you're making these allegations WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Has he unjustly had people killed?  Possibly.  Probably.

Provide the evidence (no, allegations from his political opponents is not evidence).

"You ain't got nuffin' on Pres'dent Putin!"

We've done this song and dance, and you are never convinced. I am not obliged to put myself out on your account when you make silly statements such as these.

Joe Stalin ... murdering, lying Communist.  Not a problem criticizing that monster. Putin?  Your pathetic attempt to beg the question by assuming that your charges are true is transparent.

Did you know that there are people (Communists) who would call you a vile slanderer for that statement? Yes, I have seen it myself. Do I need to pander to their delusion such as you demand for yourself?

But you'd never know that from your mendacious post.

 You really need to apply your training in moral theology to yourself. What a hypocrite! Do you accuse me of lying without evidence again?

Is +Vigano a "murdering, lying Communist"?  That's who we're talking about here anway.  But you'd never know that from your mendacious post.  At best +Vigano is misreading that there's some good in Donald Trump.  That deserves the arrogant, derisive tone from people?  Even then, no one can prove he's wrong, that Trump doesn't have some good in him that he's appealing to.

There are many mysteries surrounding Vigano, but he clearly supports the world's premier criminal organization. You are reading Vigano as if he were your buddy, but this is politics. You have no idea why he is actually supporting Trump, but only his public judgment.

Problem with you (vis-a-vis Putin) and Miser (vis-a-vis) Trump is to take various faults that can be subject to legitimate criticism and project them into a false dilemma where Putin is a completely and 100% evil individual, and so is Trump. There's no allowance whatsoever for the possibility that there might be some good in Putin and some good in Trump.  THAT is the problem.

Incredible. You haven't read the literature, but you feel the need to opine in such a stupid manner. Your analysis has nothing to do with the subject.

But simple logical distinctions like this escape your corrupted mind, as you persist in justifying one slander after another ... and continue to attempt justifying it.

Projection.

I'm not elevating either one to the status of being beyond criticism.  I'm being objective, where both have pros and cons.

There is nothing objective about your analysis. It would be better if you came out openly as a Russian partisan than continuing to pretend.

You two on the other hand insist that they're both devils incarnate and, what's worse, that those who don't agree with you that they're evil (aka +Vigano with regard to Trump), they're also wicked deceivers.  Both of you need to grow up.

More projection. See yourself on Ukraine and Zelenskyy. Lol!

You despise +Vigano because he rejects your ridiculous mischaracterization of the Russia-Ukraine situation, whereas Miser despises +Vigano because he sees some good in Trump and some hope that he'll do the right thing.

You have no idea what you are talking about, per usual. It has nothing to do with personally despising a person. How on Earth can you be so delusional? This only exists in your own muddled head, not the real world. You aren't old enough to be a Boomer, but you compare favorable to them.

There is a long history of anticommunism. There is ongoing intelligence about the doings of communists worldwide. There are many mysteries about their activity, but there has been much revealed about it as well. You would do better to read about it than continue to expose yourself as ignorant on the subject over and over again. Instead I expect you will continue your uninformed attacks and expose yourself guilty of the very things you accuse others of doing.

I am going to "ask nice" that you don't call me a liar again. I was born and raised in the South. I have reached the limit of what I will tolerate when it comes to this.

Here's Christ as Sol Invictus in a ceiling Mosaic at the Vatican grottos.  This was common in early Christian iconography.



Church commonly appropriated varous pagan symbolism to displace the pagan meaning and substitute them with a Christian one.  This is one of the chief complaints of the Prots against the Catholic Church, that it became paganized.

https://catholicunderthehood.com/2016/03/11/328-a-history-of-the-catholic-church-sol-invictus/

As Christianity expanded and developed in the Roman Empire it would use pagan images and symbols to express Christian theology – Christ as the Good Shepherd, Christ as the Philosopher, Christ as the Unconquered Sun. But the Christians did not simply adopt these images, they gave to them particularly Christian meanings to show how the message of Christ was different that anything that had ever happened before.

blah blah blah

... from the butthurt twit on a vendetta who persists in slandering people without evidence.