Author Topic: Calling out Telesphorus (Read 11443 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 23, 2011, 05:52:25 PM »

Quote

If you've ever watched one of their catechetical debates (where the priest's performance was so incompetent one was tempted to think it was intentional) or tried to debate something with the guys who've gone to seminary there you realize they rely heavily on stonewalling and diversion.

What in the world do you mean by this?

Exactly how many ex-seminarians from SSPX seminaries do we have here on Cathinfo besides myself?

FYI, Caminus hasn't attended an SSPX seminary.

At any rate, I want to tell you that axe-grinding is not welcome here. I actually spoke to my very neutral SSPX priest about the running of this site. I asked him about SGG and similar debates, etc. and one thing he told me was, "If someone has an axe to grind, tell him to grind it elsewhere." so I really have to follow his advice.

I refer to him as "neutral" as he is unique among SSPX priests. He is a canon lawyer, and used to work in a marriage tribunal in the conciliar Church, before he came to tradition. I would say he is above SSPX politics.

If I see someone grinding an axe on this forum, like you seem to do constantly (against the SSPX), I have no choice but to send you away, by the advice of my confessor.

What is axe-grinding?

Let's put it this way. There is no organization I dislike more than Monsanto (well, maybe ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry) but do you see me interjecting material about Monsanto into each of my posts? No, because I'm not consumed by hatred. Which leads me to wonder if you are.

Even my post passionate posts -- I post (rant, etc.) and move on. They next day I feel better. Does that *ever* happen with you? Not really. You post about feminism, SSPX "cultishness", disparate-age marriages, sufficient income for marriage, etc. and seem obsessed with topics that touch on human sɛҳuąƖity and marriage.

There is nothing I believe in or discuss which I find necessary to constantly repeat, within topics and posts that have nothing to do with it. You are obsessed about certain topics, and you seem to carry a genuine hatred (anger against a perceived injustice, left to fester) for various parties, including the SSPX. And it shows. This much is not open for debate. If you want, I can start a poll, "Does Telesphorus show signs of harboring hatred?" and we'll see what everyone thinks. It's not just me, or other "SSPXers". All the CMRI and other sedevacantist members (of which there is no shortage) would be welcome to vote in the poll as well.

Matthew

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2011, 06:57:51 PM »

So relating the fiasco of these "catechism" classes is "axe-grinding." Obviously there's a problem in the SSPX with regards to open and honest debate. If there wasn't things wouldn't have come as far as they have - There is something characteristic about those in Bishop Fellay's orbit - they discuss things in a manner that is not straightforward. "Double-tongued" is the word Bishop Fellay attributed to Bishop Williamson.

I'm that the style of "debate" that Caminus uses is something I've seen in the SSPX. If you've noticed, a person can repeat something 100 times with Caminus and he still does not acknowledge it. The best example was in the Hillel and Shammai debate, where he continually stated that the article just stated that "one school had a better interpretation of the law than the other."

The "Saint of the Sandhedrin" article was unacceptable, the "apologetics" used to defend it was unacceptable.

Now I will grind my axe against people who defend such things in an intellectually dishonest manner - it's the right thing to do.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:02:40 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

You post about feminism, SSPX "cultishness", disparate-age marriages, sufficient income for marriage, etc. and seem obsessed with topics that touch on human sɛҳuąƖity and marriage.

How many of those threads do I start?

I'm certainly not more obsessed than the people who have given me hundreds of negative reputation points.

Feminism is a pretty important topic. And this "calling me out" makes it evident just how much influence those with the feminist tinge carry among traditionalists.

As I said before - I'm firmly convinced that these people would not see abortion severely punished but would send a husband to prison for years for "rape."

Now that's a severe problem in moral sensibility.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:08:40 PM »

Let me give an example:

In that recent thread LordPhan said that marriage at 15 was "very rare" in the Middle Ages and usually restricted to royalty. Then he claimed the average age of first marriage in the Middle Ages was 26 for women.

That was simply balderdash. Am I not supposed to respond to that?

So long as a single "Catholic" thinks it's "perverted" for a man my age to like a girl that age, then I will continue to reiterate what I've said before.

Do they consider the betrothal of St. Joseph to the Blessed Virgin to have been "perverted?"

They are, as far as practice goes, cultural relativists immersed and subject to this culture's norms.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:09:28 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Exactly how many ex-seminarians from SSPX seminaries do we have here on Cathinfo besides myself?

I never said I was talking about a poster on cathinfo. I was talking about someone involved in the "catechism class" debates - who I personally debated some topics with.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:14:18 PM »

Let's not forget, Ladislaus was an SSPX seminarian and he certainly saw the problems in the SSPX. Whether it was unnatural vice among fellow seminarians, or the problems with the SSPX apologetics.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:17:52 PM »

This very thread is an example of the way in which I am provoked by unjust accusations and insinuations. And look at the people applauding you Matthew. I ask again, how many of these threads did I start? I am not responsible for the hysterical reaction I've been getting.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:36:55 PM »

One final post:

This site was heavily about things like modest dress, sɛҳuąƖ morality, roles in marriage, etc, long before I ever started posting on it. I haven't changed the subjects discussed on this site. The change has happened in the SSPX and in Trads. They're the ones obsessed with disputing the simple fact that an age gap is not perverted. And some want to defend overnight coed drinking parties. And some want to pretend that women are not carnal. When I bring up the story of Potiphar's wife, this becomes something that is offensive, to point out that it shows the carnality of women. The Old Testament had a lot to say about whores and Jezebels, metaphorically and otherwise. And when I discuss the fact that "marital rape" was not recognized by the generations that lived before Vatican II, people find this hugely offensive. When I discuss that St. Thomas said that a husband could correct his erring wife with "words and blows" - people find this offensive.

I'm not responsible for them finding it offensive. There's nothing offensive in the truth. And I know that I have the truth, and I know that the people who have it in for me are being dishonest. (whether at that chapel or on this site, or both, as the case may be for at least one of the posters) And as Bishop Williamson is accused by Bishop Fellay of saying:

There are "double-tongued" people in the SSPX. There is the beginnings of "apostasy" within the SSPX. As Bishop Williamson said in Eleison Comment: a teacher commented that the same changes that happened in the 60s to the Church seem to be happening in the SSPX. The parents send their children to public school, get Lenten dispensations for drunken parties, etc.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:02:02 PM »

I agree with Matthew that Telesphorus expresses what borders on hatred for the SSPX. Then when someone tries to debate with him on it (or any other subject for that matter) he thumbs down their post and either explodes at them or puts them on ignore, because he doesn't know how to refute them point by point.

LordPhan · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:10:54 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Let me give an example:

In that recent thread LordPhan said that marriage at 15 was "very rare" in the Middle Ages and usually restricted to royalty. Then he claimed the average age of first marriage in the Middle Ages was 26 for women.

That was simply balderdash. Am I not supposed to respond to that?

So long as a single "Catholic" thinks it's "perverted" for a man my age to like a girl that age, then I will continue to reiterate what I've said before.

Do they consider the betrothal of St. Joseph to the Blessed Virgin to have been "perverted?"

They are, as far as practice goes, cultural relativists immersed and subject to this culture's norms.

And I cited a source for that, you just dismissed it and cited no other source then a Saint who illegally and illicitly married at a young age by force.

Most marriages of that age that did occur were not real marriages until they were older, a marriage is invalid until it is consumated and that generally occured when they were 18 or older. I could cite St. Louis IX who married a girl who was 13 when he was 19 but they didn't start having children until she was 18 and he was 24. They then had many children.

Of course this is besides the point that Matthew is making, since no matter what the topic is you take it as an opportunity to attack the SSPX. You don't even have to be talking to someone from the SSPX, you still will throw it in.

You have a serious problem and need help.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:19:15 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

And I cited a source for that, you just dismissed it and cited no other source then a Saint who illegally and illicitly married at a young age by force.

The source you cited did not even mention the Middle Ages. It mentioned England between 1500-1700. And it's Snopes, an unreliable source quoting a popular "history" by a woman published in 2005. That's a fail LordPhan.

Quote

Most marriages of that age that did occur were not real marriages until they were older, a marriage is invalid until it is consumated and that generally occured when they were 18 or older. I could cite St. Louis IX who married a girl who was 13 when he was 19 but they didn't start having children until she was 18 and he was 24. They then had many children.

You said they were very rare, when I cited a source that stated the average age for marriage in 1371 was 24 for men and 16 for women, which is just as good as your source, and actually talks about the Middle Ages, you simply ignore it.

Quote

Of course this is besides the point that Matthew is making, since no matter what the topic is you take it as an opportunity to attack the SSPX. You don't even have to be talking to someone from the SSPX, you still will throw it in.

You're a great example of the sort of blockheaded stonewalling tactics I'm talking about. The fact that St. Rita was given in marriage at twelve, forced or not, says something about the society - I wasn't justifying marriage at twelve in citing her. I was pointing out the what was happening at that time. Do you really think it was "very rare" for parents to do what St. Rita's parents did? I don't.

Quote

You have a serious problem and need help.

No, you have serious problem with facts and logic.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

No, you have serious problem with facts and logic.

This only proves my point. Tele cannot win arguments by refuting people's points, so he relies on ad hominem attacks and thumbing down their posts to win arguments. Very childish. Interesting, too, I thought Tele had me on ignore yet he must be reading my posts because he's been thumbing down alot of them the last few days. Then again, maybe he just thumbs down my posts without even reading them.

LordPhan · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:25:50 PM »

You have a serious problem with facts and logic not I.

Your entire post was opinion, uneducated at that.

Quote

The source you cited did not even mention the Middle Ages. It mentioned England between 1500-1700. And it's Snopes, an unreliable source quoting a popular "history" by a woman published in 2005. That's a fail LordPhan.

It is unreliable because you say so? It cited sources did you read the sources? Why should I dismiss a source because you say so? Who are you? NOBODY!

Quote

You said they were very rare, when I cited a source that stated the average age for marriage in 1371 was 24 for men and 16 for women, which is just as good as your source, and actually talks about the Middle Ages, you simply ignore it.

I did not ignore it, I read it and didn't reject it, That of course should have been your entire post. But it wasn't because you have an agenda.

Quote

You're a great example of the sort of blockheaded stonewalling tactics I'm talking about. The fact that St. Rita was given in marriage at twelve, forced or not, says something about the society - I wasn't justifying marriage at twelve in citing her. I was pointing out the what was happening at that time. Do you really think it was "very rare" for parents to do what St. Rita's parents did? I don't.

An illegal marriage was normal because you said it was? The people at that time were all evil commiting grave sins because you say so? This is also just your opinion, an opinion created based on your own warped thoughts.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:26:27 PM »

Look at the serial slanderer Spiritus Sanctus talking to himself. You're a blockhead too SS.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:28:43 PM »

LOL, something tells me Matthew's new feature prevented Tele from thumbing down my post, so he angrily calls me a blockhead. Again, Tele proves my point.

Tele, when did I "slander" you? Didn't you call me a wicked pharisee and a devil and never apologize? Is that not slander?