Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on October 23, 2011, 05:52:25 PM
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
You have a serious problem and need help.
No, you have serious problem with facts and logic.
-
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.
-
You have a serious problem with facts and logic not I.
Your entire post was opinion, uneducated at that.
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!
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.
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.
-
Look at the serial slanderer Spiritus Sanctus talking to himself. You're a blockhead too SS.
-
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?
-
You have a serious problem with facts and logic not I.
Your entire post was opinion, uneducated at that.
No, someone who thinks marriage at 15 was "very rare" in the Middle Ages lacks even a basic knowledge of social history. Probably you don't know what the words "very rare" mean either.
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!
Matthew has pointed out the unreliability of Snopes. And you still haven't even admitted that it wasn't about the Middle Ages, even if it was true. Something that is highly dubious.
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.
You didn't reject it? But you still believe it was "very rare" for women to marry at 15?
An illegal marriage was normal because you said it was?
Not being normal doesn't make it "very rare." And the age did not make it illegal at that time.
The people at that time were all evil commiting grave sins because you say so?
So if something is not "very rare" (and I was speaking about the age, not forcing the girl to marry) then it means the contrary of that is that the people "were all evil committing grave sins" - you are making a pretty egregious logical error there.
This is also just your opinion, an opinion created based on your own warped thoughts.
No, the fact that marriage at 15 was not "very rare" is not my opinion.
-
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
Congratulations Matthew, I am happy to read what you wrote here, I sincerely hope the advice your blessed confessor gave you will apply also to CMRI clergy in the future.
I am proud to say I gave you a thumbs up for this note here.
-
LordPhan, do you think it's "very rare" for someone to belong to Mensa?
-
Well, if it isn't Myrna. Good to see you around again. :cool:
-
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.
I was an SSPX seminarian in Winona and I never saw anything hinting at unnatural vice, fwiw...
-
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.
I was an SSPX seminarian in Winona and I never saw anything hinting at unnatural vice, fwiw...
He didn't "see it" either - he found about it later when the former seminarians were brought up on charges.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-the-Traditional-Clergy
-
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.
I was an SSPX seminarian in Winona and I never saw anything hinting at unnatural vice, fwiw...
1. Ladislaus was there a LONG time ago. My own experience there ('00 - '03) is out of date, especially considering there's been a non-Bishop Williamson, French priest as rector from Fall 2003 - present (that's what I call a big change!), but Ladislaus' experience is a good 4 years older than mine.
2. If there is any "unnatural vice" it was only back in 1996-97 among the "Johnnies", or those who left the SSPX to start the Society of St. John (not to be confused with the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta). They set up shop in Shahola, PA and were lead by one Fr. Urrutigoity. They basically conspired while at the Winona seminary to start this new group, and only when their plot was exposed were they kicked out -- quite a few of them.
The Society of St. John seminarians were "aesthetes" -- and they were apparently especially interested in Plato's concept of "Platonic love" and close male friendship. Fast forward a few years, and there was a quite public scandal coming out of their group. I'm sure many can guess the nature of the scandal.
They wanted to live in common -- including laypeople -- like a big religious family. Very bizarre, if you ask me. They basically wanted to create a Catholic Disneyland that makes St. Mary's, KS pale by comparison, especially in scope (not in numbers though -- there were always WAY more Catholics in St. Marys than in Shahola)
I got to hear all about them from a man who was THERE at the time, who experienced all the drama first-hand -- one of the SSPX brothers. You see, the seminarians come and go, none of them sticking around for more than 6 years (either ordained, or they leave!) but the brothers are there for years. One of them told me a lot of details -- like the schola director they hired who snapped his fingers and pranced down the hallways... They were obsessed with surplices with very long sleeves and ridiculous amounts of lace. They installed microphones in the schola's choir stalls, etc.
Anyhow, they aren't SSPX -- they're Society of St. John. They made a deal with Rome and were in Shahola, PA for a while -- then the scandal happened and the bishop kicked them out of the diocese. Last I heard, they were in South America. You can find out much more if you're interested -- Google is your friend.
Matthew
-
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.
I was an SSPX seminarian in Winona and I never saw anything hinting at unnatural vice, fwiw...
Really? When were you there?
-
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.
This "calling out" thread really lacks focus.
For starters, I don't think Tele is doing anything excessive with the dislike or ignore features. It's a given that when you're debating him, no matter what a great or poor job either or you are doing, you'll probably dislike whatever the other has to say. No biggie. That's what it's there for.
I have no idea what he's disliked recently, but as a point of reference, I looked it up and you, SS, have disliked more of his posts than he's disliked yours.
I don't think it can really be said that Tele has a problem with hiding behind the rep feature and not just telling you what he thinks.
-
Look at the serial slanderer Spiritus Sanctus talking to himself. You're a blockhead too SS.
Has SS ever apologised for his comment re: David Hobson running a porn site? Or provided any evidence of such?
-
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.
The lack of focus started with the OP.
Matthew can come tell me I'm wrong, but I think the only real "axe grinding" problem here is the constant suggestion that the SSPX is the root cause for all of the evils found to whatever extent among Trads or that everyone who attends an SSPX chapel thinks and acts exactly alike.
Tele's thoughts on feminism and marriage and other things are usually more accurate than not and it's true that what you find in society at large will be visible to some extent -- sometimes to a large extent -- in Trad groups. But, that doesn't mean father-in-laws are more prone to it than cousins, aunts, or mother-in-laws or that SSPX priests are hugely more likely than any other Trad priest to have some worldly influence in their thinking or actions.
I think Tele's contributions to discussions about appropriate ages or incomes for courtship, for example, are worthwhile whether or not you agree with his conclusions. He might have more than average interest in these things, but that's not unusual for a man who'd like to someday be married.
-
Yes, I thought about it, and I think I confused Tele's ardent (and frequent) posts about these varied topics with his constant digs at the SSPX -- which often appear in said posts.
There's nothing wrong with a dogged campaign against Feminism, or against other modern errors. I agree with Tele on 90% of his observations. He takes some things too far; other things I completely disagree with because they completely go against my experience.
But disagreeing with me isn't a crime -- far from it. We're all here to discuss and challenge each other to think and learn.
What bothers me is his constant spewing of invective against the SSPX at large. It is reminiscent of "Carthago delenda est" -- where "Carthage must be destroyed" was affixed to every public speech, even speeches in which Carthage wasn't mentioned at all! The speech might have been about a new aqueduct, but he'd tack on "Oh, and P.S. -- Carthage must be destroyed!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
Seriously, though, it's more reminiscent of simple brainwashing by repetition -- the concept behind modern advertising. If I wanted to impute more malice, I could compare it to the Communist tactic of "repeat a lie often enough, and it will become the truth".
I don't think he's repeating it for any other reason than the fact he hates what the SSPX did to him, and/or the SSPX itself. I'd like that to remain the focus of this thread.
I apologize for sowing weeds among the wheat in the original post.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
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.
SS, this doesn't have much credibility in a thread where all Tele's posts get multiple thumbs down, and those against him only have thumbs-ups.
Moreover, he does sometimes ( not always ) use facts and refute arguments. In the post you are pointing out, he mentioned very good evidence that he did refute LordPhan. LordPhan even admitted that his source wasn't referring to the Middle Ages and acknowledges that Tele's was!
My objective on this site is to be as fair as I can be at all times, not to hold grudges. I am not against Tele, though some people act surprised when we agree like in the marital rape thread, like the fact that we had an argument means that I have to think the opposite of what he thinks on everything. That would be silly. He tells a lot of truth; for a while, he was letting his emotions run away with him, that's all. Maybe he still is; either it has improved, or I've gotten used to it.
-
I thumb down alot of Tele's posts because alot of them contain absolute craziness. Saying that the SSPX is "probably full of Masons" is just pure calumny and nonsense. Tele is just expressing hatred towards the Society because they kicked him out of his chapel. He makes the same mistake that several of the dogmatic sedevacantists make- they base their opinion on the SSPX primarily on Bishop Fellay (or, in Tele's case, on a few SSPX priests from one chapel). There are alot of good priets in the Society, sure they aren't perfect but you must give credit where credit is due. You look at me, I don't follow the CMRI but I concede that they have done some good for the Church.
Why exactly does it matter that I have given Tele more thumbs-down? That surprises me actually, I'd think it would be the other way around, given that he has been known to thumb me down for agreeing with him. And he's the one who holds grudges, he put me on ignore after I offered him my friendship.
-
I am not against Tele, though some people act surprised when we agree like in the marital rape thread, like the fact that we had an argument means that I have to think the opposite of what he thinks on everything. That would be silly. He tells a lot of truth;
Anyone who thinks that you (or anyone else) should automatically take the opposite side of your "enemy" is ridiculous -- completely illogical. Not how a real man would behave.
No male (the gender which by nature is more rational) -- should act so emotional and...well, you know the rest.
-
Why exactly does it matter that I have given Tele more thumbs-down?
It's kind of embarrassing for you, considering how much you complain about him voting you down. You should pause to evaluate the effect the voting system has on you. Perhaps you're a little too interested in it?
-
It would be a real shame if Tele was banned. I think both sides should work to prevent that from happening.
-
a marriage is invalid until it is consumated
Incorrect, a marriage that is not consummated is valid (assuming there are no impediments that haven't been dispensed, etc.) but not indissoluable.
-
There is nothing I can do to bury the hatchet between Tele and I. I've tried, I have offered him my friendship several times. But apparently he has no desire to put things past us and move on. The last time I offered him my friendship, he put me on ignore. So be it. I have already apologised to him for my behavior towards him in March, there is nothing else I can do. It's up to him as to whether or not he accepts that apology.
-
I take the position of St. Peter Damian on marriage.
-
By the way, I don't like all the ganging-up I've seen on Telesphorus (not just this thread, but in a couple others). It's very FishEaters.
-
There is an ignore feature which should take care of most things, but the persistent slander, if slander it is, is behavior which should have some consequences.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
I am not against Tele, though some people act surprised when we agree like in the marital rape thread, like the fact that we had an argument means that I have to think the opposite of what he thinks on everything.
FTR I was not surprised you agreed with him. I was surprised you were using Tele-style tactics of going on tangents about how evil women are and using imaginative examples of abuses that did nothing to change the rule of the norm.
-
I take the position of St. Peter Damian on marriage.
Where can one read about his position?
-
Myrna!!
Good to see you back on here. I was wondering where you were. I saw a post of yours on the Bellarmine Forums, I thought, so atleast I knew you were online and kicking still.
God bless you.
-
I take the position of St. Peter Damian on marriage.
Where can one read about his position?
I've forgotten if it's from a treatise contained in his letters or a treatise separate from his letters. Some of his letters are sometimes referred to as treatises. For example, Letter 31 is his treatise known as the Book of Gomorrah. But there are some works he had separate from the letters. I'll search and see if I can find the exact place where he argues for his position. I can sum up his position up as this: Marriage is both valid and indissoluble based on the consent of the parties, and not on intercourse. To St. Peter Damian, marriage was consummated (completed) immediately after the couple said 'I do'.
-
I want to make a correction. St. Peter Damian, in Letter 172, teaches that consent alone makes a marriage valid. I just re-read the letter and he's silent on the matter of indissolubility. It was Peter Lombard who taught that consent alone makes a valid and indissolubile marriage. St. Peter Damian may have (and probably did) believed the same, but he didn't mention it in Letter 172. He may have mentioned it somewhere else.
-
I got tired after page 14. It’s interesting to note that in July of last year, “Telesphorus” was a great supporter of the SSPX and understood its position on the Pope and sedevacantism. Now, just over a year later, he has become not only a sedevacantist, not only does he merely disagree with the theological and ecclesiastical position of the SSPX, but a malicious calumniator of the SSPX. In just a years’ time, he went from being a supporter of the SSPX to its worst enemy, now claiming that has been able to divine, in that short period of time, all of its terrible defects, evils and inconsistencies. One wonders whether a single man who changes so drastically and erratically within a short time is correct or whether there is an ulterior motive at play. Given the drastic changes of this man within a short time, his credibility and powers of discernment are questionable at best. It is certainly odd given the constant claims of the “shifting” and “changing” that has allegedly taken place within the SSPX, the greatest traditionalist order of priests in the world today. Maybe if “Telesphorus” hasn’t been so self-contradictory and shifty himself, one may take him more seriously. As it stands, the agenda has been demonstrated.
Good day to all.
The SSPX, as far as the world in concerned, is represented by Bishop Fellay and his cabal. And they act in a cultish manner.
The problem with the SSPX is that it started to become all about the SSPX and stopped being about being Catholic.
It is true that the SSPX (as it is now) for most is mainly about belonging to the SSPX, not about believing the Catholic Faith.
Holy priests do their job as they are intended, but many priests are very vain and they use the confessional to gratify their pride. And the SSPX seems to have a serious problem with vain priests.
People who behave shamelessly, and are arrogant about it. Something often seen in the SSPX.
The problem is the SSPX itself demands blind obedience now. The SSPX leadership has become very manipulative and unprincipled.
You'd have to be a fool to send your son to an all boys SSPX school.
The SSPX is selling out, being liberalized - I'm not going to claim there's a direct connection between my situation and the behavior of the leaders of the SSPX - but there is a connection, and the connection is this - there is a lack of principle and moral decency among many of these priests - and they've formed a clique that's taken over the SSPX.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that some people are not only interested in fitting in in the world, but also in conforming to the SSPX's general attitude on these things, which is definitely changing - that is - they let the SSPX do their thinking for them on these issues.
What I've seen, is that for many people the SSPX is about their social position within it rather than about worship. It's often more about control rather than about shelter from the immoral modern world.
SSPX pottage should hardly be compared to manna - especially with all the judaic and conciliar seasonings being added as of late. Of course it still has plenty of the gall and bile of insufferable pride to keep people coming back for more self-abasement.
But when you're dealing with someone marinated in the dishonesty of LE and the apologetics of the SSPX, you're going to get garbage. Dishonesty. Pathological. And the intention to provoke, the sneering contempt, is there in Caminus. It's there in the SSPX. There's a kind of cult that exists in the SSPX, and the people absorbed by that cult are not well, not well at all.
When cults want to get rid of people - they do two things to defend themselves -
#1 - they tell lies about the person they want to get rid of
#2 - they try to brand the person they're getting rid of as being "mentally ill"
Let's recall that the SSPX was sued by a man in Post Falls and the jury awarded the man hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages - because the SSPX priest worked to sabotage his relationship with his wife - to label him a mental case, and to cause him to be ostracized.
This is standard behavior for cults - not for Christians.
Christians don't lie - they don't feel the need to taunt.
Right now it seems to me the SSPX is in the grip of such bullies in Bishop Fellay's clique - it does not surprise me that the mentality spreads from the top down.
The current organization of the SSPX, its leadership, and its current attitude towards the Jews, towards sedevacantism and certain cultish tendencies it exhibits bother me a lot.
The SSPX is going to be held accountable for what they do to people. I'm never going to stop letting people know about their betrayal of Catholics.
The SSPX has done me an injury - now they MUST make reparations for that, or they will never hear the end of my criticisms.
Precisely because of the unjust way those dishonest priests kicked me out, I will continue to do what I can to help people understand just where they are leading all those traditional Catholics. It's a responsibility.
They'll never hear the end of me until I'm convinced of their good faith.
They've made a grievous mistake.
It is not bizarre when you understand the new orientation of the SSPX, cultural drift, etc. If SSPX priests give Lenten dispensations for parties with underage drinking, if SSPX attending pro-life advocates speak of "authentic feminism" and praise the singer Taylor Swift, then what you are seeing is either a lack of understanding of traditionalism, or an attempt to fit in with the world among traditionalists.
No, I'm pointing out that the SSPX acts like a cult that tells parents to shun their own sons wedding at a sede chapel. It's absolutely depraved behavior.
Bishop Fellay's acknowledgement of our "elder brothers" proves he's not a trad but a cult leader.
You call me a "fool" because you're not a Christian but a member of a cult.
I have absolutely no fear of this toothless cult of fake Catholics.
Why is it that you can never have a good faith discussion with an SSPX advocate?
We had an SSPX priest practically give a sermon with almost the same point of view, talking about how younger people today are supposedly immature, practically incapable of marriage. It was one thing that really clued me into the rottenness that is taking over the SSPX.
If the SSPX leaders stop discussing the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy and start to insult those who do talk about it, then the SSPX leaders have become hypocrites and turncoats who have given up any authentic attempt to defend the Faith.
Real Catholics teach what the Church teaches. False Catholics teach what is convenient for them, making things up as they go.
Some in the SSPX, apparently close to the leadership, have adopted the latter course. Which makes them the Pharisees of this time.
I've lost confidence in the integrity and honesty of the SSPX leadership
I think Jehanne pointed out a major lawsuit brought against the SSPX because of a priest who interfered with a man's marriage. the man was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars by the jury. The judgment was overturned but he did win over the jury.
s2srea said:
Telesphorus said:
No, you certainly wouldn't. Listen, I'm a charitable man. You need to apologize. Catholics don't act the way you do.
Listen up you used piece of toilet paper- I'll apologize as soon as you take back the slander you threw against the SSPX as a general cult, Puerto Ricans, and when you shave your silly pro-gαy mustache- Trust me- I live near LA- and they'd eat you up in West Hollywood- especially with that attitude of yours!
Like I said, Catholics don't act the way you do. It is a fact that the SSPX in many ways acts like a cult. It's a fact that Puerto Ricans often have a twisted sense of honor. And it's a fact that you're a coward and a vicious slanderer.
s2srea said:
Telesphorus said:
You just accused me of being someone who would beat a woman like a dead horse.
Oh come on Tele- you're a big boy right... right? I meant it metaphorically. You see you just use big words to insult others here, so its okay right? But when someone simplifies it, you are suddenly the victim.
You're a filthy vicious slanderer, like the other cult bullies.
Your desperate apologetics for sadists at SSPX schools who drive girls to ѕυιcιdє is what is pathetic.
The SSPX is never going to hear the end of me until I am convinced they are reformed. They are in the grip of a clique of very bad priests right now, and I will never stop exposing them for their betrayal of Catholics.
-
Bishop Williamson is accused by Bishop Fellay of speaking of the "apostasy" in the SSPX. Of speaking of the "double-tongued" within the SSPX. Of recommending that a young man not go to SSPX seminary.
He also quoted an SSPX teacher who stated that the same changes that happened in the Church in the 60s seem to be replaying in the SSPX.
I don't think Bishop Williamson has an ulterior motive in saying these things.
And one other thing: it is a matter of Faith and Morals when your "superior" (by what duly constituted and recognized authority?) tells you to stop preaching because Jews don't like you.
-
If the SSPX leadership, and priests and laity who behave unjustly don't want to be criticized by me, then they can start acting like honest Catholics. Until they start acting like Catholics, I will criticize them.
-
@caminus: :facepalm: I wish you woulnd't have brought out those most uncharitable comments I made. I'm very ashamed of them.
-
I think they were certainly deserved, but that aside, don't you find it strange that you can reflect upon yourself and feel ashamed about these words while Telesphorus not only does not repent, does not reflect, but lashes out yet again and is emboldened even further? That is because you possess charity whereas Telesphorus is consumed by hatred.
-
I think they were certainly deserved, but that aside, don't you find it strange that you can reflect upon yourself and feel ashamed about these words while Telesphorus not only does not repent, does not reflect, but lashes out yet again and is emboldened even further? That is because you possess charity whereas Telesphorus is consumed by hatred.
Matt- I'm not here to continually point out Tele's flaws. He has them, yes; I recognize them; I even point them out when I need to. What is your objective here? You're upset that he's spoken wrongly of the SSPX, and I mostly agree with you here. But why are you worried about it? If the society is as good and great as you think, why should you worry about this one man who speaks against them excessively? Is not the Society bigger than one Tele? Are you going to continually point out his weaknesses because you think you're the only one who see's whats wrong with his going about on this point?
Have you ever prayed for him?
-
Yes, speaking in terms of virtue rather than in myopic, compartmentalized categories that paralyze rational thought ending in a multitude of sins, certainly deserves thumbsdown from every normal thinking Catholic! It's easier for the one with an agenda to speak in generic, sweeping, organizational terms; it's easier to hide behind "group terms" so as to avoid any personal responsibility, even though he's defamed many Catholics here by calling them liars, cultists, etc. in the face of any opposition.
-
I think they were certainly deserved, but that aside, don't you find it strange that you can reflect upon yourself and feel ashamed about these words while Telesphorus not only does not repent, does not reflect, but lashes out yet again and is emboldened even further? That is because you possess charity whereas Telesphorus is consumed by hatred.
Matt- I'm not here to continually point out Tele's flaws. He has them, yes; I recognize them; I even point them out when I need to. What is your objective here? You're upset that he's spoken wrongly of the SSPX, and I mostly agree with you here. But why are you worried about it? If the society is as good and great as you think, why should you worry about this one man who speaks against them excessively? Is not the Society bigger than one Tele? Are you going to continually point out his weaknesses because you think you're the only one who see's whats wrong with his going about on this point?
Have you ever prayed for him?
Rich, this is an SSPX board and I have grown weary of this man's perverted agenda. It's not about his personal weaknesses, we all have them. Rather it is about holding someone accountable for this unnecessary, insulting behavior on an SSPX board. The object is the seeking of justice and charity, not to pick on him personally. If someone were to continually insult your mother, for example, unjustly accusing her of terrible things, would you stand for it or would you attempt to correct them at very least? There was a time when an accuser in court was bound to prove his case, otherwise retaliation would be the result. It's a basic premise of justice.
Do I pray for him? Of course, I pray for all whom I know or come into contact with, in reality or virtually, everyday.
Has he ever once expressed sorrow for his sins here? One apology anywhere? Does he pray for people? Has he ever prayed for anything but to satiate his own will and desire?
Has he ever blamed himself for anything?
Have any of us ever blamed ourselves for the crisis in the Church? Have we ever begged God for true Wisdom and pleaded not to be deluded? Has anywhere here ever wept for the state of the Church?
St. Catherine of Sienna blamed herself for the corruption of the Church in her times, yet she was sinless. She asked to be punished for the sins of Catholics in their stead. The answer to that puzzle may well solve our current crisis today.
-
If the SSPX leadership, and priests and laity who behave unjustly don't want to be criticized by me, then they can start acting like honest Catholics. Until they start acting like Catholics, I will criticize them.
And what specifically will prove to you that they will act like honest Catholics? Just so you know, your continual slander against them is itself un-Catholic; a more Catholic thing to do would be to say your peace, once, and pray for them.
You obviously do not engage with them directly anymore, so how would you know if they were, according to you, to start acting "Catholic"? You expect a phone call from all the people who you felt treated you badly? That's a little off the wall logic there Leonard. So while Caminus is not going about this properly either, it would be good to admit to yourself that perhaps you also could better handle this issue.
-
Looking at that list that Caminus posted I must say I feel that the things I said are for the most part justified. Anyone reading that and taking it to heart will hopefully be influenced to see things my way. So I thank Caminus for posting it. Without context, of course.
If people think there's not a "cult mentality" that infects parts of the SSPX - if they think that there isn't a cabal of sorts surrounding Bishop Fellay, then they are not seeing things clearly.
-
Rich, this is an SSPX board and I have grown weary of this man's perverted agenda. It's not about his personal weaknesses, we all have them. Rather it is about holding someone accountable for this unnecessary, insulting behavior on an SSPX board. The object is the seeking of justice and charity, not to pick on him personally. If someone were to continually insult your mother, for example, unjustly accusing her of terrible things, would you stand for it or would you attempt to correct them at very least? There was a time when an accuser in court was bound to prove his case, otherwise retaliation would be the result. It's a basic premise of justice.
Do I pray for him? Of course, I pray for all whom I know or come into contact with, in reality or virtually, everyday.
Has he ever once expressed sorrow for his sins here? One apology anywhere? Does he pray for people? Has he ever prayed for anything but to satiate his own will and desire?
Well I'm not going to stay on this issue much longer. I'll say this though, I don't condemn what you're doing, but I think its good to realize that people who stay on here enough, enough to read through Tele's unfair posts, can indeed see his 'agenda'. If they agree with him, then they though unfairly about the Society from the get go- so who really cares. I doubt he's creating any real conversion from Society supporters.
And you have to remember that this is not only SSPX, but a "SSPX and other Traditional Catholics" board. And we are not in a court where anything has to be proven to anyone. We all know that everything presented here, SSPX, CMRI, the Great Monarch, +Fellay vs +Williamson, Nirubu, post-VII Politics, and everything, should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
And what specifically will prove to you that they will act like honest Catholics? Just so you know, your continual slander against them is itself un-Catholic; a more Catholic thing to do would be to say your peace, once, and pray for them.
I don't consider it slander. Maybe sometimes I've gone too far, but for the most part, it's on the mark. Look at what Bishop Williamson has said. What I am saying is just the elaboration of what Bishop Williamson has said in principle.
You obviously do not engage with them directly anymore, so how would you know if they were, according to you, to start acting "Catholic"? You expect a phone call from all the people who you felt treated you badly?
I don't expect it, but I will tell the truth about what happened when I'm asked about it, and I am owed it. I am their creditor.
So while Caminus is not going about this properly either, it would be good to admit to yourself that perhaps you also could better handle this issue.
Yes, that's true, but let's not forget that I am often provoked, which accounts for going too far sometimes.
-
Looking at that list that Caminus posted I must say I feel that the things I said are for the most part justified.
Tele we should learn what it means to be practical.
Overstating anything is counter productive.
-
I think a lot of people here would agree with a lot of the things on Caminus' list.
-
Another thing - I've had sedevacantist leanings from the beginning of my turn towards Tradition. I was very disappointed by SSPX apologetics against sedevantism, but I thought they were relatively tolerant of sedevacantists. That was a mistaken belief. If I started speaking more openly about what I really think because I was kicked out of SSPX chapels, that's not some "drastic" change with an ulterior motive. I'm simply saying what I was thinking privately (but not always privately - I would speak about such things before) - and when I saw my private thoughts confirmed again and again in the behavior of the priests and in the behavior of the SSPX leadership - I decided it was time to start expressing those thoughts.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Why-has-Caminus-not-been-banned-or-even-admonished
-
Tele, what does that thread about Caminus have to do with this thread?
Some of the things Tele has said about the Society I'm not sure qualify as slander, but definitely calumny. Saying the SSPX is "probably full of masons" is calumny and absolute nonsense.
-
I hope whatever SS is saying is actually a quote and not a misrepresentation of what I said. I have a feeling it is another careless quotation and misrepresentation.
-
It's not. All I did was ask what that thread about Caminus has to do with this thread.
Thanks for proving that you thumb down my posts without reading them, Tele. I'm through responding to you.
-
An anti-SSPX, slanderous agenda (a thing that should be repugnant to all traditional Catholics) has been exposed and put forth for all to see, yet not the slightest evidence of a repentent conscience has been manifested by the offender, no, on the contrary, we see nothing but pride inflamed, intransigent self-assurance and morose delectation.
-
An anti-SSPX, slanderous agenda (a thing that should be repugnant to all traditional Catholics) has been exposed and put forth for all to see, yet not the slightest evidence of a repentent conscience has been manifested by the offender, no, on the contrary, we see nothing but pride inflamed, intransigent self-assurance and morose delectation.
That's called narcissism. Thinking you're always right and never admitting when you're wrong. That is why there is no winning with such people, they always think they're right. I know from personal experience, I know someone in real life who is like this, only worse.
-
An anti-SSPX, slanderous agenda (a thing that should be repugnant to all traditional Catholics) has been exposed and put forth for all to see, yet not the slightest evidence of a repentent conscience has been manifested by the offender, no, on the contrary, we see nothing but pride inflamed, intransigent self-assurance and morose delectation.
It's not slanderous at all. Caminus in his posts shows exactly the sort of things he accuses others of. His persistent habit of insulting, detracting, and dishonestly debating are evident.
-
And the rep obsessed Spiritual Sanctus, who cries in pain at every downrate, comes to slander me. Too bad it's all too common among people who attend SSPX masses.
-
And Tele shows his immaturity by thumbing down my posts without even reading them. He even thumbed me down for saying the Protestant Reformation was a cult. That's why I suggest: read BEFORE you vote.
-
And the rep obsessed Spiritual Sanctus, who cries in pain at every downrate, comes to slander me. Too bad it's all too common among people who attend SSPX masses.
Hyperbole.
Everyone should just ignore Tele, he's gotten annoying lately. All he ever does is slander the SSPX. It might be a good idea to ban Tele for two months just to let him cool down if he's going to keep acting like this. See his double standards? He says I slander him, but here he is implying I'm a slanderer for being an SSPXer.
-
Too bad it's all too common among people who attend SSPX masses.
LOL...yet another example. Unbelievable. Not only is this a logical fallacy, it is grossly unjust. What is wrong with you man?
-
LOL, I just noticed that Tele called me "SpiritualSanctus". Reminds me of when David Hobson called me "spiritsantified".
-
Too bad it's all too common among people who attend SSPX masses.
LOL...yet another example. Unbelievable. Not only is this a logical fallacy, it is grossly unjust. What is wrong with you man?
Just about anyone with experience can tell people about the way gossips wreak havoc at SSPX chapels. Serial slanderers like Spiritus Sanctus are too dense to even know what they're doing, so it's not surprising. And it's not surprising that the insulting bully boy calls it "unjust" to point out what is common knowledge.
-
It's not slanderous at all. Caminus in his posts shows exactly the sort of things he accuses others of. His persistent habit of insulting, detracting, and dishonestly debating are evident.
And this demonstrates a seriously blunted conscience. The only thing that is evident is that you have lost all comprehension of reality. This isn't a debate friend (just like a catechism class isn't a debate forum), this is a thread that was created to warn you of a serious problem, that you are consumed with hatred which blinds you. Being blind you cannot see, you have to trust others in this matter, not yourself.
If a CMRI priest treated me badly, or possessed some bad quality, I wouldn't dare start defaming the entire organization. Your silly logic is precisely the same used by enemies and detractors of the Catholic Church itself to discount and insult it because of bad priests within its ranks.
In fact, several years ago, an FSSP priest refused to baptize one of our daughters because the God parents attended our SSPX chapel back home. He claimed that our marriage was invalid as well. It took all of my energy to restrain myself from grabbing him by the vestments and taking him outside. Now should I start a slanderous campaign against the FSSP?
Your thought process is paralyzed because of several factors as well, i.e. emotion, categorical confusion, sweeping generalizations, the inability to make prudent casuistical judgments in the practical, concrete order and other logical fallacies. You feel the need to draw from one incident, to start from one small fact or piece of information, distorted or not, and start implicating this or that into one grand scheme as the process continues, it's called "movie script" thinking, Raoul has a very bad habit of this. Not surprisingly, in this imaginary play that is so convincing in your mind, you alone are the shining star. At base it's an inductive fallacy involving a series of bad inferences.
And it's not surprising that the insulting bully boy calls it "unjust" to point out what is common knowledge.
The question is what is all too common among SSPX goers? Where does the injustice come into play? Your answer? Slander. So slander is "all too common comong SSPX goers"? Is that a fact, eh? What say yea, SSPX goers, are you all too common a bunch of slanderers?
-
When did these school problems start? They didn't have them in the 1990s. Instead, they had massive problems with a certain group of traditionals who can be compared to vipers. That's the kindest word i can think of at the moment.
The SUPERIORS have been contacted, met with, spoken too, many times over the years, with no results. Like I posted earlier these shows were mild, they could have been a lot worse, but if this reaches the outside world, then you are going to see a sh*t storm like no other hit the press. These idiots, not me, are giving the enemies of The Church fresh meat to hit us over the head with. Consider a few of the facts
When I moved here my son’s class at ICA had over 20 students in it, the grade below had over 20 also, now in those two grades,( they are Juniors and Seniors today) there are a total of 6 students !!! Three in each grade!! That means out of like 40 families only 6 make the grade?? The other 34 families are a bunch of liberals that need to be thrown out?? Ask yourself a question, what happens to all those children and families??
I know of a first grader who was thrown out with no explanation. When the Father approached the SUPERIOR he was never told why his son was expelled, not even the teacher knew why. He has written several letters that went unanswered.
At the girls school, St Dominic’s, is much, much worse. The ratios of graduation are ridiculous, and the pressure on the girls is unspeakable. There have been ѕυιcιdєs, nervous breakdowns, not to mention the loss of faith.
Emma was a very mild case also, she actually made it through. I’ve spoken to many young girls and boys who left the Faith because of their experiences. Let me tell you it is gut wrenching.
I have offered on here, to have critics speak to the people interviewed on a show to bring up their objections, but not one person came forward!! All this bravado, but as soon as a light is shown on them they run like the cockroaches they are.
I’m sorry buddy, but I can’t just stand by and watch good Catholic families, who wanted to give their children a Traditional upbringing, get crushed by a small group of control freaks. One day one of these families are going to contact a lawyer and all of our chapels are going to be under the micro scope. If the authorities investigate there will be Nuns and Priests going to jail for child abuse. They will not have the power of The Vatican to protect them, like in the Homo scandals of the NO. Plus the modernists in the Church will have a field day with this, I’m sure they are aware of the situation already, they may be giving us enough rope so we can hang ourselves.
Plus isn’t this way of “sweeping it under the rug” attitude is what destroyed The Church to begin with?? When the liturgy was changed, teaching changed, children sɛҳuąƖly abused, homos in the seminaries, modernist Bishops, we were are told to shut up, write your superiors if you have a problem , offer it up.......all the while children were being raped, along with the peoples faith.
What is sad is how easily this can be rectified, and what a great place Post Falls can be!! Most Catholics would gladly suffer poverty if they knew that their children were being spiritually fed. Where is this meanness, and disorder coming from? Is it the lack of authority? Pride? I can’t put my finger on it.
So if you want to call me names go ahead, I’ve seen your type before, and I have very little tolerance for your girly b.s. If you live here in the Northwest just email me and we can settle this face to face, I have no problem with that at all. Or I’ll be back East soon enough if you live there also. Your choice.
-
What I experienced is widely corroborated by ample testimony from various sources. My criticism of the SSPX stems from the behavior of its leadership. I do think that behavior does explain in part the way so many people are badly treated in SSPX chapels. And even on this forum, where the slanderers and bully boys start piling on when they see that the SSPX is justly criticized for its very grave deficiencies.
-
This isn't a debate friend (just like a catechism class isn't a debate forum),
This catechism class was framed around mock debates. You really do seem to have serious problem with reading comprehension. In speaking of your dishonest debating tactics, I am only pointing out something that is widely observed by others on this forum. The FACT that YOU ARE DISHONEST is not slander. And it's your problem.
The question is what is all too common among SSPX goers? Where does the injustice come into play? Your answer? Slander. So slander is "all too common comong SSPX goers"? Is that a fact, eh? What say yea, SSPX goers, are you all too common a bunch of slanderers?
That's right, and it's in evidence on this very forum.
-
Truly pathetic. You rely on the quote of a disgruntled man whose story telling was confronted and found wanting? Who was obsessed with a young girl. Sure there's a few of you emotional types out there with an axe to grind. Probably just as many imperfect priests in the SSPX. There's always two sides to the story which you can't comprehend in your delusions. Go ahead, keep trying to justify yourself.
You snip out the inconvenient portions of my replies, how DISHONEST of you! Keep using the same logic of the enemies of the Church -- soon, if not already, you will become one yourself.
-
There have been ѕυιcιdєs, nervous breakdowns, not to mention the loss of faith.
Yes, you found your perfect mate, you should call him up and commiserate. Here's a newsflash for you -- even if these dramatic stories from some internet guy are true, guess what -- there have been "ѕυιcιdєs [really, ѕυιcιdєs, how many fella?], nervous breakdowns, [and] not to mention the loss of faith" in CATHOLIC CONVENTS AND PARISHES THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
So let's apply your logic to the Catholic Church. Let's follow the reasoning to it's conclusion. Go ahead, I don't need to spell it out for you, or do I?
Spit it out.
-
What Caminus illustrates is what happens when people try to rectify problems in these groups with cultish tendencies - he heaps abuse on those people, tells people the problems are in their heads - etc - it's what allows the abuses to flourish. Then the dummies like SS act like useful idiots spreading slander and malicious gossip, often not even having the intelligence to know that they're doing it.
-
You snip out the inconvenient portions of my replies, how DISHONEST of you!
So now it's dishonest not to respond to every word of Caminus ceaseless insults and abuse? How pathetic! It is really unworthy of a response.
Just as it is unworthy of a response, and I shouldn't have humored this pathologically dishonest cult-cop when he kept referring to the descriptions of Hillel as though they only said "one school had a better interpretation of the law than the other." As though the author hadn't said he was "preparing the way of the Lord" as "instrument of heaven" - placed between Isaiah and St. John the Baptist - when the man doesn't even appear in Holy Writ. And to this, over and over and over again - Caminus never addressed, it but said merely that "one school had a better interpretation of the law than another." Caminus is a dishonest debater, and I think this sort of behavior is bred in the SSPX. As is the abusiveness.
Caminus is certainly one of the most abusive posters on this board.
-
As Ladislaus posted complaining about and quoting Caminus, the poster boy for SSPX behavior:
Hey, loose lips, try responding to what people write once and awhile. Do you take meds for A.D.D.? As soon as you start to flirt with making some relevant reference, it seem your attention carries you away on fits of fancy. Maybe you should get some help with that since attention is necessary to engage in conversation. Is that why you're unemployed? Just curious.
...
What psychotic delusions!
...
It's just too bad your "force" amounts to wet toilet paper.
...
I realize you are a poor ignorant fool with very little of substance to say, but at very least, if you are going to compare yourself with Augustine or Bernard, at very least, say something intelligent about your opinions once and awhile. My God, have mercy on your stupidity. I mean come on, go back and read what you've written in the past few weeks. You remind me of a cartoon little man who thinks he's tougher and smarter than he really is. I find it hard to believe anyone could be so deluded. Maybe I'll start calling you Hollywood. Your fantasies are second to none.
...
You're starting to sound like Bob and Fred Dimond. Maybe the Most Unholy Family Monastery is in your future?
...
Another beauty. No, you nitwit, rhetoric isn't bad when it is used properly. But it is bad when a man uses it like he is somehow speaking theologically or philosophically or morally. Are you really that dense?
...
You haven't grasped much of anything. You are so utterly facile and shallow that you can't even respond directly to what I write.
...
Really? Do you have any evidence of that or does it just sound good? Not only are you an intellectual retard, you seem to possess no real virtue at all, assassinating Catholics left and right when challenged. Much like a crackhead when he doesn't get his crack.
...
You lie with such facility it is really frightening. Are you some kind of sociopath pretending to be Catholic?
...
Like the lunatic that you are, this all revolves around your alleged "cracking the code" while everyone else is the enemy. "Ha, ha, I've done figured it out, look how smart I am, I even got through all that culture and stuff!" Your posts are like one continuous monologue with the script playing over and over in your head with only minor variations.
...
You are painting yourself in such a manner because you are a blind fool who doesn't no what the hell he is talking about so you have to cover it up with something. Note the parallels here. The things you are accusing me of you in fact do with impugnity. Your lies, your sophistry, your fake beliefs, your pretensious, shallow, vain postings. It's all coming from you my friend. It's like a confession of sorts.
...
Not surprisingly, you don't understand the point, but pretend to as your ridiculous interpretation demonstrates. Your extreme arrogance won't allow you to be corrected, nor ask questions. You've got everybody figured out in that head of yours.
...
Yet more descriptive psychological drivel advanced by the imagination as an apologetic.
...
Yes, don't let it wake you from the slumber of your intellect and that pathetic attachment to the fits of your own imagination. Heaven forbid you for once in your life critique something by means of reason and sound theology. Yes, that is correct, you think not by reason but by your imagination. This is not surprising from one who has spent his entire life never ascending past this faculty of mere sense knowledge. I'm guessing that even your conversion to Roman Catholicism was the fruit not of the intellect, but rather of something coming into conformity with the phantasms in your mind.
...
And you demonstrate not only your stupidity, but your bad will as well by insulting and dismissing Catholic doctrine and the teaching of theologians with one sweeping and ignorant statement.
...
Your stupidity is breathtaking.
...
You have no care for a man's soul, only advancing your petty opinions regardless of virtue.
...
Your malice and ignorance is unbelievable. You really need to get some spiritual help.
...
You would be remiss in your duties if you did not buy Cecelia a reading comprehension program and Mike a beginners theology book.
...
The answer is simple really, Cecelia lies because she is downright lazy. This laziness aggravates her ignorance in turn. Saying these sensational things gets way more play than attempting to think seriously.
It is sad enough when men become blind due to bitter zeal, but there is something particularly pernicious when ladies turn into ravenous wolves.
...
The things you were saying were full of filth and depravity, just like CM and Bob Dimond. I don't take too kindly to mortal sins against justice and charity.
-
Qouting a banned member does you no justice.
Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see that Tele is the slanderer, calling me a dummie. Caminus can be a hothead sometimes, but no one on this forum is more hotheaded than Tele. Like I said, if he can't behave himself and stop posting calumny against the SSPX, he should probably be temp-banned. But sure, Tele will say I'm the problem. I'd like to meet him in person and talk things over. That way he can't hide behind the ignore and thumbs-down features.
-
Here's a newsflash for you -- even if these dramatic stories from some internet guy are true, guess what -- there have been "ѕυιcιdєs [really, ѕυιcιdєs, how many fella?], nervous breakdowns, [and] not to mention the loss of faith" in CATHOLIC CONVENTS AND PARISHES THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
Yeah, and dishonest, abusive men and women have driven people to those acts.
-
Yes, you found your perfect mate, you should call him up and commiserate. Here's a newsflash for you -- even if these dramatic stories from some internet guy are true, guess what -- there have been "ѕυιcιdєs [really, ѕυιcιdєs, how many fella?], nervous breakdowns, [and] not to mention the loss of faith" in CATHOLIC CONVENTS AND PARISHES THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
So let's apply your logic to the Catholic Church. Let's follow the reasoning to it's conclusion. Go ahead, I don't need to spell it out for you, or do I?
Spit it out.
And as far as the "dishonesty" card or whatever other epithet you may conjure, I see it primarily from you and your fair-weather friend, Raoul. Not a very convincing crowd. But you can level every foul name in the book at me and it won't change who you are and what you are one iota. LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Everything you say about others here and elsewhere is nothing but a very precise description of YOURSELF.
Everyone here knows you need serious help. Sorry this thread hasn't helped that cause. Good luck with all your endeavors.
-
And as far as the "dishonesty" card or whatever other epithet you may conjure, I see it primarily from you and your fair-weather friend, Raoul. Not a very convincing crowd. But you can level every foul name in the book at me and it won't change who you are and what you are one iota. LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Everything you say about others here and elsewhere is nothing but a very precise description of YOURSELF.
No Caminus, you are dishonest, and what I'm saying about you does not describe myself at all. Typical tu quoque nonsense - with nothing to back it up. You always make bald assertions without evidence. In this case, when you posted all the supposed "slanders" (they aren't) you've never been able to refute what I've been saying about the SSPX. All you can do is resort to personal abuse. Which is your predilection. And explains your career choice.
Everyone here knows you need serious help.
The SSPX needs serious correction. And part of that is that it's disgusting "apologists" need to stop labeling its critics mentally ill. A cultish tendency.
Sorry this thread hasn't helped that cause. Good luck with all your endeavors.
And some sanctimony to boot. Another cultish tendency.
-
There are few things more stomach-churning than when malevolent people tell a person to "get help" - when in fact they are mainly interested in humiliating and branding the person as mentally ill. That's the reality. These people who talk about that never offer anything that is remotely helpful. They stick to their lies, their hypocrisy, then they offer smug condescending, sanctimonious advice as though they weren't the ones who are dishonest and off the deep end. That's a cultish tendency.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see that Tele is the slanderer, calling me a dummie. Caminus can be a hothead sometimes, but no one on this forum is more hotheaded than Tele.
I don't think that's slander...
I will just say, Tele's insults don't have the sadistic feeling that Caminus' do. It is clear he's not in control of his emotions these days and is just lashing back. In other words, Tele was not prone to name-calling before this incident at his church, but Caminus was, he has always had a bitter and mean way of addressing people.
I am not saying Tele is entirely a victim. I took his side at first and then, as was seen, I wondered if he really was as innocent as all that, or if he was blinded by pride to a certain degree. But I DID see the way the Fisheaters crowd treated him, mocking and railing openly. So there is at least some truth to what he's saying, though I don't buy that everyone was jealous of him and wanted to persecute him just because he was so good. I think it is his kind of self-involved character and his insistence on seeing things his way and his way only -- a kind of relentless stubborness, Tele deserves the description "ox-like" more than anyone I've ever met -- that makes people want to make fun of him, which of course isn't even remotely Catholic.
I have seen this cycle before. Someone has an attitude problem and makes a lot of enemies; then they think that this is because they're a suffering saint or a martyr of some kind, which makes them less inclined to see that part of the problem is themselves. This can lead to a total descent into self-righteous narcissism where this person thinks they're justified taking on the world. I would encourage Tele to remember what his dad said to him.
Tele can be an impossible person, and that is what is leading to his misfortunes. His self-involvement puts people off and then, in un-Catholic fashion, they rub salt in the wound. But even if you do try to help, like I have been, he'll accuse you of being condescending or adopting the air of an insufferable wise man... In other words, you can't win with the guy except by lathering him up and being his underling who agrees with everything he says.
As for what he's saying about SSPX, if he sticks to theology, then Caminus and others should do what they can to debate him on those terms ( which they can't ). If he is extrapolating from his personal situation to show that all SSPX priests are malevolent, it is less convincing.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
Caminus said:
An anti-SSPX, slanderous agenda (a thing that should be repugnant to all traditional Catholics) has been exposed and put forth for all to see, yet not the slightest evidence of a repentent conscience has been manifested by the offender, no, on the contrary, we see nothing but pride inflamed, intransigent self-assurance and morose delectation.
That's called narcissism. Thinking you're always right and never admitting when you're wrong. That is why there is no winning with such people, they always think they're right. I know from personal experience, I know someone in real life who is like this, only worse.
You guys justify everything he says when you try to use his CHARACTER FLAWS to attack what he says about SSPX. That is cult-like; that is cheap; that is the kind of thing that would be thrown out of court.
Are you going to attack my character flaws? I am far more virulent against the SSPX than Tele. Oh yes, I have a "Hollywood mindset." Very convincing.
There are scads upon scads of sedes who blast the SSPX, because the SSPX theology is riddled with errors that have been written about ad nauseam. These criticisms go far beyond what Telesphorus is saying, who still quotes Abp. Lefebvre and has a kind of love/hate thing with SSPX going. The critiques of SSPX started long before he ever even questioned SSPX. I hate to tell you but in sede circles it is basically an SSPX bash-fest.
Do you have any self-respect, Caminus? Or is it just about "winning" for you at any cost, even when you're just making yourself look bad? Trying to use Tele's problems as a way to defend SSPX? It's so weak that I'm embarrassed for you. You can fool yourself but not God.
-
And the rep obsessed Spiritual Sanctus, who cries in pain at every downrate, comes to slander me. Too bad it's all too common among people who attend SSPX masses.
Tele, not only you're wrong, but your choice of words has made you even MORE wrong.
Spiritus doesn't attend SSPX Masses. Seriously, there is no SSPX chapel near where he lives.
He might be considered a supporter, but that's not what you said.
This reminds me of when you were arguing with Caminus, and started complaining about, "Those ex-seminarians from SSPX seminaries!" even though Caminus never attended an SSPX seminary, and he's the one who inspired your complaint.
Are you totally losing it?
-
This reminds me of when you were arguing with Caminus, and started complaining about, "Those ex-seminarians from SSPX seminaries!" even though Caminus never attended an SSPX seminary, and he's the one who inspired your complaint.
Are you totally losing it?
To be fair, and I don't know why, I thought Caminus was a former SSPX seminarian too.
Caminus- I know you're married an all, but can't you get a dispensation and just show up at Winnona for a week so I can be right for once?!
-
Matthew, thanks for clarifying for me. In fact, I have never attended an SSPX Mass in my life, sadly. Every TLM I've been to has been either FSSP or diocesean. Now I don't even have a TLM to atten period.
Raoul, the definition of a cult would be the Protestant Reformation, or Charlie Manson and his followers. Saying the SSPX is a cult just because a few SSPXers say Tele has issues is like saying that Traditional Catholicism is a cult because some Trads can over-criticize. That isn't logical. In any case, I apologize for calling Tele a narcissist, I will keep such comments to myself from now on.
-
"Those ex-seminarians from SSPX seminaries!" even though Caminus never attended an SSPX seminary, and he's the one who inspired your complaint.
I never claimed Caminus was an ex-seminarian. I said his style was similar to what I'd encountered.
This reminds me of what you said about the girl going to her knees in choir - you didn't accurately report what I said, but greatly embellished it and mocked it when all I had done was report facts.
SS is very childish. Whether it's the chiming in on every opportunity, his obsession with reputation points, in inability to carry on even a rudimentary argument, and his gratuitous slanders and phony apologies, the guy is sadly on the same mental level as other simple-minded people who end up spreading nasty gossip.
-
Tele, not only you're wrong, but your choice of words has made you even MORE wrong.
Spiritus doesn't attend SSPX Masses. Seriously, there is no SSPX chapel near where he lives.
Did I claim he did? Did he ever attend them? His mentality is all too common.
-
He is a canon lawyer, and used to work in a marriage tribunal in the conciliar Church
What a great recommendation. I can say this: I wouldn't want any of you people sitting on a jury.
before he came to tradition. I would say he is above SSPX politics.
Matthew, this thread is really a form of axe-grinding against me. The SSPX has some pretty serious flaws, but certain types don't want to hear it. And why do they react the way they do? Because they are inculcated with the mentality of the SSPX.
-
Another thing: Raoul is a fantasist and someone who is not to be trusted.
He cannot separate his own over-active imagination from his "observations."
He is not really an analytical thinker either.
-
The SSPX has some pretty serious flaws, but certain types don't want to hear it. And why do they react the way they do? Because they are inculcated with the mentality of the SSPX.
The first sentence is definately true. But if you take the way people 'react the way they do' on this site to many of your claims, its not what you say, but how many times you say it.
If I said to my sister, "Our mom is a good mom." I'm sure she'd agree.
If I told her, over and over and over again, one thousand times every chance I had, she would probably say, "Shut Up!"
Does this mean she doesn't think our mom is good? No. She's responding to my approach telling her about our mom.
You're not wrong on most of your commentary of the Society; but the constant relentless attacks on them gives an impression of hate and revenge, whether its true or not. It needs to stop, or no one will hear you but keep saying, "Shut Up!"
-
It's hard to avoid repeating oneself when arguing with people who stonewall.
-
Yes, but its worth trying.
-
SS is very childish. Whether it's the chiming in on every opportunity, his obsession with reputation points, in inability to carry on even a rudimentary argument, and his gratuitous slanders and phony apologies, the guy is sadly on the same mental level as other simple-minded people who end up spreading nasty gossip.
You don't think it's childish to thumb down all of my posts? And I don't obsess over reputation points, my reputation on a forum pales in comparision to my reputation with God.
-
In fact, several years ago, an FSSP priest refused to baptize one of our daughters because the God parents attended our SSPX chapel back home. He claimed that our marriage was invalid as well. It took all of my energy to restrain myself from grabbing him by the vestments and taking him outside.
Some FSSP priests are like that, unfortunetly. Although, I know that there are also some FSSP priets who like Archbishop LeFebvre and the Society.
-
I think I'm going to name SS the "irrelevant thread buzzard"
-
Rich, don't encourage him. Saying that there are imperfect priests in the Society and the Bishop Fellay has possibly been imprudent is some circuмstances is a far cry from what Telesphorus' campaign of hatred has asserted. There have been imperfect priests in all religious orders, there have been imprudent judgments made by superiors as long as the Church has been in existence. Have you noticed that he has evaded my point about taking his assertions to their logical conclusions viz. the Catholic Church itself? He knows full well where they lead, but he refuses to answer because it necessarily negates his willful evil. He has made it clear that he will not relent in his assassination attempt on the Society, that it is a personal vendetta. He will calumniate and evade; he will stonewall and distort until he runs out of emotion or comes to his senses. Until then, there is simply no rational discussion possible.
-
The apostasy in the SSPX, led by the clique of the "double-tongued" - the changes in the SSPX that resemble what was occurring in the 60s. (as mentioned in the Eleison comments) I'm not the only one whose noticing what's happening. It's pretty serious. It isn't a matter of imperfections. People for whom belonging to the SSPX is more important than being Catholic don't want to hear about it.
1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.
2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?
3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.
-
This is the remarkable truth about the abusive, slanderous mentality that infects the "double-tongued" clique:
I figured my time with Fr. Phluger would be rather limited so I immediately cut to the chase in inquiring about the status of Bp. Williamson. In the course of our talk, Fr. Phluger made some pointed derogatory statements about Bp. Williamson. These were topped off by his stunning assertion with respect to Bp. Williamson and this is verbatim: "He's a nαzι." As God is my witness that is exactly what this priest told me face to face.
I made the above quote known to Bp. Williamson as well as the full details of my conversation with Fr. Phluger in an email to the former one day later on February 21, 2011. I still retain that email as well as the reply I received to it from Bp. Williamson on February 22, 2011. (I also informed my SSPX pastor of the conversation and the specific nαzι assertion in an email to him on February 23rd.)
I am sorry to bring such a despicable affair to light at this time, but I think that those who are in a position to do so should hold Fr. Pfluger accountable for it. Don't shoot the messenger. In my opinion his aforesaid assertion to me was a grave calumny. Some may strongly disagree, but my conscience -- after much consideration -- informs me that my extraordinary step of making it public at this time is fully justified.
The internal exile of Bp. Williamson should in my opinion never have been imposed. Furthermore, in my opinion its continuation is absolutely wrong and is (or at least should be!) an ongoing scandal to the faithful.
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/10/letter-from-bishop-fellay-to-bishop.html
-
Unlike somebody like S2Rea, I don't think Matthew was trying to hurt you when he started this thread, at least not in a way that wasn't meant to help you. If you had the wisdom to, I think you would accept it and be grateful for it. As it is, I guess you don't. Although, I haven't read most of the thread. (I am not trying to insult you, I think we all need God's grace to get wisdom, I know I do). So, I will pray that you get that too and perhaps my intercessory prayer will be of some help to you. Although, there may be more powerful intercessors, which I could ask to join me in praying for you. I wonder what saint would be a good choice for that???? (any help in that regard, from anyone, would be appreciated, except maybe S2Rea, since I don't like him anymore and I'm thinking about mentioning that in every single breath I take for the rest of my bitter, bitter life :jester:)
:pray:
(http://991.com/newgallery/Star-Trek-Wrath-Of-Khan---A-260465.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYPsoxpt0BU
-
He really doesn't look like Ricardo Montalban in that get-up.
-
He really doesn't look like Ricardo Montalban in that get-up.
I really like him in that role. This tribute is pretty cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXCxQZd_SP4
-
Unlike somebody like S2Rea, I don't think Matthew was trying to hurt you when he started this thread, at least not in a way that wasn't meant to help you. If you had the wisdom to, I think you would accept it and be grateful for it. As it is, I guess you don't. Although, I haven't read most of the thread. (I am not trying to insult you, I think we all need God's grace to get wisdom, I know I do). So, I will pray that you get that too and perhaps my intercessory prayer will be of some help to you. Although, there may be more powerful intercessors, which I could ask to join me in praying for you. I wonder what saint would be a good choice for that???? (any help in that regard, from anyone, would be appreciated, except maybe S2Rea, since I don't like him anymore and I'm thinking about mentioning that in every single breath I take for the rest of my bitter, bitter life :jester:)
:pray:
(http://991.com/newgallery/Star-Trek-Wrath-Of-Khan---A-260465.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYPsoxpt0BU
Why is it you always post images of Hollywood movies in the majority of your posts?