Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Telesphorus on April 16, 2011, 11:57:53 AM
-
ELEISON COMMENTS CXCVI (April 16, 2011) : STAY AWAKE !
In a situation of the world so serious that there are even rumours of Japan's recent peacetime disaster, with its estimated 27,000 people dead, being not an act of God but an act of man ( look up HAARP tsunami on the Internet ), what can a Catholic do to save his soul ? In all truth he cannot do much for the world, but the very least he can do for himself is watch, or stay awake.
It is Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane who puts watching, i.e. keeping our eyes open and not falling asleep, even in front of praying (Mt. XXVI,41). The reason is obvious. If, like Peter, James and John, I do not keep watch (Mt.XXVI,43), I will cease to pray, maybe, as in their case, when Our Lord most needs it. How many Catholics in the 1950's and 1960's, especially the clergy, were not watching the signs of the times in Church and world, and so were caught completely on the wrong foot by Vatican II ? That is why "Eleison Comments", as "Letters from the Rector" used to do, are constantly turning on economics and politics, to get Catholics to wake up to their religion and its demands, far outweighed by its promises (I Cor. II,9).
Thus an expert on Wall Street (see JSmineset.com, March 30, 2011) may say, "The financial system is screwed up beyond repair. On top of that there is no desire to repair anything because the wise guys know it is impossible. It is the world that the flushing of Lehman has created. It is not a brave new world"... Jim Sinclair says it does not matter how much "funny money", as one can call it, the central banks go on creating..."The damage is done and there is no solution... please get physically self-reliant" (his words, my underlining).
Still, even Traditional Catholics are being tempted to doze off, not to say fall asleep. Here are two recent testimonies. The first is from a teacher in a Traditional school :-- "I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
The second comes from an inside observer of today's Traditional Catholic scene in the USA :-- " It appears to me that Catholic militancy is declining. I see many Traditional Catholics, especially family fathers, accepting the ways of the world. The fight is no longer important to them. They are happy to have their beautiful Mass on Sunday, but on Monday send their children to public school. Each November they go out and vote for the lesser of two evils, watch (conservative?) Fox News and declare the (conservative?) Republican Party to be the answer to all of the world's problems. In my humble opinion this lack of militancy is becoming more and more pervasive in the Traditional Catholic world. Are we (the laity) returning to the same set of circuмstances that led to Vatican II ? Is the Sunday Catholic now the predominant majority in the Traditional movement ? I'm afraid that the answer to both of these questions may be, yes."
For is it not so much easier to give up trying to swim against today's current, so much cosier to fall into the arms of Sleep ? The very least one can do for oneself is throw out that television set.
-
Still, even Traditional Catholics are being tempted to doze off, not to say fall asleep. Here are two recent testimonies. The first is from a teacher in a Traditional school :-- "I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
The second comes from an inside observer of today's Traditional Catholic scene in the USA :-- " It appears to me that Catholic militancy is declining. I see many Traditional Catholics, especially family fathers, accepting the ways of the world. The fight is no longer important to them. They are happy to have their beautiful Mass on Sunday, but on Monday send their children to public school. Each November they go out and vote for the lesser of two evils, watch (conservative?) Fox News and declare the (conservative?) Republican Party to be the answer to all of the world's problems. In my humble opinion this lack of militancy is becoming more and more pervasive in the Traditional Catholic world. Are we (the laity) returning to the same set of circuмstances that led to Vatican II ? Is the Sunday Catholic now the predominant majority in the Traditional movement ? I'm afraid that the answer to both of these questions may be, yes."
powerful words
-
In a situation of the world so serious that there are even rumours of Japan's recent peacetime disaster, with its estimated 27,000 people dead, being not an act of God but an act of man ( look up HAARP tsunami on the Internet ), what can a Catholic do to save his soul ?
:facepalm:
BW has such a brilliant intellect and insight as regards matters of Faith, it is disturbing to see him attach himself to SO MANY conspiracy theories. His enemies have already reduced his mainstream credibility to zero. Yet, his sincere, but misguided belief in these theories keep proving to be his achilles heel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#Conspiracy_theories
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).[1] Its purpose is to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes.[2] The HAARP program operates a major Arctic facility, known as the HAARP Research Station, on an Air Force owned site near Gakona, Alaska.
.......
HAARP is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, with individuals ascribing various hidden motives and capabilities to the project. Journalist Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.[15][16] Skeptic computer scientist David Naiditch called HAARP "a magnet for conspiracy theorists", saying the project has been blamed for triggering catastrophes such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and devastating earthquakes in Pakistan and the Philippines aimed to shake up "terrorists." Naiditch says HAARP has been blamed for diverse events including major power outages, the downing of TWA Flight 800, Gulf War syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Conspiracy theorists have also suggested links between HAARP and the work of Nikola Tesla (particularly potential combinations of HAARP energy with Tesla's work on pneumatic small-scale earthquake generation) and physicist Bernard Eastlund. According to Naiditch, HAARP is an attractive target for conspiracy theorists because "its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed".[17] Conspiracy theorists have linked HAARP to numerous earthquakes. An opinion piece on a Venezuelan state-run television channel's website named HAARP as a cause of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
-
"I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
I suspect this battle has nothing to do with the battle that Tele conjures for his own purposes, though he gleefully reports this testimony in order to bolster whatever opinions he harbors.
This is not surprising. It is spiritual warfare. To observe the weaknesses and tendencies of laity is a farily easy thing to do. The remedy on the other hand is not mentioned. What is it? It is nothing other than living the ascetic life. Our position has not changed as catholics, the only difference is the diabolical environment in which we find ourselves. Our efforts must be at least commensurate with this fact. When they are not, you will see decline and worldliness. Realizing how wicked the world is is useful only insofar as we recognize the same wickedness in us. Realizing the faults of others is useful insofar as we first blame ourselves and then set about repairing the damage by sacrifice.
-
"I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
I suspect this battle has nothing to do with the battle that Tele conjures for his own purposes, though he gleefully reports this testimony in order to bolster whatever opinions he harbors.
It has everything to do with it, and you know it. When you see priests shifting their positions to accommodate modern values, it's clear what's going on. When you see cult-like defenders smearing everyone who questions what's going on, then it becomes comprehensible how the priests get away with it.
-
In a situation of the world so serious that there are even rumours of Japan's recent peacetime disaster, with its estimated 27,000 people dead, being not an act of God but an act of man ( look up HAARP tsunami on the Internet ), what can a Catholic do to save his soul ?
:facepalm:
BW has such a brilliant intellect and insight as regards matters of Faith, it is disturbing to see him attach himself to SO MANY conspiracy theories. His enemies have already reduced his mainstream credibility to zero. Yet, his sincere, but misguided belief in these theories keep proving to be his achilles heel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#Conspiracy_theories
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).[1] Its purpose is to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes.[2] The HAARP program operates a major Arctic facility, known as the HAARP Research Station, on an Air Force owned site near Gakona, Alaska.
.......
HAARP is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, with individuals ascribing various hidden motives and capabilities to the project. Journalist Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.[15][16] Skeptic computer scientist David Naiditch called HAARP "a magnet for conspiracy theorists", saying the project has been blamed for triggering catastrophes such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and devastating earthquakes in Pakistan and the Philippines aimed to shake up "terrorists." Naiditch says HAARP has been blamed for diverse events including major power outages, the downing of TWA Flight 800, Gulf War syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Conspiracy theorists have also suggested links between HAARP and the work of Nikola Tesla (particularly potential combinations of HAARP energy with Tesla's work on pneumatic small-scale earthquake generation) and physicist Bernard Eastlund. According to Naiditch, HAARP is an attractive target for conspiracy theorists because "its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed".[17] Conspiracy theorists have linked HAARP to numerous earthquakes. An opinion piece on a Venezuelan state-run television channel's website named HAARP as a cause of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
It has been admitted by officers of the Air Force to the mainstream media that besides surveillance HAARP IS used for weather manipulation. The horses mouth is a very credible source, is it not?
Stop reading Wikipedia and do some actual research. As a matter of fact, the information you sited in the article is outdated by more than a year ( a testimony to the ignorance of it's writer). I'll let you find out for yourself, rather than tell you, so you can correct it.
-
"I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
I suspect this battle has nothing to do with the battle that Tele conjures for his own purposes, though he gleefully reports this testimony in order to bolster whatever opinions he harbors.
It has everything to do with it, and you know it. When you see priests shifting their positions to accommodate modern values, it's clear what's going on. When you see cult-like defenders smearing everyone who questions what's going on, then it becomes comprehensible how the priests get away with it.
These are rather vague charges. Can you cite some specific, concrete examples?
-
Stevus, the HAARP stuff and weaponised weather is real. There is ample docuмentation, even treaties were signed against weather wars.
I'm too lazy to link it up for you, but Bishop Wiliamson is by no means discrediting anything by any such theory.
The plans for depopulation of the world for "sustainability" are also well docuмented. Therefore, there is nothing far-fetched about suggesting that the warnings of our good Catholic prophets might be coming to pass.
Good old +Williamson knew immediately that 9-11 was fishy, and published his thoughts about it 2 days later.
We need people like the Bishop and skeptics like Stevus at the same time. :cheers:
-
These are rather vague charges. Can you cite some specific, concrete examples?
I already have gone over it. Numerous times. The Church teaches what it teaches. If they can't teach what the church teaches because they want more control then they have a serious problem.
-
Right, in other words, you've got nothing substantial to say.
-
Right, in other words, you've got nothing substantial to say.
Wrong, I've already said it. Apparently you and many others think it's fine for SSPX priests to not teach Catholic teachings.
You're the one trying to shift my posting of Bishop Williamon's column back onto me personally. It just shows you how the apologists for cult-like behavior operate. It's all ad hominem, all the time.
-
You're complaing about ad hominems? LOL. :laugh1: You're the KING of ad hominem attacks.
BTW, as if it isn't obvious already, you've never cited one "Catholic teaching" which the SSPX doesn't teach or denies.
If not adhering to your blind rage make me a "cult member" then I suppose I'm guilty. But thankfully, we are not required to submit to the subjective emotions of laymen.
When you get some hard facts, let me know. Until then, it was nice talking to you.
-
ELEISON COMMENTS CXCVI (April 16, 2011) : STAY AWAKE !
In a situation of the world so serious that there are even rumours of Japan's recent peacetime disaster, with its estimated 27,000 people dead, being not an act of God but an act of man ( look up HAARP tsunami on the Internet ), what can a Catholic do to save his soul ? In all truth he cannot do much for the world, but the very least he can do for himself is watch, or stay awake.
It is Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane who puts watching, i.e. keeping our eyes open and not falling asleep, even in front of praying (Mt. XXVI,41). The reason is obvious. If, like Peter, James and John, I do not keep watch (Mt.XXVI,43), I will cease to pray, maybe, as in their case, when Our Lord most needs it. How many Catholics in the 1950's and 1960's, especially the clergy, were not watching the signs of the times in Church and world, and so were caught completely on the wrong foot by Vatican II ? That is why "Eleison Comments", as "Letters from the Rector" used to do, are constantly turning on economics and politics, to get Catholics to wake up to their religion and its demands, far outweighed by its promises (I Cor. II,9).
Thus an expert on Wall Street (see JSmineset.com, March 30, 2011) may say, "The financial system is screwed up beyond repair. On top of that there is no desire to repair anything because the wise guys know it is impossible. It is the world that the flushing of Lehman has created. It is not a brave new world"... Jim Sinclair says it does not matter how much "funny money", as one can call it, the central banks go on creating..."The damage is done and there is no solution... please get physically self-reliant" (his words, my underlining).
Still, even Traditional Catholics are being tempted to doze off, not to say fall asleep. Here are two recent testimonies. The first is from a teacher in a Traditional school :-- "I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
The second comes from an inside observer of today's Traditional Catholic scene in the USA :-- " It appears to me that Catholic militancy is declining. I see many Traditional Catholics, especially family fathers, accepting the ways of the world. The fight is no longer important to them. They are happy to have their beautiful Mass on Sunday, but on Monday send their children to public school. Each November they go out and vote for the lesser of two evils, watch (conservative?) Fox News and declare the (conservative?) Republican Party to be the answer to all of the world's problems. In my humble opinion this lack of militancy is becoming more and more pervasive in the Traditional Catholic world. Are we (the laity) returning to the same set of circuмstances that led to Vatican II ? Is the Sunday Catholic now the predominant majority in the Traditional movement ? I'm afraid that the answer to both of these questions may be, yes."
For is it not so much easier to give up trying to swim against today's current, so much cosier to fall into the arms of Sleep ? The very least one can do for oneself is throw out that television set.
Such a great letter from a great bishop. Wish he was at the helm of the SSPX!
-
You're complaing about ad hominems? LOL. :laugh1: You're the KING of ad hominem attacks.
Caminus, I posted this column and you made your response about the person posting it. You personalize everything.
BTW, as if it isn't obvious already, you've never cited one "Catholic teaching" which the SSPX doesn't teach or denies.
More nonsense. It has been extensively discussed. Part of the new cult strategy for squelching criticism is to start tarring people as "antisemites" and "conspiracy theorists" as well. It's all about branding the critic with calumnies to keep control and avoid answering criticisms.
If not adhering to your blind rage make me a "cult member" then I suppose I'm guilty.
What makes you a cult apologist is the way you strenuously attack all critics without actually discussing the content of an argument.
But thankfully, we are not required to submit to the subjective emotions of laymen.
When you get some hard facts, let me know. Until then, it was nice talking to you.
You started this with your claim that I "gleefully" posted this column by the bishop but you're certain it has nothing to do with my situation? Don't pretend you care about facts or about not judging people.
-
Either you have a selective memory or you are lying. I would prefer to think the former than the latter. So to keep your memory fresh, neither you nor anyone else has uttered an opinion or proposition that I have not dealt directly with, either to affirm or deny. The usual response I get from you is either to ignore what I say or merely keep parrotting your inane charges (how many times have you used the term 'cult' now?). If I sprinkle a few ad hominems in their its for a little perspective and maybe some spice that has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my arguments. What does leak out is really only a fraction of the verbal tongue lashing that you actually deserve for all of your lies, calumny and distortions. I notice that you have missed your own repugnant tactics in this never ceasing campaign. Who is it really that poisons the well? Who has set up the grotesque caricature of people who simply call into question the soundness of your criticism? You are truly a sick man (yes, that's an AD HOMINEM).
-
Either you have a selective memory or you are lying. I would prefer to think the former than the latter.
How do you deduce that?
So to keep your memory fresh, neither you nor anyone else has uttered an opinion or proposition that I have not dealt directly with, either to affirm or deny.
You brought up my situation and claimed it was the motivation for posting Bishop Williamson's comments. What does that have to do with the substance of the column?
As for your refusal to debate actual issues but to resort to ad hominem, that's obvious to everyone.
The usual response I get from you is either to ignore what I say or merely keep parrotting your inane charges (how many times have you used the term 'cult' now?).
There is cultish behavior - behavior that puts loyalty to the group ahead of Catholic truth - despite the very troubling behavior of the leadership. The way the cult apologist works is that anyone who criticizes the society is marked as some sort of evil or deranged person.
If I sprinkle a few ad hominems in their its for a little perspective and maybe some spice that has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my arguments.
Responding to my posting of his letter with an ad hominem directed at me. Then claiming that the changes that people are observing in the society are just normal things that we should expect as part of "spiritual combat" - well part of spiritual combat requires people to fight back against the sources of contamination. This sort of claim - that these problems people encounter are "not surprising" - then to blame the critic for not mentioning the "remedy" of "living the ascetic life" is turning the discussion of the problem into an ad hominem. The critic should stop complaining and accept all things ascetically! Just so long as the people leading the society down the wrong path are not held accountable.
What does leak out is really only a fraction of the verbal tongue lashing that you actually deserve for all of your lies, calumny and distortions.
What self-righteousness on your part. You never quit.
I notice that you have missed your own repugnant tactics in this never ceasing campaign. Who is it really that poisons the well? Who has set up the grotesque caricature of people who simply call into question the soundness of your criticism? You are truly a sick man (yes, that's an AD HOMINEM).
Yes, that's what you and cult apologists are all about. Labeling the critic as "sick."
-
See, you just keep on ignoring. You label your own critics as "cultists." That is sick. No, it's more than sick, it is positively sinful. Anyone who doesn't agree with your infallible observations are labeled as infamous traitors or by some other epithet that suits your fancy. You can ignore my arguments all you wish, that doesn't change the docuмentary evidence in the slightest.
Now, one more time. Either cite a specific denial by the SSPX of Catholic doctrine or shut your trap. It's really a very simple proposition. But before you do end up shutting your trap, you should offer an apology to other Catholics whom you have repeatedly defamed.
-
See, you just keep on ignoring. You label your own critics as "cultists."
Yes, I label the people who refuse to admit there's anything wrong but always cast blame back on the person who notices something wrong as a "cultist." Loyalty to the group comes ahead of truth.
That is sick. No, it's more than sick, it is positively sinful.
Yes, that's how the cultist operates. The person who criticizes cultish behavior is "sick" and "sinful"
Anyone who doesn't agree with your infallible observations are labeled as infamous traitors or by some other epithet that suits your fancy.
Nonsense. People who turn around and start slandering traditional Catholics as "antisemites" and "kooks" when they mention ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy are certainly treacherous. Especially when they themselves held the opposite position not long before.
You can ignore my arguments all you wish, that doesn't change the docuмentary evidence in the slightest.
There aren't any arguments Caminus. That's the point. You just call people crazy or sick. That's what it always comes down to when anyone argues with you.
Now, one more time. Either cite a specific denial by the SSPX of Catholic doctrine or shut your trap.
The SSPX refuses to teach Catholic doctrine on freedom to marry, but threatens to kick someone out for contacting an adult woman without the father's consent. That's not Catholic. Nothing can make it Catholic. No sophistry can defend it.
It's really a very simple proposition. But before you do end up shutting your trap, you should offer an apology to other Catholics whom you have repeatedly defamed.
No, you and your cult are the ones who need to apologize for their infamous conduct.
-
If the SSPX is truly a cult and the Catholics that attend their Masses are cult members, then why are you so concerned about it? Are you the only man in the Catholic Church that understands this to be a cult? Or are you using the term "cult" in a wide sense? Or are you simply using the term as a dagger to drive into the backs of those with whom you disagree? Do you suppose that labeling a fellow Catholic a "cult" member is equally as bad as calling a fellow Catholic a "kook" for asserting a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic conspiracy? Or is it better? Worse? You keep up with these vague assertions that no one can pin down. When challenged you shout "cult"! That is more than a little strange to me.
And I'm still waiting patiently for that Church teaching. As for my arguments, the fact that you ignore them because they challenge your notions does not mean they don't exist or that I don't make them, rather it means that you just ignore them.
-
Now, one more time. Either cite a specific denial by the SSPX of Catholic doctrine or shut your trap.
The SSPX refuses to teach Catholic doctrine on freedom to marry, but threatens to kick someone out for contacting an adult woman without the father's consent. That's not Catholic. Nothing can make it Catholic. No sophistry can defend it.
For the sake of those who disagree with you on this one topic, perhaps you can site one other instance of the SSPX denying Catholic doctrine.
-
If the SSPX is truly a cult and the Catholics that attend their Masses are cult members, then why are you so concerned about it?
I obviously think the SSPX started out as a good organization and has many good people in it. I'm think there are cult-like tendencies manifesting. There is the SSPX as it's meant to be then there's the "cult" that is trying to take over it and destroy its mission.
Are you the only man in the Catholic Church that understands this to be a cult? Or are you using the term "cult" in a wide sense?
I think I've made it clear how I'm using the term.
Or are you simply using the term as a dagger to drive into the backs of those with whom you disagree?
No, I'm using it to describe the sort of thing those guys from Post Falls were complaining about:
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.
Do you suppose that labeling a fellow Catholic a "cult" member
I said someone acts like a cult member when they put obsessive group loyalty ahead of the Faith.
is equally as bad as calling a fellow Catholic a "kook" for asserting a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic conspiracy?
Anyone in the SSPX who calls someone a "kook" for asserting a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy is either woefully ignorant, a hypocrite, or a traitor.
Or is it better? Worse? You keep up with these vague assertions that no one can pin down. When challenged you shout "cult"! That is more than a little strange to me.
No, when you start using the term "sick" to label critics - when you answer every criticism with talk about patiently accepting things - that's cultish.
And I'm still waiting patiently for that Church teaching. As for my arguments, the fact that you ignore them because they challenge your notions does not mean they don't exist or that I don't make them, rather it means that you just ignore them.
You're the one trying to divert this thread. As I said, the subject has been discussed as long as I care to discuss it. The subject of the thread is about Bishop Williamson's comments. If you don't like who posted it, that's your problem.
-
Tele, let's talk some common sense. You don't really believe that a Catholic who disagrees with you is really acting "cultish" do you? Logically speaking, that's called the fallacy of poisoning the well. What you are basically doing is insulating yourself or your ideas from any criticism at all. Do you seriously not recognize this?
-
Your latest response is a mish mash of vague accusations and innuendo. How am I supposed to respond to that? Also, that story has been analyzed already, the thread is here somewhere. It's obvious that you select certain things to paint the worse possible picture. If you're going to take on this responsibility, at least have some concrete examples.
-
Tele, let's talk some common sense. You don't really believe that a Catholic who disagrees with you is really acting "cultish" do you?
Not just for disagreeing with me. For their overall way of dealing with people - and their disregard for principle.
Logically speaking, that's called the fallacy of poisoning the well. What you are basically doing is insulating yourself or your ideas from any criticism at all. Do you seriously not recognize this?
That's nonsense. I'm willing to stand behind my ideas with arguments. I have done so. The people who respond to arguments with ceaseless ad hominem vitriol are the ones I see as having cultish tendencies.
-
If you recall, one thing that was discussed in that online radio program was the way that young Catholic men and women were discouraged from contact to such an extent that they would end up marrying non-trads.
It is pharisaism run amok. A Catholic man like me is represented as a delusional predator for wanting to talk to a girl who showed interest in him, while the priests approve of sending young women to attend coeducational public schools and universities, and the parish school has practically no students.
From Bishop Williamson's column:
They are happy to have their beautiful Mass on Sunday, but on Monday send their children to public school.
-
These are rather vague charges. Can you cite some specific, concrete examples?
I already have gone over it. Numerous times. The Church teaches what it teaches. If they can't teach what the church teaches because they want more control then they have a serious problem.
Tele, why are you so obssessed with trying to "prove" that the SSPX is cultish? I'll admit that your situation at your parish with the 18 year-old girl was not handled correctly (I know I originally said I didn't feel sorry for you, and I apologize for that), but it does not make them cultish. And something else I wonder is why you can't admit you are a sedevacantist.
-
In a situation of the world so serious that there are even rumours of Japan's recent peacetime disaster, with its estimated 27,000 people dead, being not an act of God but an act of man ( look up HAARP tsunami on the Internet ), what can a Catholic do to save his soul ?
:facepalm:
BW has such a brilliant intellect and insight as regards matters of Faith, it is disturbing to see him attach himself to SO MANY conspiracy theories. His enemies have already reduced his mainstream credibility to zero. Yet, his sincere, but misguided belief in these theories keep proving to be his achilles heel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#Conspiracy_theories
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).[1] Its purpose is to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes.[2] The HAARP program operates a major Arctic facility, known as the HAARP Research Station, on an Air Force owned site near Gakona, Alaska.
.......
HAARP is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, with individuals ascribing various hidden motives and capabilities to the project. Journalist Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.[15][16] Skeptic computer scientist David Naiditch called HAARP "a magnet for conspiracy theorists", saying the project has been blamed for triggering catastrophes such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and devastating earthquakes in Pakistan and the Philippines aimed to shake up "terrorists." Naiditch says HAARP has been blamed for diverse events including major power outages, the downing of TWA Flight 800, Gulf War syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Conspiracy theorists have also suggested links between HAARP and the work of Nikola Tesla (particularly potential combinations of HAARP energy with Tesla's work on pneumatic small-scale earthquake generation) and physicist Bernard Eastlund. According to Naiditch, HAARP is an attractive target for conspiracy theorists because "its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed".[17] Conspiracy theorists have linked HAARP to numerous earthquakes. An opinion piece on a Venezuelan state-run television channel's website named HAARP as a cause of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
:facepalm:
Seriously stevus, like CS said, stop using Wikipedia for your research. No wonder you can't see what the government is doing when you're reading articles that were probably written by government-loving liberals.
-
Tele, let's talk some common sense. You don't really believe that a Catholic who disagrees with you is really acting "cultish" do you?
Not just for disagreeing with me. For their overall way of dealing with people - and their disregard for principle.
Logically speaking, that's called the fallacy of poisoning the well. What you are basically doing is insulating yourself or your ideas from any criticism at all. Do you seriously not recognize this?
That's nonsense. I'm willing to stand behind my ideas with arguments. I have done so. The people who respond to arguments with ceaseless ad hominem vitriol are the ones I see as having cultish tendencies.
You have cited no catholic doctrine which is denied by the SSPX. You have calumniated other Catholic for defending them against your false, unfounded charges. You have taken the faults of some catholics and magnified and universalized them in order to "prove" your assertions. In the end, they are nothing more than vague, distorted innuendo that, if any thing prove there are faults to be found among priests and laity. No one would be so silly as to deny such a reality. What we have a problem with is your grotesque exaggerations and extrapolations. Your unfounded generalized charges which impute malice to unnamed people, painting the entire organization as fraudulent. Not only is this illogical it is immoral. Your only retort is to call those who reject your line of thinking "cultists". By your own standard of judgment, the entire Catholic Church is one entire cult. Let's suppose that your complaints were all valid, that there were really serious faults. The fact that I repudiate your sick name calling doesn't amount to a defense of the said faults. That is another point of illogic on your part. If there were some individual harping and railing on parents who were not perfectly raising their children, indeed even making mistakes, I would equally chastize that individual, not because I do not see the mistakes, but because of the noxious, self-righteous attitude of the one declaring anathemas against the parents. I suppose you would declare Jesus a cult leader for admonishing him to remove the log from his own eye.
And you can make generalized, unspecific accusations about "beautiful Masses" on Sundays regarding every single Catholic over the entire history of the Church. This is nothing new. But what is new is the fact that you think you can use this as ammunition against the SSPX. It is just further evidence of your little agenda. Why don't use accuse the Catholic Church of being a cult for the failures of its members? Why don't you accuse Pope Pius XII for "cultish" behavior when he refused lay stress on the "sins of Catholics" in history?
In the end, you've got nothing really, except a few innuendos, some second hand stories, a few distorted facts and a long line of rash judgments and fallacious inferences that only reflect on your poor attitude.
The fact of the matter is, I'm fairly certain that if you would have "got your girl" this little campaign of calumny would have never been started. You simply try to hide behind a thin veil of doctrinal accusations that have no foundation in reality. Then, if that doesn't work you resort to calling them "traitors" because of some unspecified crime, no doubt making those all to useful generalizations and rash judgments.
I've already wasted too much time. I think my point is made. No doubt, you will retort that I am merely exercising my "cultish" tendencies. I say how convenient.
-
You have cited no catholic doctrine which is denied by the SSPX.
This is similar to the nonsensical way you argue against the sedes. After they present their case you claim they haven't stated anything. You brush it off with hand-waving.
And you can make generalized, unspecific accusations about "beautiful Masses" on Sundays regarding every single Catholic over the entire history of the Church. This is nothing new. But what is new is the fact that you think you can use this as ammunition against the SSPX.
That was from Bishop Williamson's column. It's about people noticing a change in the SSPX. Lots of people can see it. Your answer to it seems to be "nothing new" - but the people observing it can tell that it is new. There's a change taking place.
-
If you recall, one thing that was discussed in that online radio program was the way that young Catholic men and women were discouraged from contact to such an extent that they would end up marrying non-trads.
It is pharisaism run amok. A Catholic man like me is represented as a delusional predator for wanting to talk to a girl who showed interest in him, while the priests approve of sending young women to attend coeducational public schools and universities, and the parish school has practically no students.
From Bishop Williamson's column:
They are happy to have their beautiful Mass on Sunday, but on Monday send their children to public school.
I guess I have to agree with you a bit, Tele. I was ejected from an SSPX chapel for rolling my eyes when the priest was giving an "antisede "sermon. Each chapel is different, but they do assert a controll over their people, not allowing them to attend sede masses. I have experienced this firsthand.
However, your situation with the 18 year old girl is a little different.
The father was very protective, as well he should be. Put yourself in his shoes. If you had an 18 year old daughter, whould you want her to be talking to a single 35 year old man you dont know? Im surprised in this modern society that she even listened to her father, as she was of majority age.
The priest, as I understand it was brought into the picture, at the request of the father? Cant remember.
Being cultish is just different than what you faced. I can see any trad priest standing up for the father. I think if you had been humble and handled the matter with a little more prudence, you may have succeeded.
However, I CANT see groups like SSPX, SGG ans SSPV (they are all similar) telling their parishioners they cant attend a valid mass at a different group. CMRI is the only group that does not do that. We have had our fill of cultishness in the Schukardt era! Priests want no part of it! Laypeople can go to any mass they want. No threat to the clergy of CMRI.
Again, I have to say I LIVED thru a cult. I know what they are like.
-
If you had an 18 year old daughter, whould you want her to be talking to a single 35 year old man you dont know?
I wasn't 35. It was a year ago. I'm 33 now. The priest, however, when I talked to him, said I was 35. They were never going to treat the matter objectively.
I can see any trad priest standing up for the father.
Which is a problem. Because a priest doesn't have a right to threaten to kick me out for that.
I think if you had been humble and handled the matter with a little more prudence, you may have succeeded.
I agree with you about prudence, but being too humble (at the beginning) and expecting people to treat me fairly was a big mistake.
Emerentiana, the reason it is cult-like is because of the way it was handled. It was handled by maintaining the pretense that I was some crazy delusional freak who was imagining everything.
Yes, you being kicked out of the chapel for your reaction to an anti-sede sermon is cultish behavior. Especially when they don't hesitate to take very large contributions from sedes.
-
Since you are very attuned to the terrible state of the SSPX priests and the extreme ignorance and malice of the laity, I'm curious as to your practical recommendations to get them out of this trajectory towards destruction. Also, please indicate how the faithful can become less "cult-like" and simply Catholics trying to practice their faith, including all those terrible imperfections. Numbered items would be helpful. And if you feel that nothing less than utopia is tolerable please be explicit about it.
-
Since you are very attuned to the terrible state of the SSPX priests and the extreme ignorance and malice of the laity, I'm curious as to your practical recommendations to get them out of this trajectory towards destruction.
The first step Caminus, is to humbly submit to Church teachings instead of inventing new ones. That means priests treat my intentions towards a young woman according to the teachings of the church. That is, they do not insist I have paternal permission to speak to the girl, and they do not treat me like a creep because of a 14 year age difference. They don't pretend I'm delusional when I give my account of things.
Also, please indicate how the faithful can become less "cult-like" and simply Catholics trying to practice their faith, including all those terrible imperfections. Numbered items would be helpful. And if you feel that nothing less than utopia is tolerable please be explicit about it.
Sure Caminus, it's very simple. When I post an article by Bishop Williamson, don't start viciously impugning my motives.
That's a good first step for you. Cut the cult attitude. Your posts typically drip with it.
-
Are you the only man in the Catholic Church that understands this to be a cult? Or are you using the term "cult" in a wide sense?
I think I've made it clear how I'm using the term.
And please clarify this and respond to the first part of the question.
Or are you simply using the term as a dagger to drive into the backs of those with whom you disagree?
No, I'm using it to describe the sort of thing those guys from Post Falls were complaining about:
Can you please be more specific in your use of the term 'cult' in contradistinction with ordinary sins, faults or imperfections of Catholics? Please relate this attitude towards the Catholic Church in general and explain upon what basis you make the differentiation.
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??
How can anyone make any reasonable inference from this sensational story?
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.
Cults tend to want to keep people within their grasp. This attitude seems to indicate the contrary, supposing the rectitude of the storyteller. Again, what is the use of relaying this information if not to injure someone's reputation? How does the storyteller know the matter wasn't eventually resolved. And I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the school did not inform the parents as to the reason why his son was expelled. That strikes me as exceedingly strange.
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.
Again, what are we to infer from this? That the school is evil? People are killing themselves? How many variable causes go into to these generalized observations? The story is calculated for one purpose alone.
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.
As we were able to discover, the writer of this piece had a strange infatuation with this girl and demonstrated that he was not analyzing matters from a disspassionate catholic perspective, but rather from worldly motives. What this man does not realize is that it is precisely his attachment to the world that is the cause of the loss of faith.
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.
If he is the altruistic alarm sounder, if the matter was so repugnant to even reasonable standards of judgment, why did he not take this action? How irresponsible of him for not bringing this to the attention of "lawyers." As was demonstrated on the other thread, this man's stories didn't add up. He had a dull axe to sharpen for some reason. The old axiom holds here: he who proves too much proves nothing at all.
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.
Strange comment coming from one who just said that people are killing themselves out there.
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.
"Girly b.s."? It sounds like this gentleman has a few problems of his own. I'd be glad to meet him face to face to sort this out. But I get the impression he's got a personal agenda and that's a tough nut to crack. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't sufficient material here for a libel lawsuit.
Do you suppose that labeling a fellow Catholic a "cult" member
I said someone acts like a cult member when they put obsessive group loyalty ahead of the Faith.
You didn't answer this question either. And how do you distinguish between "obsessive group loyalty" from legitimate differences of opinion? That's a little subjective. Shouldn't you give people the benefit of the doubt instead of claiming they are acting like cultists (not in reality of course, but acting like one nevertheless).
is equally as bad as calling a fellow Catholic a "kook" for asserting a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic conspiracy?
Anyone in the SSPX who calls someone a "kook" for asserting a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy is either woefully ignorant, a hypocrite, or a traitor.
You evaded the question here too. Is calling a fellow catholic a "cult member" for erroneously defending priests as bad as calling a fellow catholic a "kook" for erroneously detecting a masonic conspiracy? For to assert that someone is a "cult member" is to go well beyond the individual and impugn the entire organization whereas a naive individual that finds the theory of a masonic conspiracy strange is simply ignorant of history.
Or is it better? Worse? You keep up with these vague assertions that no one can pin down. When challenged you shout "cult"! That is more than a little strange to me.
No, when you start using the term "sick" to label critics - when you answer every criticism with talk about patiently accepting things - that's cultish.
What is "sick" is all this vitriolic name-calling. I'm a critic of the critic. Your entire case is built upon ad hominem with little substance. As such, the matter is necessarily directed primarily to the one leveling the charges. And I'm curious, where do the virtues come into play in your life? Or is that just for Sunday?
-
Since you are very attuned to the terrible state of the SSPX priests and the extreme ignorance and malice of the laity, I'm curious as to your practical recommendations to get them out of this trajectory towards destruction.
The first step Caminus, is to humbly submit to Church teachings instead of inventing new ones. That means priests treat my intentions towards a young woman according to the teachings of the church. That is, they do not insist I have paternal permission to speak to the girl, and they do not treat me like a creep because of a 14 year age difference. They don't pretend I'm delusional when I give my account of things.
Also, please indicate how the faithful can become less "cult-like" and simply Catholics trying to practice their faith, including all those terrible imperfections. Numbered items would be helpful. And if you feel that nothing less than utopia is tolerable please be explicit about it.
Sure Caminus, it's very simple. When I post an article by Bishop Williamson, don't start viciously impugning my motives.
That's a good first step for you. Cut the cult attitude. Your posts typically drip with it.
So your remedy for the entire SSPX and the laity is to let you date a girl?
-
In a situation of the world so serious that there are even rumours of Japan's recent peacetime disaster, with its estimated 27,000 people dead, being not an act of God but an act of man ( look up HAARP tsunami on the Internet ), what can a Catholic do to save his soul ?
:facepalm:
BW has such a brilliant intellect and insight as regards matters of Faith, it is disturbing to see him attach himself to SO MANY conspiracy theories. His enemies have already reduced his mainstream credibility to zero. Yet, his sincere, but misguided belief in these theories keep proving to be his achilles heel.
Stevus and others, I don't think that Bishop Williamson is agreeing with the HAARP theory at all, but rather criticizing those who would see it as having human causes (HAARP) rather than an act of divine chastisement. Three weeks ago he wrote a column on how people had a sentimentalized view of God.
-
So your remedy for the entire SSPX and the laity is to let you date a girl?
In my particular case, to admit they were being dishonest and that they had no justification to kick me out.
In general. they need to follow Church teachings and to be honest and fair-minded. That requires putting Catholic principles ahead of modern prejudices. That requires saying things that will offend Zionists. That requires not selling Bishop Williamson down the river.
-
Can you please be more specific in your use of the term 'cult' in contradistinction with ordinary sins, faults or imperfections of Catholics?
The tremendous desire for manipulation and control to the detriment of the outsiders. The desire to please the inner groups at these chapels. The abusive way in which people are treated.
Cults tend to want to keep people within their grasp
Cults often have insiders who can be very exclusionary and treat outsiders badly.
-
If he is the altruistic alarm sounder, if the matter was so repugnant to even reasonable standards of judgment, why did he not take this action? How irresponsible of him for not bringing this to the attention of "lawyers."
He's doing what he can to let people know how bad it is. Not everyone has means to litigate things that do not directly concern them.
The man is very credible. The situation is bad.
-
For the sake of those who disagree with you on this one topic, perhaps you can site one other instance of the SSPX denying Catholic doctrine.
The Angelus article about Hillel was an example.
As well as Bishop Fellay's statement that the Jews share the Old Covenant with us.
In any case, the people Bishop Williamson are quoting are saying there are problems with a struggle in the society. Caminus is the one who tried to divert this topic back to me personally.
-
Is calling a fellow catholic a "cult member" for erroneously defending priests as bad as calling a fellow catholic a "kook" for erroneously detecting a masonic conspiracy?
It depends on how the Catholic defends the priests. If he defends the priests with vicious vituperation then that is cultish behavior.
Calling someone a "kook" is a way to cut off all discussion by slandering the mental state of another person - the other person cannot be right about anything, the other person is delusional, crazy. Yes, it is worse than saying someone is cultish. And it takes incredible hypocrisy for someone who supports the SSPX to attack those who discuss ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy.
It's one thing to be critical - that's justifiable. But calling someone a kook for invoking ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy - that's downright anti-Catholic.
-
No, I actually said that you are extrapolating your case and exaggerating. And your practical suggestions are as vague as your accusations. Your supposed doctrinal criticisms amount to a hill of beans. Where is the official Church doctrine on "Hillel"? You take one passing statement of Bishop Fellay as a doctrinal pronouncement? Your case is getting more pathetic by the minute. Finally, you keep up on this "cult" idea without a leg to stand on. You sound like a non-catholic alleging the Church is a cult because Catholics defend other Catholics against unjust charges. Really, that's all you can say. Those who criticize your criticisms are cult members. Can you say "begging the question"? Can you say "conclusory allegation"? There is no difference between your tactic and those of anti-catholics.
-
Calling someone a [cultish traitor] is a way to cut off all discussion by slandering the mental state of another person
-
But calling someone a kook for invoking ʝʊdɛօ-masonic conspiracy - that's downright anti-Catholic.
And who exactly did that? Was it the entire SSPX? Was it one priest? One layman? Get some perspective man. There are plenty of people who are ignorant in my chapel. Do I go around calling them names because they are ignorant? No. I sure don't. Because that would be a vicious thing to do. Knowing and understanding the masonic movement is not under the purview of our salvation. As such, many people are bound to be ignorant of such things. If they imbibe the spirit of the age and use the same terms as worldlings, that is also to expected since our minds are saturated in it. Take your violent reaction to the real or perceived faults of priests. It reminds of of not only anti-catholic bigots, but also that of the approach of a modern atheistic psychologist. See, even the pure minded Tele has imbibed the spirit of the world to some degree.
-
Your supposed doctrinal criticisms amount to a hill of beans. Where is the official Church doctrine on "Hillel"?
It certainly isn't that he was an instrument of heaven preparing the way of the Lord. If the Church doesn't teach something an the Angelus makes up a new unheard of teaching - that is totally unacceptable.
You take one passing statement of Bishop Fellay as a doctrinal pronouncement?
It certainly has to do with teaching. It isn't isolated either. It was part of a pattern of judaizing. It only takes one passing statement to renounce the Catholic Faith. Or one passing statement to teach heresy. We've discussed all these issues before. The bottom line is you don't care if the SSPX manipulates the truth to suit its agenda.
Your case is getting more pathetic by the minute.
Oh no it's not. Your desperate apologetics for sadists at SSPX schools who drive girls to ѕυιcιdє is what is pathetic.
Finally, you keep up on this "cult" idea without a leg to stand on.
No, there's ample evidence. Very ample evidence for the manipulativeness of the society.
You sound like a non-catholic alleging the Church is a cult because Catholics defend other Catholics against unjust charges. Really, that's all you can say. Those who criticize your criticisms are cult members.
Utter nonsense. What is cultish is the vicious vituperation against someone who criticizes the SSPX. What is cultish is someone like Emerentiana being kicked out of an SSPX chapel because she didn't like an anti-sede sermon. What is cultish is the obsessive way in which the society lapdogs follow me around on this forum.
Can you say "begging the question"?
I have proven my case. Another cultish aspect of the SSPX is the way they always pretend that their opponents in an argument haven't demonstrated something, but go back to pretending that nothing has been proven. A little bit of hand-waving, huffing and puffing, to pretend that they've demolished a position they never even address.
Can you say "conclusory allegation"? There is no difference between your tactic and those of anti-catholics.
Pfffft. The anti-Catholics are the people who put the cult above the Faith.
-
And who exactly did that? Was it the entire SSPX? Was it one priest? One layman?
It is the atittude they manifest. Look at how they treated Bishop Williamson. They are condescending and patronizing to people who talk about it. They are eager to impugn the mental state of people who discuss the topic. On this forum Stevus has started acting that way. They ask to have Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons removed from youtube, to keep them from being published.
-
Take care, I hope you have a good Holy Week.
-
Tele, you still haven't presented any evidence that the SSPX is cultish, or that they deny Catholic dogma. You must admit, you wouldn't be saying any of this stuff if you had not been kicked out of your chapel. I don't think you should have been kicked out, and it sounds like the parish priest over-reacted, but as Emerentiana said, the girl's father had a right to be protective. And personally, I don't think you should have paid her any attention. You go to Church to worship God, not date an 18 year-old. I recommend just letting the whole thing go. You've been talking about it for about 3 or 4 weeks now.
-
Tele, you still haven't presented any evidence that the SSPX is cultish, or that they deny Catholic dogma. You must admit, you wouldn't be saying any of this stuff if you had not been kicked out of your chapel. I don't think you should have been kicked out, and it sounds like the parish priest over-reacted, but as Emerentiana said, the girl's father had a right to be protective. And personally, I don't think you should have paid her any attention. You go to Church to worship God, not date an 18 year-old. I recommend just letting the whole thing go. You've been talking about it for about 3 or 4 weeks now.
I'm not the one who brought it up in this thread. I posted Bishop Williamson's column and Caminus started attacking my motives for posting it. Yes, I can see the problems in the SSPX more clearly partly because of the way I was treated, I'm not going to deny it. But the SSPX is changing, that's what Bishop Williamson's column is about. I didn't write the column.
As for saying I shouldn't meet a girl at church (after church), that's just ridiculous.
-
Tele, you still haven't presented any evidence that the SSPX is cultish, or that they deny Catholic dogma. You must admit, you wouldn't be saying any of this stuff if you had not been kicked out of your chapel. I don't think you should have been kicked out, and it sounds like the parish priest over-reacted, but as Emerentiana said, the girl's father had a right to be protective. And personally, I don't think you should have paid her any attention. You go to Church to worship God, not date an 18 year-old. I recommend just letting the whole thing go. You've been talking about it for about 3 or 4 weeks now.
I'm not the one who brought it up in this thread. I posted Bishop Williamson's column and Caminus started attacking my motives for posting it. Yes, I can see the problems in the SSPX more clearly partly because of the way I was treated, I'm not going to deny it. But the SSPX is changing, that's what Bishop Williamson's column is about. I didn't write the column.
As for saying I shouldn't meet a girl at church (after church), that's just ridiculous.
Did I say you shouldn't meet a girl at Church? No. I said you should have ignored her and focused on God during Mass.
-
Did I say you shouldn't meet a girl at Church? No. I said you should have ignored her and focused on God during Mass.
I met her after mass SS. Why don't you just drop the subject yourself if you don't want to hear about it?
-
Telesphorus said:
Another cultish aspect of the SSPX is the way they always pretend that their opponents in an argument haven't demonstrated something, but go back to pretending that nothing has been proven. A little bit of hand-waving, huffing and puffing, to pretend that they've demolished a position they never even address.
Hear hear. Say what you will about sedes, you will never, ever see a sede who does this. That is because we do have the evidence and we don't need to play mind games.
It's dismaying to see how many people don't realize that the difference is like night-and-day -- straightforwardness vs. obfuscation, sophistry, and smear tactics. Look at how few places sedes are even allowed to post on the Internet! Not even Old Catholics ( i.e. heretics ) are treated this badly. It is the truth that really scares people, because they don't want to face that they're wrong and have kept apocalyptically destructive anti-Popes in power. Well, humility never hurt anyone.
But Caminus will just keep saying "You don't have evidence, it's based on conjecture." Hocus-pocus. What strikes me about certain people in the SSPX is this sneering, snot-nosed condescension. Caminus, you seem to think that people will just skim your posts, see a bunch of impressive-sounding verbiage, and just assume you have won.
But if you call their bluff, as I'm doing once again, watch out, they'll call you a bunch of names -- and then instantly follow this by saying something about how you should pray more.
I can't believe what I read in this thread. Caminus complaining that Tele calls people names! Caminus, if you apologized for the constant barrage of insults that you used to fling at anyone who crossed you, direct me to the post, because I don't remember it. Otherwise, let me just say your hypocrisy and shamelessness is truly mind-blowing. You toss out by far the most ad hominem insults of anyone who has been on this site with the exception of the short-lived fk Pagnanelli.
-
This letter is the latest strong indictment of the Society leadership and its trajectory towards liberalism, echoing that of Rome fifty years ago. The farce of the 'doctrinal negotiations' and Bp. Fellay's obsession with rosary crusades to deflect his terrible shortcomings as ABL's heir will ensure long-term stagnation and being consigned to the margins of history as a once honest brave initiative gone wrong. That the Society was prepared to be bought off some time ago with its thwarted ambitions to be top dog within Ecclesia Dei and its dealings with the financial world using the corrupt lawyer Krah is evidence enough of the "treachery" voiced by Bp. Williamson when speaking of Menzingen. The numerous attempts to gag its bishops and priests and to suppress the words of ABL and original Society material is leading to the reality of SSPX becoming a cult, taking its place well behind that of Opus Dei and the Legionaires. One would hope that the Society does end up in the clutches of conciliar Rome as so many of its faithful living the modern life want and continue its strange form of quasi-traditionalism out of sight. This would allow the remnant to reorganise and redefine their uncompromising objective.
-
Telesphorus said:
Another cultish aspect of the SSPX is the way they always pretend that their opponents in an argument haven't demonstrated something, but go back to pretending that nothing has been proven. A little bit of hand-waving, huffing and puffing, to pretend that they've demolished a position they never even address.
Sounds like Raoul!
Hear hear. Say what you will about sedes, you will never, ever see a sede who does this. That is because we do have the evidence and we don't need to play mind games.
:laugh1:
-
Did I say you shouldn't meet a girl at Church? No. I said you should have ignored her and focused on God during Mass.
I met her after mass SS. Why don't you just drop the subject yourself if you don't want to hear about it?
I know, it just seems that AFTER you met her, you were paying her attention during Mass on future Sundays. Anyway, look Tele, I am sorry that you were kicked out of your chapel. I really am. However, you need to move on from this incident and forget about that flirty 18 year-old. And to be honest, something about a 30+ year-old man dating an 18 year-old sounds strange. I'm not saying you didn't have good intentions or anything, it just sounds strange. I think that's why her father got so protective. I doubt he would have had it been say, a 20 year-old.
-
This letter is the latest strong indictment of the Society leadership and its trajectory towards liberalism, echoing that of Rome fifty years ago. The farce of the 'doctrinal negotiations' and Bp. Fellay's obsession with rosary crusades to deflect his terrible shortcomings as ABL's heir will ensure long-term stagnation and being consigned to the margins of history as a once honest brave initiative gone wrong. That the Society was prepared to be bought off some time ago with its thwarted ambitions to be top dog within Ecclesia Dei and its dealings with the financial world using the corrupt lawyer Krah is evidence enough of the "treachery" voiced by Bp. Williamson when speaking of Menzingen. The numerous attempts to gag its bishops and priests and to suppress the words of ABL and original Society material is leading to the reality of SSPX becoming a cult, taking its place well behind that of Opus Dei and the Legionaires. One would hope that the Society does end up in the clutches of conciliar Rome as so many of its faithful living the modern life want and continue its strange form of quasi-traditionalism out of sight. This would allow the remnant to reorganise and redefine their uncompromising objective.
You're good at making crazy accusations about the SSPX. Liberalism? Please. Even Bishop Fellay, who has recently undergone a 180-turn, isn't headed towards liberalism (yet, anyway).
-
But Caminus will just keep saying "You don't have evidence, it's based on conjecture." Hocus-pocus. What strikes me about certain people in the SSPX is this sneering, snot-nosed condescension. Caminus, you seem to think that people will just skim your posts, see a bunch of impressive-sounding verbiage, and just assume you have won.
This is strange coming from a man who refuses to answer the simplest of questions. On the contrary, I don't deny there is evidence. What I continually point out is that there are other considerations and principles necessarily attached to this question as well, considerations and principles of which you seem to willingly ignore. Of course there is evidence for the notion. The next question is what is the nature of the evidence and how does one interpet it?
But if you call their bluff, as I'm doing once again, watch out, they'll call you a bunch of names -- and then instantly follow this by saying something about how you should pray more.
Again, I have presented you with a simple question of which you refused to answer. What concerns me about you is not only your dogmatism in this idea, not only the raving of an imagination that takes the place of rational thought, but that you seem to think the entire question is self-evident. This is seriously troubling, and should be even for your "fellows" who have made a similar judgment. This attitude demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of all that is involved. The notion cannot by definition be self-evident, therefore acting as if it is betrays a serious defect.
I can't believe what I read in this thread. Caminus complaining that Tele calls people names! Caminus, if you apologized for the constant barrage of insults that you used to fling at anyone who crossed you, direct me to the post, because I don't remember it. Otherwise, let me just say your hypocrisy and shamelessness is truly mind-blowing. You toss out by far the most ad hominem insults of anyone who has been on this site with the exception of the short-lived fk Pagnanelli.
You can't "believe" it because you have a selective notion of what is just, proper and historically accurate. The fact that you are blinded to the forked-tongue spite of Mr. Tele is apparent and is induced by an equal disdain for the SSPX. That is all. Feigning as if you are offended by my lack of virtue is a bluff that I will indeed call out. You both are long on accusations, but short on rational thought process. Ironically enough, and in reality, the "substance" of almost everyone of your posts consists in ad hominem. The entire SV notion is ad hominem. Tele got his toe stubbed and he's tearing a Society of priests to shreds. His entire case is nothing but a long line of calumniating ad hominem. So until you are prepared to discourse rationally about these things, as in by answering honestly questions presented to you, I don't think your opinions amount to much of anything at all.
-
This letter is the latest strong indictment of the Society leadership and its trajectory towards liberalism, echoing that of Rome fifty years ago. The farce of the 'doctrinal negotiations' and Bp. Fellay's obsession with rosary crusades to deflect his terrible shortcomings as ABL's heir will ensure long-term stagnation and being consigned to the margins of history as a once honest brave initiative gone wrong. That the Society was prepared to be bought off some time ago with its thwarted ambitions to be top dog within Ecclesia Dei and its dealings with the financial world using the corrupt lawyer Krah is evidence enough of the "treachery" voiced by Bp. Williamson when speaking of Menzingen. The numerous attempts to gag its bishops and priests and to suppress the words of ABL and original Society material is leading to the reality of SSPX becoming a cult, taking its place well behind that of Opus Dei and the Legionaires. One would hope that the Society does end up in the clutches of conciliar Rome as so many of its faithful living the modern life want and continue its strange form of quasi-traditionalism out of sight. This would allow the remnant to reorganise and redefine their uncompromising objective.
Another vague decree full of inferential innuendo and insulting distortions from an anonymous internet pontifiactor. How, dear sir, can we be delivered from the clutches of "quasi-traditionalism"? Our embattled friend Tele could only offer as a saving medicine the advice that he ought to have been allowed to date a girl. I pose to you the same question then for fear of my immortal soul. Can you offer certain and clear suggestions that will set us on the true path of tradition so as to avoid the inevitable collapse of the SSPX? Numbered items would be helpful. If I could be so forward, I can discern at least one already, that we ought not hide behind the rosary in order to conceal our defects. That's EXCELLENT advice. Very practical and useful for every Catholic. I will not press the question as to how that is not simply a contrived and malicious imputation, but will rest assuredly on your wisdom and penetrating knowledge of the hearts of men as well as your evident superior grasp of historical circuмstances and events all interpreted, of course, in the profound and diffusive light that illuminates your mind.
-
Caminus said:
"This is strange coming from a man who refuses to answer the simplest of questions."
They have been answered by myself and many others, and the heresies of VII and post-VII are all over the Internet.
Read what Tele said again. Your jig is up. People see what you're doing, maybe they're not as stupid as you seem to think they are?
Caminus said:
The entire SV notion is ad hominem.
I just wanted to highlight that.
To you, recognizing that someone is a heretic is "ad hominem." That is not Catholic. "Ad hominem" would be saying "Ratzinger is cheap, he doesn't tip waiters, and he hates women, I can tell because he sneezes whenever one is nearby." Recognizing that the Joint Declaration on Justification, which even in its very title pronounces itself an anti-Trent -- "joint" means "together with the Protestants this is what we believe on justification" -- is riddled with heresies has nothing ad hominem about it.
And saying that an anti-Pope who takes off his shoes and prays facing Mecca is an apostate has nothing ad hominem about it, because we are recognizing an action. But you and your ilk ( StevusMagnus ) say "Oh, he was praying to Jesus after taking off his shoes and facing Mecca." You're pretending you can read his mind, while we simply observe what these actions signify: the removing of the shoes, facing Mecca, all signs of Muslim "reverence," not Catholic. This is blatant communicatio in sacris, not like when they go to a ѕуηαgσgυє and kind of nod their heads in a quasi-religious service.
So you are the one who says, or at least implies, "actions don't mean anything," you are positing some internal reality ( Ratzinger is Catholic in his heart of hearts despite outward appearances ) and ignoring concrete evidence betrayed by his outward actions. You have created a fantasy character in your head, and you follow this fantasy instead of reality, that is how blinded you are to what is unfolding right in front of you.
So it is you that is "ad hominem" in the sense that you judge based on your impression of a man, an impression that, by the way, is extraordinarily contrived and based on being unwilling to look beyond the SSPX position. But in reality, the Catholic Church teaches that when we see an apostate or heretical act, we judge the one doing it as a heretic or apostate, and he is the one who then must prove his innocence.
-
It's always an interesting exercise to consider that men who do not hesitate to defame the reputations of Christ's priests are all too quick to cry "injustice!" when their own good internet names are perceived to be threatened. One who would come to their defence is considered a blessed friend of God and men while the poor soul who dares even attempt to come to the defence of Christ's priests are censured with the worst kind of epithets. They who relentlessly interpret things in the most terrible light possible with regard to their neighbor would consider it a grave slight to themselves were the same to be applied to them. I certainly should not think the worst of my neighbor, but they simply desire to think the worst of theirs. Justice and Charity are secondary considerations when pointing out the faults, real or perceived, of priests and bishops. It's a matter of the common good, of course. Yes, indeed, it certainly serves the interest of peace and concord, at least according to the standards of the devil.
-
They have been answered by myself and many others, and the heresies of VII and post-VII are all over the Internet.
Read what Tele said again. Your jig is up. People see what you're doing, maybe they're not as stupid as you seem to think they are?
No, I asked you a very specific question. Why didn't you reply to it? And what's with this constant posturing? It's like playground toughtalk.
To you, recognizing that someone is a heretic is "ad hominem."
Ad hominem simply means "against the man."
-
The priests who take responsibility for leading Traditionalists must be held accountable. They can't play the "don't criticize the priest" card - because that's the very game they play. Whatever legitimacy they have comes from resisting the usurpation in Rome.
The incredible arrogance they continually demonstrate, and the way in which their defenders are willfully blind to the threat posed to all of tradition by wayward priests and bishops, does nothing to restore confidence in them.
Bishop Williamson's column shows us clearly - there is a war in the society. The blind defenders of bad priests will lead the SSPX to ruin.
-
It's always an interesting exercise to consider that men who do not hesitate to defame the reputations of Christ's priests are all too quick to cry "injustice!" when their own good internet names are perceived to be threatened.
It is an injustice to attack someone's reputation in response to their criticisms of priests. It's a grave injustice.
Because someone criticizes your precious society priests doesn't give anyone the right to slander.
-
But in reality, the Catholic Church teaches that when we see an apostate or heretical act, we judge the one doing it as a heretic or apostate, and he is the one who then must prove his innocence.
This is not entirely accurate. Such an act renders suspicion of heresy legitimate. Also, St. Thomas noted something interesting as well:
"Just as religion consists in a kind of protestation of faith, without, sometimes, faith being in one's heart, so too the vices opposed to religion include a certain protestation of unbelief without, sometimes, unbelief being in the mind." S.T. II-II, Q. 100, A. 1, ad. 1.
Of course, the Church judges in the external forum, but St. Thomas observes that there is not a necessary connection between outward act and belief in such a way as you seem to think.
-
Caminus said:
Ad hominem simply means "against the man."
I don't think "against" is implied in the Latin phrase, it's more like "pertaining to the man." "Ad hominem attacks" are attacks against a man, and ad hominem is usually short for that, but on its own "ad hominem" could mean any argument based on the perceived characteristics of a man as opposed to knowable facts.
I explained how it doesn't apply to sedes but more to yourself because your arguments in favor of Ratzinger are based on your perception of what he's thinking instead of what he's actually doing. That is ad hominem in that you deny facts and evidence and rely instead on your own perception, which is what I called "fantasy."
-
It's always an interesting exercise to consider that men who do not hesitate to defame the reputations of Christ's priests are all too quick to cry "injustice!" when their own good internet names are perceived to be threatened.
It is an injustice to attack someone's reputation in response to their criticisms of priests. It's a grave injustice.
Because someone criticizes your precious society priests doesn't give anyone the right to slander.
I deny I slandered you. On the contrary, you slander the SSPX daily. And you slandered me as well.
-
By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non- Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them "suspect of heresy, and if they persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics."
http://www.sedevacantist.org/lefebvresede.html
So why should we be surprised that the SSPX tries to suppress the Arcbishop's sermons?
-
Caminus said:
Ad hominem simply means "against the man."
I don't think "against" is implied in the Latin phrase, it's more like "pertaining to the man." "Ad hominem attacks" are attacks against a man, and ad hominem is usually short for that, but on its own "ad hominem" could mean any argument based on the perceived characteristics of a man as opposed to knowable facts.
I explained how it doesn't apply to sedes but more to yourself because your arguments in favor of Ratzinger are based on your perception of what he's thinking instead of what he's actually doing. That is ad hominem in that you deny facts and evidence and rely instead on your own perception, which is what I called "fantasy."
Any reference to the man himself is considered ad hominem. Thus on the one hand you have the thing or proposition, on the other you have the man himself. Ad hominem isn't always a bad thing either. Our Lord used it very effectively. When I say "SVism is essentially" a position ad hominem, I'm saying that it is an opinion about a man, not an idea or proposition.
-
By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non- Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them "suspect of heresy, and if they persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics."
http://www.sedevacantist.org/lefebvresede.html
So why should we be surprised that the SSPX tries to suppress the Arcbishop's sermons?
"Suppress" is your chosen word. Neither you nor I know the details of the case. I prefer to remain neutral and give the benefit of the doubt, if there be any, while you take up your position in the negative while refusing to admit of any other possibility.
-
I deny I slandered you. On the contrary, you slander the SSPX daily. And you slandered me as well.
I'm not slandering the SSPX. I'm telling the truth about them.
Blind society defenders can't handle the truth - that's what it all comes down to - so they lash out at people who give it to them.
They have treacherously suppressed the Archbishop's sermon.
You slander everyone you debate with.
-
I don't slander anyone, I merely tell the truth. :laugh1:
-
Caminus said:
Ad hominem simply means "against the man."
I don't think "against" is implied in the Latin phrase, it's more like "pertaining to the man." "Ad hominem attacks" are attacks against a man, and ad hominem is usually short for that, but on its own "ad hominem" could mean any argument based on the perceived characteristics of a man as opposed to knowable facts.
I explained how it doesn't apply to sedes but more to yourself because your arguments in favor of Ratzinger are based on your perception of what he's thinking instead of what he's actually doing. That is ad hominem in that you deny facts and evidence and rely instead on your own perception, which is what I called "fantasy."
Taking their defense of his conduct to its logical conclusion we couldn't ever know what motivates anyone to do anything. We could never know if a devil worshipper isn't really a Christian or if a Christian isn't really a devil-worshipper.
-
Caminus said:
This is not entirely accurate. Such an act renders suspicion of heresy legitimate. Also, St. Thomas noted something interesting as well:
"Just as religion consists in a kind of protestation of faith, without, sometimes, faith being in one's heart, so too the vices opposed to religion include a certain protestation of unbelief without, sometimes, unbelief being in the mind." S.T. II-II, Q. 100, A. 1, ad. 1.
Of course, the Church judges in the external forum, but St. Thomas observes that there is not a necessary connection between outward act and belief in such a way as you seem to think."
Yes, let's say there's a new convert who says something one day like "Maybe Mary wasn't a virgin." Then someone says "Oh, she was, you have to believe that, it's a dogma." The first woman says, "Oops, sorry, okay she was a virgin."
That is what St. Augustine talks about when he says we cannot assume someone is a heretic if they have good will, if they would change their mind when corrected.
However, to say this is the case for a trained theologian and expert on the history of the Church like Benedict, that he is just innocently mistaken when he does things like praying facing Mecca, when we know that Modernists were warned about and these men like Ratzinger fit the bill for countless reasons, is manifestly ridiculous.
It is also flat-out Pharisaical the way you defend them, as if you can't tell the difference between someone like the theoretical woman I describe above and these wreckers of the Church who dismantle it piece-by-piece.
Not to mention that the post-VII Magisterium contains numerous heresies and this is impossible, the Holy Ghost protects against that. Of course, you will pretend that you've never heard me saying this.
-
I don't slander anyone, I merely tell the truth. :laugh1:
You laugh at the truth, when you pretend you don't slander people.
Bishop Fellay's clique is up to no good, I'm quite certain. It's the duty of real Catholics to call them on it.
-
While you slandered me twice within a few simple lines...of course my "blindness" is a simple truth of fact, right? That I "slander" anyone with whom I discourse is a simple truth of fact, right? But your slander of the SSPX is simple truth telling. And your slander of people like me who check your madness is simple truth telling as well. I'm glad we're all truth tellers. That makes me feel better.
-
While you slandered me twice within a few simple lines...of course my "blindness" is a simple truth of fact,
Saying that you can't see, or pretend not to see what's right in front of your nose isn't slander.
right? That I "slander" anyone with whom I discourse is a simple truth of fact, right? But your slander of the SSPX is simple truth telling. And your slander of people like me who check your madness is simple truth telling as well. I'm glad we're all truth tellers. That makes me feel better.
You morally impugn the people who disagree with you. That's your MO.
-
You morally impugn the people who disagree with you. That's your MO.
What does "morally impugn" mean?
-
You morally impugn the people who disagree with you. That's your MO.
What does "morally impugn" mean?
You attack the moral character of the people who disagree with you.
-
Still, even Traditional Catholics are being tempted to doze off, not to say fall asleep. Here are two recent testimonies. The first is from a teacher in a Traditional school :-- "I feel awfully alone in the battle, not the battle with external enemies in the world, but the battle inside the Society of St Pius X, which is being waged with such subtlety that nobody seems aware of it. It is the same as it was in the mainstream Church in the 1960's, the same slow gradual shift in behaviour."
The second comes from an inside observer of today's Traditional Catholic scene in the USA :-- " It appears to me that Catholic militancy is declining. I see many Traditional Catholics, especially family fathers, accepting the ways of the world. The fight is no longer important to them. They are happy to have their beautiful Mass on Sunday, but on Monday send their children to public school. Each November they go out and vote for the lesser of two evils, watch (conservative?) Fox News and declare the (conservative?) Republican Party to be the answer to all of the world's problems. In my humble opinion this lack of militancy is becoming more and more pervasive in the Traditional Catholic world. Are we (the laity) returning to the same set of circuмstances that led to Vatican II ? Is the Sunday Catholic now the predominant majority in the Traditional movement ? I'm afraid that the answer to both of these questions may be, yes."
These two paragraphs really are salient.
Ethelred pointed out that there were no ordinations from Austria, Germany, or Switzerland last year at Zaizkofen.
Now that's a pretty serious problem. There is clearly a part of the SSPX apostolate that is in very bad shape, to say the least. Yet we see the leadership putting men like Krah into top positions.
-
Yes, let's say there's a new convert who says something one day like "Maybe Mary wasn't a virgin." Then someone says "Oh, she was, you have to believe that, it's a dogma." The first woman says, "Oops, sorry, okay she was a virgin."
The context of the quote was regarding Simony considered as 'heretical'. It had nothing to do with the notion of being in good faith.
However, to say this is the case for a trained theologian and expert on the history of the Church like Benedict, that he is just innocently mistaken when he does things like praying facing Mecca, when we know that Modernists were warned about and these men like Ratzinger fit the bill for countless reasons, is manifestly ridiculous.
I've never claimed that they are innocently mistaken.
Not to mention that the post-VII Magisterium contains numerous heresies and this is impossible, the Holy Ghost protects against that. Of course, you will pretend that you've never heard me saying this.
Here again is a major point that should be devoted to another thread. I've seen you state this repeatedly, your entire position rests upon it. But upon closer examination it doesn't hold for a couple of reasons, de facto not necessarily de jure.
-
You morally impugn the people who disagree with you. That's your MO.
What does "morally impugn" mean?
You attack the moral character of the people who disagree with you.
Right, whatever you say partner.
-
So, how about those recent Eleison comments? :smirk:
-
I deny I slandered you. On the contrary, you slander the SSPX daily. And you slandered me as well.
I'm not slandering the SSPX. I'm telling the truth about them.
Blind society defenders can't handle the truth - that's what it all comes down to - so they lash out at people who give it to them.
They have treacherously suppressed the Archbishop's sermon.
You slander everyone you debate with.
You know Tele, Bishop Fellay is responsible for much of this. How can you say the Society as a whole is bad when Bishop Fellay hasn't even said much since he got in trouble for his comment over the h0Ɩ0cαųst? And you don't think you slander them? Come on, you called them "wicked pharisees". Please explain to me how anyone who says the TLM and refuses to say the freemasonic Novus Ordo could be wicked. Even if they kicked you out of your chapel when they shouldn't have, that's not wicked.
-
Come on, you called them "wicked pharisees"
That was a reference to the lying people who kicked me out of church and the people viciously impugning my character.
Learn to read, and learn not to slander other people because of your inability to read. (which you have done before)
Learn to stick to the topic of the thread. You people just can't stop making everything personal.
-
Come on, you called them "wicked pharisees"
That was a reference to the lying people who kicked me out of church and the people viciously impugning my character.
Learn to read, and learn not to slander other people because of your inability to read. (which you have done before)
Learn to stick to the topic of the thread. You people just can't stop making everything personal.
What do you mean by "you people". Are you implying that the people on CatholicInfo like attacking someone's personal character? Trust me, I've been reading carefully. I even went back to the first page of this thread, and it looks like Caminus did not actually mention you being kicked out of your chapel directly, but rather pointed out that you have issues with the SSPX. Then you brought your personal issue up again. Why do you like talking about it so much? That won't do you much good on an SSPX forum full of people who know that you'd have to show more evidence than what you describe to prove the SSPX (or any other religious order, for that matter) is a cult.
-
A kind of person you will sometimes meet among traditionalists are the kind of people who are obsessed with the faults of others - they make it seem like they want to help other people overcome their problems, but in fact, they have an obsession with finding out information about other people in order to gratify their perverse self-righteousness.
I am not so trusting of the seal of confession in SSPX chapels either. I'm not going to trust a priest who lies to my face to keep the seal of the confessional. Ever.
-
Ok, and who here is obssessed with finding and pointing out the faults of other people? And what lie did the priest tell you?
-
What do you mean by "you people".
The people I"m referring to as "you people" know exactly who they are and what they're doing. They have a personal animus against me that is not based on any Christian sentiment.
Are you implying that the people on CatholicInfo like attacking someone's personal character? Trust me, I've been reading carefully.
No you haven't. You're going back a long way to dredge up the "wicked pharisees" quote then you claim I applied it to the entire SSPX. That's the same thread where you accused me of hitting on 14 year olds and stalking, remember? I sure hope you're not a typical SSPXer, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's not the way their minds work.
I even went back to the first page of this thread, and it looks like Caminus did not actually mention you being kicked out of your chapel directly, but rather pointed out that you have issues with the SSPX.
He attacked my motivations for posting Bishop Williamson's column by saying it was motivated by personal issues and then mocked the suggestion that this thing I posted had anything to do with my situation. Then he kept pressing for details. His whole strategy was to divert the thread to me personally, because that's his MO - personal attack.
-
Ok, and who here is obssessed with finding and pointing out the faults of other people? And what lie did the priest tell you?
He pretended ignorance of many things, pretended not to countenance my story. I know absolutely the man is a malicious liar. Without shame. That's the sick thing about hypocritical priests. The complete absence of shame. There's absolutely no fear of God there.
-
I never claimed you applied the "wicked pharisees" quote to the whole SSPX, but you're using what the parish priests did to say the SSPX is a cult. That's the only reason I brought it up. Why do you keep bringing up how I thought you dated a 14 year-old? I apologized for that. In case you haven't noticed, I'm being more reasonable about this to avoid what happened when you and I got in an argument about this on the original thread.
-
I never claimed you applied the "wicked pharisees" quote to the whole SSPX,
You just did above.
How can you say the Society as a whole is bad when Bishop Fellay hasn't even said much since he got in trouble for his comment over the h0Ɩ0cαųst? And you don't think you slander them? Come on, you called them "wicked pharisees"
I'm sick of you. You complain about me talking about the subject but people like you keep bringing it up.
but you're using what the parish priests did to say the SSPX is a cult. That's the only reason I brought it up. Why do you keep bringing up how I thought you dated a 14 year-old?
Because you suggested that you read carefully when you don't.
I apologized for that. In case you haven't noticed, I'm being more reasonable about this to avoid what happened when you and I got in an argument about this on the original thread.
If you want to be reasonable address the topics at hand and quit personalizing these discussions.
-
Ok, let's keep this on a non-personal level then. Other than your personal experiences, please give evidence that the SSPX is a cult.
-
Ok, let's keep this on a non-personal level then. Other than your personal experiences, please give evidence that the SSPX is a cult.
There is a cult mentality that exists within the SSPX, and cultish behavior.
Manipulative, abusive, and hypocritical behavior, defended with unreasoning blind loyalty. A fundamental lack of consistency in the positions of the society and a lack of constancy. A certain clique now has nearly absolute power. And individual chapels tend to have favored families that try to "rule the roost" They are interested in remaining in favor with the society priests, and the Faith comes second to their concern about their social position.
The backyard radio trads did a broadcast on the sort of behavior you see at these chapels.
What I see is hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and the lack of charity in the leadership, and a lot of fear of "making waves" among the followers.
And getting back to Bishop Williamson's comments - yes - there is definitely a liberalizing tendency that can be detected. It's unmistakable.
-
I dis-agree. I'll admit that Bishop Fellay's recent decisions have not been of the best, but remember that the Society as a whole does not think like him. Why the need to make such posts on an SSPX forum?
-
I dis-agree. I'll admit that Bishop Fellay's recent decisions have not been of the best, but remember that the Society as a whole does not think like him. Why the need to make such posts on an SSPX forum?
You just asked me the question SS. If you want me not to say it don't ask me.
-
Tele,
How is what you describe unique to the SSPX? Does this not occur at Sede and NO parishes as well?
-
Tele can't give any evidence that the SSPX is cultish other than his personal experiences. You're right about the NO parishes stevus, they're the definition of cultish. They brain-wash people into thinking the New Mass is ok.
-
Tele can't give any evidence that the SSPX is cultish other than his personal experiences.
The origin of the cultishness is in the leadership and their behavior. I've gone over it in many threads SS. As I've said before, it's impossible to discuss things with you. Suppressing the works of the founder so as not have to explain current positions? classic cult behavior.
-
Tele can't give any evidence that the SSPX is cultish other than his personal experiences.
The origin of the cultishness is in the leadership and their behavior. I've gone over it in many threads SS. As I've said before, it's impossible to discuss things with you. Suppressing the works of the founder so as not have to explain current positions - classic cult behavior.
I agree that Bishop Fellay has not been handling things right...but how does that make the Society as a whole cultish? Especially when Bishop Williamson isn't getting much of a say-so since his legal troubles.
-
From the Catechism of Trent
Under Holy Matrimony. In my book it is on page 380, but many people will probably look for it online. So look for Matrimony.
Consent Of Parents
Among other things, children should be exhorted earnestly that they owe as a tribute of respect to their parents, or to those under whose guardianship and authority they are placed, not to contract marriage without their knowledge, still less in defiance of their express wishes. It should be observed that in the Old Law children were always given in marriage by their fathers; and that the will of the parent is always to have very great influence on the choice of the child, is clear from these words of the Apostle He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.
-
From the Catechism of Trent
Under Holy Matrimony. In my book it is on page 380, but many people will probably look for it online. So look for Matrimony.
Consent Of Parents
Among other things, children should be exhorted earnestly that they owe as a tribute of respect to their parents, or to those under whose guardianship and authority they are placed, not to contract marriage without their knowledge, still less in defiance of their express wishes. It should be observed that in the Old Law children were always given in marriage by their fathers; and that the will of the parent is always to have very great influence on the choice of the child, is clear from these words of the Apostle He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.
Exhorted, not bound. Owed a as a tribute of respect, not as a duty. The father's authority does not bind children in this matter. Nor is any Catholic bound by the Old Law. As for the statement that a father does better by not giving his daughter up in marriage - I should certainly hope that no father would think from this that he should try to keep his daughter from marrying at all.
15. It is also a great blessing that the Church has limited, so far as is needful, the power of fathers of families, so that sons and daughters, wishing to marry, are not in any way deprived of their rightful freedom;
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ar.htm
All priests should make it clear what the rights of grown children are. Those who make penitents believe they're bound to obey when they are not are practicing deceit.
-
I would just repeat - any priest that does not apprise someone of their rights in the confessional - but makes them believe they must do something that they are not bound to do is a dishonest priest.
-
I will research the works of Tomas Sanchez to see what he says about these things.
There's a world of difference between exhorting someone to do something and binding them to do it.
-
so that sons and daughters, wishing to marry, are not in any way deprived of their rightful freedom;
As St. Thomas says:
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
Rightful freedom - that means the freedom to make their own choice.