Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CXCVI (April 16, 2011) : STAY AWAKE ! (Read 10601 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #45 on:** April 16, 2011, 08:17:35 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

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.

Caminus · « **Reply #46 on:** April 16, 2011, 08:29:29 PM »

Take care, I hope you have a good Holy Week.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #47 on:** April 16, 2011, 08:31:52 PM »

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.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #48 on:** April 16, 2011, 08:46:26 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #49 on:** April 16, 2011, 08:48:52 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #50 on:** April 16, 2011, 08:54:11 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

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?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #51 on:** April 17, 2011, 12:16:44 AM »

Telesphorus said:

Quote

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.

Wessex · « **Reply #52 on:** April 17, 2011, 08:09:37 AM »

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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #53 on:** April 17, 2011, 08:35:00 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Telesphorus said:
Quote
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!

Quote

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #54 on:** April 17, 2011, 01:25:44 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #55 on:** April 17, 2011, 01:27:36 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

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).

Caminus · « **Reply #56 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:19:56 PM »

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Caminus · « **Reply #57 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:51:11 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

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.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #58 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:54:45 PM »

Caminus said:

Quote

"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:

Quote

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.

Caminus · « **Reply #59 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:58:54 PM »

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.