Arvinger:

So what? It means only that Pope Pius XII, Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre were in error on this specific issue.

Well, of course they were.  How silly of me not to realize immediately that the collective wisdom of faceless Cathinfo Illuminati must trump the positive affirmations of the better known three.   :roll-laugh2:

The Poem of the Man-God has since received formal Imprimaturs from Bishop Roman Danylak, Titular bishop of Nyssa, in 2001 for the English translation, and previously   Archbishop Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India, granted an Imprimatur for the Malayalam translation of Poem of the Man-God in 1992.

So two Novus Ordo Bishops approved of it. That should mean nothing to anyone who posts on this forum. At least the argument that Bishop Williamson approves of it has weight among traditional Catholics.

The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth."  Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't.

It's not for us to prove a negative, jester.  You have not proven that Pius XII or +Lefebvre approved of it.  +Williamson's promotion of Valtorta is well known.  So the burden of proof is, firstly, on you, and, secondly, even if Pius XII and +Lefebvre did promote it, I don't change my mind for a second; they got it wrong.  Pius XII also approved "Maria Esperanza".  Look it up.  And Pius XII would have approved it as a private person, whereas the Holy Office put it on the Index as an act of the Church's authority, which trumps the opinion of Pacelli.

PerE:

Quote

No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.

The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth."  Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't.  H.E., the Archbishop, and the last of the pre-Conciliar popes apparently liked what Valtorta wrote.  But PerE, Nadir, Ladislaus and other loquacious trad experts say terrible things about the poor woman.  I'm so confused! Not really though.. just somewhat amused.  

 :confused1:
I'm certainly no 'shining light', but I am surprised at this entire argument, H.  
I understand your penchant for humor, so perhaps this is some kind of joke?  I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to make sense of your odd reasoning. This seems to be all about the non infallible thoughts of 3 people (holy people, yes, but...) vs.
1.  Condemnation of the Holy Office (which supercedes the private opinions of the 3 cited)
2.  Your own (what I thought was well developed) Sensus Catholicus - have you read just some of the excerpts?  That should be enough for you.  
 
Honestly, I don't understand this whole rigamarole on your part.  Is it pride driven, because now it's difficult to walk back insults and mockery of other good Catholics here because they have read this awful work and align with the Church in condemnation?   It appears that you are very much enjoying that.  

I find it very difficult to believe that you wordy trads, most of whom, I believe, are now, apparently, somewhat aligned with Bp. Williamson and the newest bishop, Bp. Faure, can continue to trust and follow these two honored clerics.  Because Bp. Williamson does not  only recommend her writings highly, he encourages folks to reread her works over an over again.  You are the same 'shining ones' who went off on the "seer," when H.E. spoke positively and affirmatively of her visions in a fairly recent EC.  It appears now, that whenever these "resistance" bishops say anything of potential substance in the future, we'll have to check back with a bevy of all-knowing Cathinfo trads, to see if their Episcopal declarations pass muster.  Some of you, IMO, are turning into a joke.   :stare:

Quote from: hollingsworth

The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth."  Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't.

It's not for us to prove a negative, jester.  You have not proven that Pius XII or +Lefebvre approved of it.  +Williamson's promotion of Valtorta is well known.  So the burden of proof is, firstly, on you, and, secondly, even if Pius XII and +Lefebvre did promote it, I don't change my mind for a second; they got it wrong.  Pius XII also approved "Maria Esperanza".  Look it up.  And Pius XII would have approved it as a private person, whereas the Holy Office put it on the Index as an act of the Church's authority, which trumps the opinion of Pacelli.

This is becoming quite humorous. Remember, Pacelli performed the hatchet job on Father Coughlin, and never forget that he promoted and approved Bugnini and his meddling with the liturgy.

There it is.........

I truly find it unsettling that the prelates and priests who are supposed to lead us out of this crisis, often base their thinking upon unusual visions, odd visionaries, constant imaginings and the presumption of good will, and the sincere ignorance of wicked and evil men when there is sound Church dogma and doctrine to rely upon as a guide.

I find it very difficult to believe that you wordy trads, most of whom, I believe, are now, apparently, somewhat aligned with Bp. Williamson and the newest bishop, Bp. Faure, can continue to trust and follow these two honored clerics.  Because Bp. Williamson does not  only recommend her writings highly, he encourages folks to reread her works over an over again.  You are the same 'shining ones' who went off on the "seer," when H.E. spoke positively and affirmatively of her visions in a fairly recent EC.  It appears now, that whenever these "resistance" bishops say anything of potential substance in the future, we'll have to check back with a bevy of all-knowing Cathinfo trads, to see if their Episcopal declarations pass muster.  Some of you, IMO, are turning into a joke.   :stare:

Supporting someone overall does not mean agreeing with absolutely every opinion and position of theirs.  We are not a CULT.  How difficult is that to understand?  No, we are not the joke; you're just a complete buffoon.

Quote from: hollingsworth

PerE:

Quote

No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.

The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth."  Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't.  H.E., the Archbishop, and the last of the pre-Conciliar popes apparently liked what Valtorta wrote.  But PerE, Nadir, Ladislaus and other loquacious trad experts say terrible things about the poor woman.  I'm so confused! Not really though.. just somewhat amused.  

 :confused1:
I'm certainly no 'shining light', but I am surprised at this entire argument, H.  
I understand your penchant for humor, so perhaps this is some kind of joke?  I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to make sense of your odd reasoning. This seems to be all about the non infallible thoughts of 3 people (holy people, yes, but...) vs.
1.  Condemnation of the Holy Office (which supercedes the private opinions of the 3 cited)
2.  Your own (what I thought was well developed) Sensus Catholicus - have you read just some of the excerpts?  That should be enough for you.  
 
Honestly, I don't understand this whole rigamarole on your part.  Is it pride driven, because now it's difficult to walk back insults and mockery of other good Catholics here because they have read this awful work and align with the Church in condemnation?   It appears that you are very much enjoying that.  

Excellent post, PER!  You've summed up the situation here very well. I too thought that H was a reasonably sensible poster, but there is something amiss here.

Ladi, too, has hit the nail on the head. It is up to Hollingsworth to provide the evidence of the approval of the A+ etc. So far he's produced nothing of any value in the discussion.