Screw off Trinity, you are a mentally deranged vindictive person!

my point obviously was missed on you, that this is not a Sede site! So, bad mouthing P12, SSPX,etc is not overly welcomed.

Poison? you have the poison, americanist heresy, rejection of the Church teaching,etc....some poison...Matthew is far, far kinder then I would put up with your %&$^! you are a cultic, you are the poisonous vindictive!!!

Do you mean Calumny?

btw, please refer to the copious posts for last several months, I have had it with this deranged woman and if that offends anyone, so be it...

Matthew would do well to toss these people, but if it is his call to toss me, a ally of his, fine with me either way....

I will not any longer sit here and watch P12, P10, ABL or others be thrown to the wolves...nor to listen to americanist Bull%*&%, nor any other heretical, kooky crappola....


From new Advent definition:

Calumny
(Latin calvor, to use artifice, to deceive)

Etymologically any form of ruse or fraud employed to deceive another, particularly in judicial proceedings. In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation. Objectively, a calumny is a mortal sin when it is calculated to do serious harm to the person so traduced. Just as in the instance of wrongful damage to person or estate, so the calumniator is bound to adequate reparation for the injury perpetrated by the blackening of another's good name. He is obliged (1) to retract his false statements, and that even though his own reputation may necessarily as a consequence suffer. (2) He must also make good whatever other losses have been sustained by the innocent party as a result of his libellous utterances, provided these same have been in some measure (in confuso) foreseen by him. In canon law the phrase juramentum calumniae is employed to indicate the oath taken by the parties to a litigation, by which they averred that the action was brought and the defence offered in good faith.

I can understand your frustration, sir. I just think the use of the words "s.... ..f" went a little too far among pleasant company. I do not defend her calling you poisonous either.

maybe it does go to far, hang out here a little longer, let her turn her wrath on you for whatever reason, beleive me, she and her cultics wil lfind one, give it time...then watch the fireworks...

With her manipulative use of questions, language and her tactics, I know who is really speaking through her  :devil2: and I will not be pleasant to Old Scratch....

Abuse, in various forms, is a open gateway to  :devil2:...soo, true, I wa a bit harsh, I assent, but also, we have seriously deranged people we are dealing with..

Like I say, give it time, she will turn on you, likely, after she tries to butter you up, as she did Raoul awhile back...

My chivalry and kindness are at an end, with that group, at least..

as far as pleasant, company, you yes, and others, but this forum as degenerated from pleasant awhile ago-you see Stevus, Vlad, Dawn on here?? not anymore....others sparingly post.....

this forum, for me at least, is a a near occasion for sin, if not outright...why I took it off my favorites and try, obviously failing at times, to avoid it...

none the less, well do we recall and apprapo for thes cultics, the words of Pope Leo XIII:

"Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.''[12] To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. (SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE-ON CHRISTIANS AS CITIZENS #14)

Most people that disagree are not enemies, heck, I like raoul-note sure his thoughts on me...but these few are a different lot, more subtle, but trust me, more dangerous....

Look, I am no expert, but due to my experiences, would say there is something deeply wrong going on there....

What is the definition of contumely?

con·tu·me·ly
   /ˈkɒntʊməli, -tyʊ-; kənˈtuməli, -ˈtyu-; ˈkɒntəmli, -tyum, -tʃəm/ Show Spelled[kon-too-muh-lee, -tyoo-; kuhn-too-muh-lee, -tyoo-; kon-tuhm-lee, -tyoom, -chuhm] Show IPA
–noun, plural -lies.
1.
insulting display of contempt in words or actions; contemptuous or humiliating treatment.
2.
a humiliating insult.

But you have to allow for the possibility that, e.g., Raoul and CM, are well intentioned.

I mean (from my sedevacantist perspective), that no one has answered the question, 'If you believe that the modern hierarchy has lapsed into grave error and probably heresy, and you base your traditionalist movement on the authenticity of Pius XII's Papacy, have you not used "private judgment" to go that far?  And if so, how do you decide how far private judgment, in a degenerate age, should go; when epikeia kicks in; and when you are actually following 'incontrovertible, defined Dogma', as opposed to making a judgment about whether something is incontrovertible, defined Dogma??