Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: s2srea on October 29, 2011, 12:15:26 PM
-
I don't think its only I who sees the recent increase of moles to this site. We've usually had one come on, get kicked off, and that was it for a while. It seems as if this time, there's a total influx since Capistrano showed his face the first time. Among others, romantheology, aquinasg, PetrusPrimus, and others, stand out since they're all members who have "Joined" dates from at least a year ago, yet have never posted and who now all post at the same time.
Buuuut... whatchagonnado? :idea:
-
Correction, romantheology is a newer member. But his activity does seem suspicious, as the others. There's a definite agenda going on. When a member joins a forum, and immediately begins posting propaganda, its not normal.
Capistrano, tradition1987, romantheology, and others all joined within a few days of each other.
-
The level of suspicion here is unhealthy.
-
tradition1987 is tomas on another account. He should be banned for signing up on multiple accounts and for posting disturbing pictures. I don't know who romantheology is but he's an odd character. He says he likes the SSPX but turns around and praises JPII and tries to make it look like Archbishop LeFebvre denied Church doctrine. He also seems obsessed with cutting down sedevacantism, the CMRI in particular.
-
These moles have no apparent interest in fostering faith or piety; it seems all they are here to do is start fights. I suggest not only a ban on those who are violating the rule about multiple accounts, but an examination by the forum owner into what actual, useful and reverent purpose these people's posts actually serve.
See, it's times like these, when there are seemingly countless 'armchair prelates' around, when we who are faithful to the Church need to 'circle the wagons', so to speak, and concentrate on encouraging one another in the Faith.
I want to see more of those wonderful scans in the Library section like Hobbledehoy was contributing. I want to see more pictures of beautiful altars and shrines. I want to hear about people's devotions, maybe a thread about vintage sacramentals... come on! You know, the things that make us not only spiritually and formally Catholic, but also the things that are the lovely, pious and praiseworthy fruits of Catholic culture.
Let's have some stories of wonderful books you've read about the saints (I am into one right now about Mother Cabrini). Let's have some more UPLIFTING discussions about the sublime truths that Holy Church teaches.
Enough of the scandal-mongering and mud-slinging and name-calling. Let's leave the conspirators who want to besmirch Tradition to themselves. Let them start their OWN forum where they can slander our holy Bishops and faithful priests on their OWN bandwidth.
This is supposed to be a forum where we discuss matters pertinent to the Catholic FAITH, not just news pertinent to any- and everything remotely called 'Catholic'.
Can we please get INTO the Faith instead of lowering ourselves to the gutter of sensationalism and animosity with these trolls?
St. Martin de Porres, pray for us.
St. Therese of Lisieux, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
Actually, S2srea, this site has always had the trolls.
I think Matthew leaves them on up to a certain point because they stimulate discussion. The most infamous example is roscoe, a troll with diplomatic immunity, the James Bond of CathInfo with a license to troll.
Then there is the guy who calls himself Pope Augustine or the Great Monarch. Believe it or not, he plays a game with me in particular. I believe he wants me to come off as paranoid. So he takes on various characters and blends in. I am 99.9% sure that Matto, who was here a while ago, was Augustine, and I'm about 85% sure with curiouscatholic.
I have decided that unless he says something against the faith, I'll just leave it alone, since it's not harming anyone until the mockery is overt. Of course this defeats the whole purpose, because mockery is what he's here for. Feed a cold, starve a fever. He can't win; if he descends into open mockery, he'll be discovered; if he just blends in, there's no point.
But as Matthew knows, this guy is not just playing a harmless joke, he once posted an explicit drawing of a naked woman. That's the sort of thing that could get someone to commit a mortal sin. Then, if I'm not mistaken, he tried to erase it, after I had said something, so that I'd look like a lunatic who was seeing explicit pictures of naked women when there were none. I don't remember precisely if he did that but I have a vague memory of it; Matthew might remember better.
This kind of hounding that I've always dealt with on this forum led me to get so paranoid that, if you remember Ladislaus, I began to believe him that Matthew and Caminus were the same person and that Matthew had a split personality. There is an object lesson in what paranoia can do.
Yes, I think Matthew could and should be more anti-troll. But the site has a tendency to slow down without them, that is the problem. If there were more solid members I'm pretty sure he'd crack down harder on trolls.
-
To those who would like more peaceful discussions sharing info about devotions, etc. --
I would just say, "This forum is whatever YOU make it." If even ONE person started posted what they wanted to see, the forum would move toward their "vision" by a pretty decent-sized step.
I'm sure there are sayings out there that would be appropriate -- "BE the change you wish to see" or something to that effect -- even "Rather than curse the darkness, light a candle."
-
I don't mind the pro-novus ordo poster, it gives one a chance to sharpen their sword. At least Santo tries, but he doesn't follow through enough, the rest just seem like dingbats who aren't interested in discussion.
-
What are we supposed to do in the world? Be quietists? Or engage it? Some are called to the contemplative life; some are not. That was true even in Cristendom when the ѕуηαgσgυє, not the Church, was confined to the ghettos.
Certainly I welcome discussion of spiritually uplifting books and images, but I also welcome the sometimes combative discussion of points of history and theology that help me understand the world my children and I live in and how we are to live in it.
I am currently thoroughly enjoying a book authored by a gent with whom I have had fierce disagreements. If I had segregated myself from him simply because we had strongly contended, I would be the loser for not being edified by his excellent book:
The Church and the Libertarian (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-ferrara-church-libertarian.htm)
by Christopher Ferrara
The book helps make my point. We live in a world in which nominal Catholics are seducing Catholics with their "free market" apologia for usury. Is it not a Spiritual Work of Mercy to confront the errors? to help Catholics understand the errors of libertarianism? To find the world as it is and to make it more Catholic?
One wonders how segregation is a reasonable solution.
I see dozens upon dozens of posts. I frequent the ones that interest me and avoid the ones that don't.
Frankly, I think the most spiritually destructive force here is a level of suspicion that, in my opinion, approaches clinical paranoia.
I don't live in a Catholic ghetto, a trad ghetto, or a sede ghetto. Or the catacombs.
-
To those who would like more peaceful discussions sharing info about devotions, etc. --
I would just say, "This forum is whatever YOU make it." If even ONE person started posted what they wanted to see, the forum would move toward their "vision" by a pretty decent-sized step.
I'm sure there are sayings out there that would be appropriate -- "BE the change you wish to see" or something to that effect -- even "Rather than curse the darkness, light a candle."
Matthew, could you atleast delete this disturbing picture that tradition1987 posted? I'll post the link to the thread for you to delete it, but be warned the picture he posted of lucifer is incredibly disturbing, that's why I suggest you delete it and the thread.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Vatican-names-its-new-telescope-LUCIFER
-
tradition1987 is tomas on another account. He should be banned for signing up on multiple accounts and for posting disturbing pictures. I don't know who romantheology is but he's an odd character. He says he likes the SSPX but turns around and praises JPII and tries to make it look like Archbishop LeFebvre denied Church doctrine. He also seems obsessed with cutting down sedevacantism, the CMRI in particular.
Sounds like my kinda guy.
-
"Moles" gives them too much credit (and power). It implies they are part of some larger, concerted effort that collaborates or is organized, taking orders from somewhere.
These are good ol' freelancing trolls.
Welcome to the Internet and forums generally.
Same truths apply at CI as any Inet forum: "Don't feed the trolls"
-
Same truths apply at CI as any Inet forum: "Don't feed the trolls"
Yup. If they're just obnoxious, put them on ignore and if they're posting something entirely unacceptable, PM the moderator.
You can't easily remove the troll element from a forum. And, I think s2s and Raoul demonstrate why in pointing to members whom I seriously doubt are trolls such as PetrusPrimus, Matto, Diego, & curiouscatholic.
I'd rather have a mostly harmless troll or two get away with posting than to ban people who aren't trolls at all.
-
Oh, I left off aquinasg. Half the guy's posts have been asking for prayers for his family and he signed his earlier ones with his full name. Why do you think he's a troll?
-
Until you've been attacked by the real thing (mole, not troll) in your front yard, you have no idea what annoying is!
-
"Don't feed the trolls"
"Raca"???
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:22 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=5&l=22#x)
-
Diego, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
-
I disagree.
On the thinnest of imaginary pretexts several posters have been attacked on the basis of suspicion, I among them.
Because someone disagrees with you, disagrees with you strongly, or even aggravates or offends you, joined the same or different time from someone who annoys you, etc., does not make them a "troll." For example, whatever your rationalization for choosing the name, to call yourself the name of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity still offends me, but that does not make you a "troll." I have verbalized my concern and you addressed it (unsatisfactorily, in my estimate), but it is now your business, not mine. I move on.
Rationalize with the holiest of excuses you want, essentially, you say, "Raca" and "You fool."
In my opinion, whether the mob shares my opinion or not, that pervasive behavior is either sinful or sick—neither charitable, just, nor Catholic. If you want to cry "Here is the wolf," make sure you have rock solid evidence.
There is much done here that is of value. Don't poison it.
-
With the "uranium" and "hand grenade" examples, no wonder there is such a willingness of "trads" to engage in fratricidal name-calling. Especially those of you rationalizing the "raca" name-calling and character assassination behavior ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Can we now move on as Catholic brothers and sisters to the things of value?
-
With the "uranium" and "hand grenade" examples, no wonder there is such a willingness of "trads" to engage in fratricidal name-calling. Especially those of you rationalizing the "raca" name-calling and character assassination behavior ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Can we now move on as Catholic brothers and sisters to the things of value?
Not until you reveal who you are.
You are highly suspicious and will be viewed as such until you come out about your true identity.
-
With the "uranium" and "hand grenade" examples, no wonder there is such a willingness of "trads" to engage in fratricidal name-calling. Especially those of you rationalizing the "raca" name-calling and character assassination behavior ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Of course you don't apply the same standard to the Superior General of the SSPX. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt (if there be any), rather than putting a good interpretation on certain matters, e.g. turning what could very well be humorous descriptions rather than serious name-calling, rather than exaggerating a statement in order to beat up a straw man or admitting that there is more to the story than meets the eye, or taking any other avenue that justice and charity requires, thus giving deference and respect, reserving judgments and constraining your tongue, you proceed to relentlessly αssαssιnαtҽ his character at every turn.
-
I'll have to side with Caminus on this one. He's right.
Be the same across the board, Diego.
-
On the thinnest of imaginary pretexts several posters have been attacked on the basis of suspicion, I among them.
I think it is suspicious that you defend anyone and everyone who people here find to be suspicious.
Because someone disagrees with you, disagrees with you strongly, or even aggravates or offends you, joined the same or different time from someone who annoys you, etc., does not make them a "troll."
No one ever said that. Your lack of experience on this forum shows, as you obviously aren't aware of the trolls who have posted here in the past and how this forum spots them.
For example, whatever your rationalization for choosing the name, to call yourself the name of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity still offends me
You talk about "rationalization" yet you rashly judge me by saying I am calling myself the Holy Ghost. Go read the "My screen-name" thread I started for my clarification. And using your logic, people here who's screen-names are also Saint's names are calling themselves Saints. Your logic is flawed there.
I have verbalized my concern and you addressed it (unsatisfactorily, in my estimate), but it is now your business, not mine. I move on.
No you haven't moved on, you keep judging my thoughts and motives by implying I chose the screen-name to call myself the Holy Ghost.
In my opinion, whether the mob shares my opinion or not, that pervasive behavior is either sinful or sick—neither charitable, just, nor Catholic. If you want to cry "Here is the wolf," make sure you have rock solid evidence.
And you embarassed yourself after Capistrano turned out to be Richard Ibranyi on another account. You were telling us we needed rock solid evidence and so forth, and not long afterwards Cap was banned. You aren't the moderator, you have no right to boss us around and tell us what we can or can't do. The people you're bossing around turn out to be long-time members who know how things work here, myself included. You just recently became a frequent poster, you don't know how things work here.
-
It's embarrassing that anyone should be so up-in-arms over screen names.
Can you imagine what it is like for brothers and sisters in monastic orders to live each day with the names some of THEM have had?
Therese of the Child Jesus. I can imagine that being saddled with a name like that would present REAL challenges in one's daily fight for sanctity. It most certainly DID take the supernatural work of God, the Holy Ghost, to keep a soul pure and loving when EVERYONE around her knew her as "OF THE CHILD JESUS". Can you IMAGINE the difference between a sinner like you, me or Therese Martin and the gloriously adorable Innocence of the Child Jesus?
No, you cannot imagine it, because to try to comprehend the depth and scope of the loveliness and beauty of the Child Jesus is beyond anyone's capabilities who is not His Mother or foster father, who were particularly graced to live in His home and in His daily personal Presence.
Now, then, instead of nagging SS about his screen-name, why not imagine instead that his name is like St. Therese's name, or St. John of the Cross's name, or even MY name, which is Stephen Francis on the 'net ONLY. I CHOSE that name because St. Francis is the person whom God chose from among His saints to inspire and motivate me to reform my life and be reconciled to God in His Church.
Maybe SS chose his name because he wants to be reminded of the constant, abiding Presence of God. the Holy Ghost, Who is intent upon helping and sanctifying His people to the glory of the Holy Trinity. Maybe SS chose that name because it has been echoing in churches, chapels and cathedrals for two thousand years now, and it is STILL the Name of the One who comes to us in Baptism, who fills us at Confirmation and who empowers our daily lives in Christ.
Maybe, just maybe, the person behind that screen name really just LOVES and is devoted to God the Holy Ghost.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
With the "uranium" and "hand grenade" examples, no wonder there is such a willingness of "trads" to engage in fratricidal name-calling. Especially those of you rationalizing the "raca" name-calling and character assassination behavior ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Of course you don't apply the same standard to the Superior General of the SSPX. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt (if there be any), rather than putting a good interpretation on certain matters, e.g. turning what could very well be humorous descriptions rather than serious name-calling, rather than exaggerating a statement in order to beat up a straw man or admitting that there is more to the story than meets the eye, or taking any other avenue that justice and charity requires, thus giving deference and respect, reserving judgments and constraining your tongue, you proceed to relentlessly αssαssιnαtҽ his character at every turn.
I have to agree with Caminus also. I have concern over the direction of the SSPX. There just seems to be too much secrecy and too many trial balloons that come out of the SSPX leadership. It seems, sometimes, that the SSPX is going one direction but we never actually see it turn the corner. It is frustrating for the lay faithful who want so much to be able to put their trust in something and are fearful of being led astray. But the fact is, that the SSPX has not yet (and indeed many never) fall off a cliff.
Thus, Bishop Fellay can and should be criticized for his words and actions only when his words and actions are shameful. He should not be criticized for things that someone thinks he is about to do.
And even that criticism should be made with respect.
-
Thanks, Stephen. Yes, I have a great love for the Holy Ghost. My screen-name simply honors the Holy Ghost, and does in fact remind me of God.
-
"Up in arms"?
I mentioned it once, SS explained. I dropped it until the ongoing, relentless, paranoid carping about "suspicion," "moles," and "trolls," so I mentioned it once more, specifically stating that the issue was dead for me, that it was SS's business, not mine. So, mentioning it twice, the second time saying the issue was over, is "up in arms"?
Your mob should give the rest of us a break. You really fancy yourselves, but I see no hint of the blood of the martyrs in your veins. You swoon or go hysterical at the slightest internet disagreement. "Up in arms"? God help you when the going gets rough in the real world, the anti-Christ police state takes off the velvet gloves, and drops the pretense of democracy. You will see real "up in arms."
You claim you want to discuss holy things, so do it.
As for me, I will let you stew in your own juices.
-
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070624042249/austinpowers/images/f/fe/Themole.jpg)
Moley Moley Moley Moley Moley!
(Sorry, couldn't help it. This is the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread.)
-
I mentioned it once, SS explained. I dropped it until the ongoing, relentless, paranoid carping about "suspicion," "moles," and "trolls," so I mentioned it once more, specifically stating that the issue was dead for me, that it was SS's business, not mine. So, mentioning it twice, the second time saying the issue was over, is "up in arms"?
If the issue was "dead" for you then why did you mention it again?
Your mob should give the rest of us a break. You really fancy yourselves, but I see no hint of the blood of the martyrs in your veins. You swoon or go hysterical at the slightest internet disagreement.
You are just using straw-man arguments. Please just stop talking before you embarass yourself any more.
-
What part of "issue is dead for me" don't you understand?
I choose not to live in your echo chamber.
-
Diego comes off like one of these Hoffmann types, if not Hoffman himself -- he is dropping some pretty heavy Jєωιѕн terms -- who are far too obsessed with the Jєωs. These people tend to have some wacky ideas. Hoffman actually calls Hitler "the gravedigger of the German people" so at least he doesn't have those sympathies; but he is either an Americanist or very close to one, denigrates the kings, etc.
So how do you feel about the nαzιs, Diego? Or the separation of Church and state? The thought police are calling; will you submit to my тαℓмυdic grilling?
In any case, I think people have given you the benefit of the doubt. No one would be suspicious of you if you didn't keep calling everyone overly suspicious.
-
If I found you edifying in any way, I would engage you on any matter.
-
Bishop Fellay has done plenty already. An agreement with Rome would simply be the fait accompli of what is a long process. Right now it seems they need to let things simmer down a bit - they've stirred up some unrest. They will placate the mass of priests and isolate the dissidents and emphasize the importance of respect for their "authority" (irregular authority that is only valid insofar as they act to preserve the Faith).
These things have been gone over plenty of times, but the changes in the SSPX that will precede some sort of final sellout have been and will continue to be substantial so long as the cabal surrounding Bishop Fellay is in power.
As for Bishop Fellay's words about Bishop Williamson - we can judge his intentions behind them by his actions towards Bishop Williamson. I'm surprised we're going back to the "uranium" comments given the the very disrespectful message he sent to Bishop Williamson telling him to stop sending out his Eleison commentary.
Bishop Fellay and his people have done plenty already. What Archbishop Lefebvre said about disobedience to the Pope certainly applies to someone in an irregular position of authority like Bishop Fellay. But in the SSPX, the SSPX rules trump Church rules. The head of the SSPX is invested with more authority than they invest their nominal Pope.
-
Perhaps the part where you keep bringing it up.
-
To those who would like more peaceful discussions sharing info about devotions, etc. --
I would just say, "This forum is whatever YOU make it." If even ONE person started posted what they wanted to see, the forum would move toward their "vision" by a pretty decent-sized step.
I'm sure there are sayings out there that would be appropriate -- "BE the change you wish to see" or something to that effect -- even "Rather than curse the darkness, light a candle."
Matthew, could you atleast delete this disturbing picture that tradition1987 posted? I'll post the link to the thread for you to delete it, but be warned the picture he posted of lucifer is incredibly disturbing, that's why I suggest you delete it and the thread.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Vatican-names-its-new-telescope-LUCIFER
Maybe they should have named it Roscoe. :laugh2: Just kidding!
-
LOL. That would be a good name for it.
-
Diego said:
If I found you edifying in any way, I would engage you on any matter.
Ah, I see. You are brimming with such charm, Diego!
-
Diego said:
And the personal assaults on Michael Hoffman's wife and family and the firebombing of the Institute of Historical Review are good reasons to use a nom de guerre.
This has got to be either Michael Hoffmann or someone who is such a huge fan that he has morphed into Michael Hoffmann. But that passage above could be his mea culpa for being incognito. He also defends Hoffmann and shills his books, has almost exactly the same viewpoints, is SSPX, same personality, speaks with authority about the Jєωs, etc.
I am just confused because in one place he calls himself a Catholic monarchist.
Whoever this is, I was going through his posts, and he says that Capistrano should not only not be banned, but be "fêted." Capistrano being the one who approved of the non-Catholic nαzιs attacking a Catholic nation. Don't expect to be above suspicion after that, Diego.
P.S. I don't know what the Institute of Historical Review is but Hitler's underlings firebombed the Reichstag in order to create a false-flag to start World War II, and I am quite certain the devil is going to use similar tactics to have the Catholic movement hijacked by the wrong people, Gallicans, nαzι-sympathizers, racist, etc. He will set up false martyrs as he is clearly doing with Reynouard, as Hitler was once portrayed as a kind of underdog and false martyr. It's the oldest trick in the book. When it comes to heretics -- not that all these people are heretics, but those who have supremacist racial ideas probably are -- no one knows better than they how to feign long-suffering and humility, while using the worldly indulgences of the churchmen against them. "Oh, we are pure and living in a cave, but they live in luxury!" With Reynouard, it's "Oh, I've been in prison, I'm a martyr of the faith -- NOW BOW DOWN FOR MY NATIONAL SOCIALIST CATHOLICISM."
-
Another suggestion about the identity of Diego, is that he runs the whoislikeuntogod.com website. He is apparently a big fan of Hoffman and even got rebuked by Hoffman for using a chunk of his material. His views are very similar to Diego's, but I can't find what he thinks about nαzιs.
He seems a bit confused. He apparently is favorable to the monarchy but then writes:
"If non-Catholics are familiar with the WeAreChange movement and those which are similar, the desire of restoration of the country to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the goal of all free people; it is without a doubt that evidence points to the fact that public policies and new legislation are pushing toward the One World Government, One World currency, and One World ruling, by those elitists who desire control of the world with their dictatorship."
Yet elsewhere on the site he talks about the Great Monarch prophecies... Kind of mixed-up.
The idea that America stands in the way of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, though perhaps an honest mistake, is still a mistake. America is the cornerstone of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is not some future event; it began with the French Revolution and America. I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but it does bear repeating: The Old World Order is the Catholic monarchies; the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Republics of which America is the shining star, Mystery Babylon, which has infected practically all nations of the Earth with its "ideals."
Apocalypse 17:5 --
And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication.
This is about America becoming the wealthiest and strongest nation due to its anti-Christ policies, separating Church and state, spreading an uncontrolled and chaotic democracy everywhere.
Those like Alex Jones who talk about the future nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, whether they know it or not, are doing a sleight-of-hand routine. We have been living in a nearly perfected nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr for almost a hundred years now. People think that unless we get a common currency and a one-world leader we are still not in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr; where do they get this notion? There is no evidence for it. Maybe the problem is that "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr" is not a Catholic term in the first place and appears to be a distracting invention of the devil. Who cares when or what the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is? All we need to know is: Is such-and-such a nation Catholic, or is it not? America is not.
There doesn't have to be a single currency or a single leader for us to be in real bad shape. Even the Anti-Christ may not necessarily be the only leader on earth when he comes. What we do know is he will set himself as the sole spiritual leader to be followed, but there may still be kings and so on. It's like people have read too much Americanized Protestant prophecy. It's funny to see people scaring themselves with some future nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr when the time we live in is so much worse even than their imaginary NWO -- the Church is almost totally dead!
-
Raoul, thanks for pointing out this stuff. I definitely don't trust Diego now.
-
what is a mole?
-
what is a mole?
Basically it's the same thing as a troll.
Hey Diego, thanks for the ignore. I consider that a badge of honor.
-
So much for your perspicacity, I have not formally ignored you. Blame someone else, my poor paranoid correspondent.
-
Ok, THAT I will apologise for. I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions, Diego.
-
Apology accepted... could be a trend if you let it.
-
Well, Spiritus, there wasn't anything untrustworthy in all that except for him supporting Capistrano. I was just trying to figure out who he was. It's not a crime to be Michael Hoffmann or the guy who runs whoislikeuntogod.com. We don't agree on everything, but then I don't agree with many people here on everything <cough>SSPX<cough>
Really the only thing that makes him untrustworthy, besides what he said about Cap, is that he keeps complaining about paranoia. Makes it look like he has something to hide.
From his posts that I've read, he doesn't say much that is overtly dangerous, but he does resemble Hoffman in that he seems kind of all over the map, hard to pin down. I get no real coherent sense of who he is or how he thinks the way I do from you, or Tele, or Matthew, or wallflower, or Caminus, or other members of this site. You get the feeling you're on shifting sand when you read his posts; you never really know where you stand. It feels like he's holding things back, using misdirection and mental reservation.
Of course, he needn't worry about being "suspicious." I am on my guard against everything that anyone says, not just him. I don't turn off my brain for ANYONE, not even those I trust the most. So many people try to slip poisonous ideas into our brains, we have to be vigilant at all times and call on Mary, St. Michael and other powerful forces to intercede for us. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand spiritual warfare.
What is happening is that a kind of nαzι-influenced state-centered group of people is attempting to hijack the trad movement. The devil is setting something up here by which he intends to finish off what little remains of the Church. I see very clearly what's happening. I know many Catholics will be sucked in and will think this is the best we have and we have to join with these people, but we don't. I thought the worst had already happened, but no, it's getting darker. Darker and darker. The devil is aiming for total elimination; the spirit of these politicized Catholics is so tweaked, they are liable to turn off more people than they attract, because like with Vatican II, the spirit of God is not there. They are like the Jansenists, or the Gallicans, they can be classified as "Catholic" perhaps but something isn't right. This is not what the glorious Restoration we have been promised, it is yet another ignis fatuus.
-
What is happening is that a kind of nαzι-influenced state-centered group of people is attempting to hijack the trad movement. The devil is setting something up here by which he intends to finish off what little remains of the Church. I see very clearly what's happening. I know many Catholics will be sucked in and will think this is the best we have and we have to join with these people, but we don't. This is all part of what will appear to be a final abandonment of God. I thought the worst had already happened, but no, it's getting darker. Darker and darker.
Well, I wonder whether half a dozen "nαzι-Catholics" will hijack anything. It seems to me that traditionalists are very well able to destroy themselves without foreign help.