Author Topic: ELEISON 379 - OCTOBER 18, 2014 (Read 51306 times)

Elizabeth · « **Reply #180 on:** October 24, 2014, 11:21:37 AM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

......Also, right around this time when I had my personal talk with Bishop Williamson and mentioned to him some of her punches bellow the belt (e.g Collecting all the information of Fr. Pfeiffer's trip to Florida, just in order to pass it along to the local SSPX Prior in Florida to consequently crush the resistance there), H.E was not fully trusting her either (though he only used mild terminology). But once I published H.E was not impressed with her in one of the threads she pushed her "visions", hell broke loose and she went crazy and pressed Bishop Williamson to call Fr. Pfeiffer and myself in regards to this "calumny".... She even manage to contact my wife by private message through her C.I account--calling her not by the screen name, but the real name-- in hope to intimidate her (me) in regards to her hoax.... What an embaressing joke that was!

Anyhow, be prepared for more division within tradition/resistance because of this megalomaniac "seer"; apparently having to deal with the issues of new consecrated bishops, sedevacantism, non-Unacuм, Fellayites, etc., aren't enough for His Excelency....

Kyrie Eleison indeed!

There have been a few of these "prophets" through the years. The Internet has been a goldmine for their self-promotion, and useful for a myriad of deceitful purposes--especially character assassination and spying.

They twist the words of unwary clergy to con people into supporting them, and having unwary laypeople do their dirty work...so I believe your story.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #181 on:** October 24, 2014, 11:38:19 AM »

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: holmoak
Your previous post makes sense, Matthew. These supposed "visions" are a made up sham, not true, never happened. The forthcoming ECs are going to provide even more fodder for folks to easily dissect and come to rational conclusion that this whole thing is a very sad and pathetic made up story.

I am afraid that is true and then what will we make of all the flip-flopping back and forth by many of the major "players" ?

Leaving aside the flip-flopping (which will no doubt be denied unless someone can pull up archived Ignis Ardens threads)--how can someone who creates multiple personas for online forums possibly be talking to the Queen of Angels?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #182 on:** October 24, 2014, 12:00:27 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holmoak
Your previous post makes sense, Matthew. These supposed "visions" are a made up sham, not true, never happened. The forthcoming ECs are going to provide even more fodder for folks to easily dissect and come to rational conclusion that this whole thing is a very sad and pathetic made up story.

I am afraid that is true and then what will we make of all the flip-flopping back and forth by many of the major "players" ?

Leaving aside the flip-flopping (which will no doubt be denied unless someone can pull up archived Ignis Ardens threads)--how can someone who creates multiple personas for online forums possibly be talking to the Queen of Angels?

Many of the resistance members flip-flopped back and forth as new information was revealed regarding +F's treachery, followed by denials or temporarily soothing explanations. They wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until it became patently impossible. Flip-flopping can also denote "course-correction". I can't find fault with that unless it is habitual and flippant.

JPM · « **Reply #183 on:** October 24, 2014, 12:04:35 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: holmoak
Your previous post makes sense, Matthew. These supposed "visions" are a made up sham, not true, never happened. The forthcoming ECs are going to provide even more fodder for folks to easily dissect and come to rational conclusion that this whole thing is a very sad and pathetic made up story.

I am afraid that is true and then what will we make of all the flip-flopping back and forth by many of the major "players" ?

Leaving aside the flip-flopping (which will no doubt be denied unless someone can pull up archived Ignis Ardens threads)--how can someone who creates multiple personas for online forums possibly be talking to the Queen of Angels?

I have no idea who the alleged seer really is, and I like it that way (because I don't want personal feelings to sway me one way or the other).

As I mentioned in my first post, the visions (as presented) are objectively not factual. The dates and historical record (i.e. the reign of BXVI) simply don't match with what the vision claims AND the ensuing inquiry of the seer actually confirms this.

I try to keep an open mind; my disbelief has nothing to do with the seer. The facts, the claims, and the calendar just...don't...match.

My limited intellect simply won't allow me to clear that hurdle. And, once you've published the specifics of the visions, you can't credibly go back and edit an apparition. Maybe Bishop Williamson didn't read (or even have knowledge of) Drew's article.

For me, case closed.

Green Scapular · « **Reply #184 on:** October 24, 2014, 12:57:22 PM »

If only it was closed! But now we face weeks more of this tragicomedy doled out in installments.