Author Topic: ELEISON 379 - OCTOBER 18, 2014 (Read 51146 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #185 on:** October 24, 2014, 01:09:37 PM »

Quote from: JPM

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.

I have an email from Feb. 6th, 2014 in which H.E. is looking for the article which he recommended to friends in Switzerland and they could not find it. He end the email saying: "Please give him [D.D] my good wishes. He rendered us all a service with his article on Mrs. xxx".

cathman7 · « **Reply #186 on:** October 24, 2014, 01:15:08 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: JPM
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.

I have an email from Feb. 6th, 2014 in which H.E. is looking for the article which he recommended to friends in Switzerland and they could not find it. He end the email saying: "Please give him [D.D] my good wishes. He rendered us all a service with his article on Mrs. xxx".

Marie,

What relationship do you have with the "seer"?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #187 on:** October 24, 2014, 01:27:19 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

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.

Does part of Bp. Fellay's treachery involve changing his mind about the authenticity of DM's messages by any chance?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #188 on:** October 24, 2014, 01:36:05 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

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.

Does part of Bp. Fellay's treachery involve changing his mind about the authenticity of DM's messages by any chance?

No. I was thinking more along the lines of his treachery involving trying to sell out the SSPX and the 2012 Declaration. I thought this was a resistance-supporting site? Do you support the resistance? (Meaning one concerning the SSPX, not the general one against Rome) Do you think Bishop Williamson is a good and credible bishop?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #189 on:** October 24, 2014, 02:00:52 PM »

Quote from: obscurus

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
Quote from: JPM
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.

I have an email from Feb. 6th, 2014 in which H.E. is looking for the article which he recommended to friends in Switzerland and they could not find it. He end the email saying: "Please give him [D.D] my good wishes. He rendered us all a service with his article on Mrs. xxx".

Marie,

What relationship do you have with the "seer"?

We never met. We exchanged communication for a while and discovered we had good friends in common in PA when I requested prayers for the repose of the soul of a friend. We became friends but I had no contact for many months. I have eight (grown) children, 30 grandchildren and keep very busy helping with the homeschooling…I don’t have a lot of time for the internet. But do not hesitate to take time to defend a sincere soul.