Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Hearts Protection (no. 597)  (Read 6584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Eleison Comments - Hearts Protection (no. 597)
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2018, 03:07:31 PM »
Quote
Quote
Yes, the indecency attributed in the Poem where none is meant or intended is truly appalling.
 
Quote
PV:How do you know no indecency was intended?  How do you know that:

Well, because I bothered to read the entire episode.  Did you?  PV, you can believe that N.199 is a fabrication, an invention of Valtorta's confused and decieved mind.  Be my guest. But the story, real or invented, has absolutely nothing to do with indecency.  There is not an indecent suggestion in it.  Only slugs like ladislaus insert the possibility of it being so.
And is there no other CI member, besides Cebu, who will at least come to the defense of Valtorta, whether or not you believe her account.  Will not one of you timid souls at least admit that there was no evidence in it of an indecent and filthy motive? 
What about you, Matthew?  You posted the EC. Come on, man up!  Cat got your tongue?  It's your forum which assembles all these "traditional Catholics."  Do you have a special place in your heart for certified morons like Lad, Incred, and PV.?  Shameless, despicable bunch that they are.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Eleison Comments - Hearts Protection (no. 597)
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2018, 03:20:13 PM »
Quote
Will not one of you timid souls at least admit that there was no evidence in it of an indecent and filthy motive?  
Ive never said it was indecent/filthy.  But i can see how it could be interpreted as such.  And it is surely profane, which is not how God wishes to be treated and is not consistent with other, 100% approved apparitions.  Therefore, I reject it.  


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Eleison Comments - Hearts Protection (no. 597)
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2018, 03:41:38 PM »
Will not one of you timid souls at least admit that there was no evidence in it of an indecent and filthy motive?

Did I not just write that I am not in a position to judge "motive"?  I do not judge the internal forum.  I don't care about "motive"; I simply judge this stuff, objectively, to be trash.  And, as a Catholic, I am entitled to agree with the Holy Office's erstwhile judgment that it belongs on the Index.  There's no judgment of the Church which requires that I accept Valtorta as divine revelation.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Eleison Comments - Hearts Protection (no. 597)
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2018, 03:45:14 PM »
Shameless, despicable bunch that they are.

So we're now shameless and despicable for agreeing with +Lefebvre and the Holy Office?

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Eleison Comments - Hearts Protection (no. 597)
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2018, 07:40:21 PM »
Next week, Hollingsworth will be screaming that +Williamson’s new article is pro-sspx and how +Williamson is pathetic.  But this week, Hollingsworth agrees with him on “the poem”, so no negativity.  ??  So confusing.