Author Topic: Fr Marshall Roberts with the Resistance (Read 30910 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #30 on:** May 15, 2015, 12:54:05 PM »

Quote from: LAMB

This seems to be an unfair type of censorship.

No, it's perfectly fair. It applies to every member, on both ends (giving and receiving). Even I am not allowed to be more than 17% of someone's downvotes.

Meanwhile, on the other end, every single person on the forum is thus "protected" by limiting enemy damage. There are no exceptions.

It prevents bullying, and excessive "rep" damage from one or two arch-enemies. Everyone has enemies, including Our Lord. So it's a wise system.

The system really works -- truly bad posts/members can get lots of downvotes, because LOTS OF PEOPLE participate in the downvoting. But when it's only 2-3 people, the person isn't objectively that bad, and it's good for the system to limit how much negative rep a single person can inflict.

LAMB · « **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2015, 01:44:31 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: LAMB

This seems to be an unfair type of censorship.

No, it's perfectly fair. It applies to every member, on both ends (giving and receiving). Even I am not allowed to be more than 17% of someone's downvotes.

Meanwhile, on the other end, every single person on the forum is thus "protected" by limiting enemy damage. There are no exceptions.

It prevents bullying, and excessive "rep" damage from one or two arch-enemies. Everyone has enemies, including Our Lord. So it's a wise system.

The system really works -- truly bad posts/members can get lots of downvotes, because LOTS OF PEOPLE participate in the downvoting. But when it's only 2-3 people, the person isn't objectively that bad, and it's good for the system to limit how much negative rep a single person can inflict.

Fair enough Matthew. Thanks for explaining.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2015, 01:52:38 PM »

I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.

We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.

There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.

Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".

Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.

Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.

Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).

Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).

JPaul · « **Reply #33 on:** May 15, 2015, 02:10:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.

We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.

There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.

Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".

Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.

Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.

Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).

Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).

Right on point. They dropped the ball on more than one occasion, and great scandal was the result. And here the pattern is repeated it would seem.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2015, 02:16:37 PM »

I suspect that there's a strong homo network within SSPX.

I also suspect that there are many modernist infiltrators. If the modernists could infiltrate the upper hierarchy of the Church, they could infiltrate the SSPX in about ten minutes. It was well know that if you were a polyglot (and above-average intelligent), then it was a foregone conclusion that you would be a superior in the SSPX upon ordination.