So, who and what do you think should be banned here?

All the sede garbage about Archbishop Lefebvre. I listened to Paverinus last night about Thuc and I was eating my supper, almost started puking with his fables about Archbishop Lefebvre’s interaction with Thuc. Like did P graduate from an online course to be a sede bishop. 

All the sede garbage about Archbishop Lefebvre. I listened to Paverinus last night about Thuc and I was eating my supper, almost started puking with his fables about Archbishop Lefebvre’s interaction with Thuc. Like did P graduate from an online course to be a sede bishop.

A few priest and bishops stood up in there way to try to save what was happening with Holy Mother Church.  Please just show a little charity and just share posts of how awesome you think +Lefebve was.

We didn't live during that time.  We were not in the inner circles of these conversations.  We can't recreate history, no matter how hard we try.  Why go to such links on this forum to belittle someone who has passed?  God knows the truth and what he asks of us is to show His love to the world.  When did vinegar ever convert people?

Truly!

And the corollary questions…

Who the hell is Infirmus to sit as Judge on Abp. Thuc???

What the hell has Infirmus done that qualifies him to pass sentence on the worth of Abp. Thuc???

Infirmus's proud arrogance and usurpation is astounding.

These questions are still on the table.

I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.

I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.

I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "barvery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.

I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate ABp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.

An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.

The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.

Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete.  Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.

No one on this forum sits in judgment of others more than you do. And you continually make judgment of the "interior forum" of those who do not share your opinion, and sometimes in a nasty and vicious manner.  As if sedevacantism is beyond criticism. 

It has been mentioned that Matthew allows sedevacantist posts here. Well yes, he does. But it goes beyond that. IMO, it's a sedevacantist forum that allows or is sometimes tolerant of R&R. Only tolerant. Nothing more. And that tolerance depends on whether or not sedevacantism is criticized. Most of the active forum members are sedevacantist, and several of them (especially you) will harass anyone who goes against the sedevacantist narrative. 

Maybe I'll be totally banned for writing the above. It would make your life here easier. You can then harass others without too much opposition. Maybe a bit.

Your post is non-responsive. I gave examples of your laughable arrogation of charisms.  You attempt to accuse me, but give no specific quotes or examples. On occasions I have judged statements, but unlike you, I have never here or elsewhere judged the "real reason" interior forum of others. Unlike you I have never claimed I know about "the real life" or "bravery" of anyone here.

You had said that forum members needed to behave more like the Crusaders. I assumed that you meant that they should behave more like Crusaders on this forum. Is that what you meant?

I have seen no Crusader-like behavior from you on this forum. I've seen a lot of bullying and harassment of other forum members, but bullies tend to really be cowards. I never said anything about your "Real life." You are lying about that. As you frequently do. Like other members of your tribe. 

I won't play along with your typical attempt to divert into baseless subjective hysterical attacks.

Bottom line: You (plural) have no authority and you (plural) have no competence to anathematize sedevacantists or any other practicing Catholic. You (plural) have no access to the private life and anonymous Catholic Action of Abp. Thuc.  It is objectively sinful for you (plural) to engage in a sham inquiry and/or judgement of Abp. Thuc.

I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.

I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding and/or dogmatic opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (Meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.

I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "bravery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.

I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate Abp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.

An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.

The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.

Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete.  Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.

When someone strongly disagrees with your opinion, you make the accusation of judging the interior forum. And then you mention it in almost every post. You are dishonest. Expressing an opinion is not judging an interior forum. But if you keep on making that claim, maybe some here will believe it. That's what the Tribe does. They repeat things over and over and over, in order to brainwash others.

And.....since when have I claimed any authority over others here? That's another lie, which you seem to hope will stick in the minds of others. 

I'm not sure of the intentions behind this post, but I believe it's important to highlight and address the errors of Bishop Thuc. The prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette speaks of a prelate whose characteristics closely match those of Archbishop Lefebvre. Thuc has been a great divider and distraction from his prophetic mission in many ways.