He wore out his welcome with his constant accordista position.

I tolerated him for a time, because sometimes it's healthy for a forum to have ONE devil's advocate, especially if he can behave himself.

But he seems to be frothing at the mouth of late, anxious to cast slurs on Bishop Williamson. That crossed a line for me.

Mr. McFarland is what you call "invested" in +Fellay's SSPX position. His son is an ordained SSPX priest. So there's nothing unreasonable about second-guessing the 100% rationality of his arguments.

Farewell. May we meet in heaven. I do pray that you open your eyes to the truth that is all around you, as we need the TRUTH to save our souls.

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for banning McFarland.

You are a good moderator.

God Bless you, Matthew.

Quote from: Matthew

He wore out his welcome with his constant accordista position.

I tolerated him for a time, because sometimes it's healthy for a forum to have ONE devil's advocate, especially if he can behave himself.

But he seems to be frothing at the mouth of late, anxious to cast slurs on Bishop Williamson. That crossed a line for me.

Farewell. May we meet in heaven. I do pray that you open your eyes to the truth that is all around you, as we need the TRUTH to save our souls.

In other words, you lost the argument.

Absolutely NOT!!  

McFarland did NOT listen to evidence against his position, even when it was repeated over, and over, and over again.  The man was deaf, dumb, and blind -- willfully!!!

He baited the members on CathInfo, trying to get them confused about the truth.

I got so tired of hearing his lies that I "down thumbed him" every time he posted.  Then I started ignoring his posts.

Matthew was just responding to the MANY pleas from the members of CathInfo to PLEASE SILENCE THE TROLL!!

MATTHEW,
  *** THANK YOU ***    
FOR BANNING MCFARLAND!!!

Deo Gratias!

Thank you, Matthew.  I was SOOO bored with that man and his constant complaints, and dishonest attacks I would just ignore him.  He wasn't worth reading.

Quote from: Judas Machabeus

Quote from: Matthew

He wore out his welcome with his constant accordista position.

I tolerated him for a time, because sometimes it's healthy for a forum to have ONE devil's advocate, especially if he can behave himself.

But he seems to be frothing at the mouth of late, anxious to cast slurs on Bishop Williamson. That crossed a line for me.

Farewell. May we meet in heaven. I do pray that you open your eyes to the truth that is all around you, as we need the TRUTH to save our souls.

In other words, you lost the argument.

What was the argument that was lost?

Was it the claim that the Archbishop's words don't matter because he's dead?

Was it the claim we don't know what the Archbishop meant when he said a deal was impossible?

Was it the claim that the words attributed to the Archbishop weren't really his?

Was it the claim that Bishop Fellay's position is very close to the Archbishop's, and the claim that Bishop Williamson's position is different than the Archbishop's.  A very very strange position to take, after first saying the Archbishop is dead and then denying that he spoke the words recorded in his sermons.

All those positions lost, and only someone dishonest would say they won.

We're not required to allow the pathologically dishonest to nest here.

On the contrary, deceivers should be banned.

He's not going to answer you, Tele. His post was only for shock value. Trolls
don't care about a conversation. All they want is attention. Getting your reply
is his reward. He's hiding in his closet, laughing: "I made Tele think. HAHAHAHAHA"

If he were to answer you, then from his view, it would be like rewarding you, since
he is rewarded when someone else replies to his stupid posts. Therefore, he
thinks you would feel rewarded when he replies to your intelligent post. The
problem that he misses entirely is the difference between a stupid post and an
intelligent one. But he can't tell the difference, because he's stupid.

Poor fellow.        :stare:

It was fitting and just.  The guy is a Forum raider.

I'm only sorry he lasted 5-weeks.  We were charitable, but it took us some time to do what Dr. David Allen White did with one rebuttal, which is, rhetorically flatten him.

Pray for Father McFarland's priesthood, since as the old saying goes...
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Do you have a copy of Dr. White's rebuttal? Can you post it here? That would be
a big help.

Speaking of the apple and the tree, who were Fr. McFarland's seminary superior and
professors? I would guess that Bishop Fellay and/or Menzingen would be the likely
suspects, but I'd like to be sure rather than "speculate." Were bishops +Williamson
or +de Mallerais involved at all?

Quote from: Incredulous

It was fitting and just.  The guy is a Forum raider.

I'm only sorry he lasted 5-weeks.  We were charitable, but it took us some time to do what Dr. David Allen White did with one rebuttal, which is, rhetorically flatten him.

Pray for Father McFarland's priesthood, since as the old saying goes...
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Do you have a copy of Dr. White's rebuttal? Can you post it here? That would be
a big help.

Speaking of the apple and the tree, who were Fr. McFarland's seminary superior and
professors? I would guess that Bishop Fellay and/or Menzingen would be the likely
suspects, but I'd like to be sure rather than "speculate." Were bishops +Williamson
or +de Mallerais involved at all?

Hi Neil Obstat... here it is:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just saw the following posted by hollingsworth on Ignis Ardens, thought it was interesting:

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10639

Below find an (open?) letter to a gentleman named John McFarland from Dr. David Allen White. Dr. White is a prominent figure in traditional Catholic circles. This is the story as I have been able to piece it together:
Fr. Ronald Ringrose is the pastor of St. Athanasius Church in Vienna, VA. He has worked closely with the Society for years, though he is not a formal member of SSPX. What is more, Father, apparently, has recently joined forces with Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal in resisting +Fellay & Co.
Mr. McFarland took issue with Father over things the latter was reported to have said about Pope Benedict. He expressed his displeasure with the priest in a public online forum. Father Ringrose, according to Mr. McFarland, has stated that the pope can not be followed, and that he has no papal authority. Mr. McF. accuses Fr. Ringrose of ‘practical sedevacantism.’
Dr. White, who is a parishioner at St. Athanasius, writes the following in response to Mr. McF:

(Aug. 23, 2012)

Quote:

Dear Mr. McFarland,

As you persist in criticizing Fr. Ringrose in a public forum, so must you be answered in the same manner.

In saying that whether Benedict XVI is pope or not he cannot be followed, Fr. Ringrose does not suggest the man has no authority. Benedict XVI has no authority to lead souls into heresy or sin. No pope ever has. Period.

A few examples of where Benedict XVI is leading souls:

In Aosla, July 24, 2009, Benedict XVI praised "the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and echo that praise?

In Istanbul on October 30, 2006, Benedict XVI visited the Blue Mosque and prayed with Muslim religious leaders while facing Mecca. Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" the example?

On March 3, 2012, Benedict XVI stated that Vatican II was a "true sign of God". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and agree?

On May 1, 2011, Benedict XVI beatified John Paul II, saying that his predecessor had "restored to Christianity its true face as a religion of hope". Should Fr. Ringrose begin research to find those earlier Holy Pontiffs who had destroyed that face and stopped the Catholic Church from being a "religion of hope"? (Perhaps this is one reason why Bishop Fellay said in public that he had "mixed feelings" about the beatification.)

On January 17, 2010, Benedict XVI visited the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome and referred to Our Lord Jesus Christ only once as "reaffirm[ing] Moses's teaching". Should Fr. Ringrose begin referring to Our Lord in a similar manner, especially when addressing those outside the Catholic Church?

Benedict XVI states in his book Jesus of Nazareth that the Church "must not concern itself with the conversion of the Jєωs". Should Fr. Ringrose begin rewriting St Paul's epistles or simply be glad that he might have a little extra time on his hands?

Benedict XVI on September 17, 2011, appeared in a "paraliturgical even" with a Lutheran "bishopess". Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" his example and seek out a local lady and do likewise?

Benedict XVI on September 23, 2011, praised Martin Luther. Should Fr. Ringrose "follow" and send up his hosannas?

On January 10, 2011, Benedict XVI affirmed that "religious freedom" was his "top public priority"? Should Fr. Ringrose hop on that bandwagon?

On November 20, 2010, Benedict XVI stated that condom use could be justified in some cases. Should Fr. Ringrose begin distributing them with clear instructions that they are to be used only in specified cases of emergency?

Need I mention Assisi III?

Must I go on? (And I certainly could.)

Should Benedict XVI actually begin teaching the Catholic faith and exhorting the Catholic faithful and the world to save their souls through the one source of salvation -- the Catholic Church -- as any Catholic Pope should and must, then he will have authority and be followed. Until that time, no soul seeking to avoid hellfire dare "follow" him.

A miracle could occur. All things are possible through God. We must pray for the poor man's conversion.

I do indeed "believe in the Church as it has always understood itself" and for that very reason I will NOT be "quits with Father", but, rather, continue to worship at Saint Athanasius Church as I have for 28 years, thanking God for such a holy priest who teaches the fullness of the Catholic faith in this nightmarish time of apostasy.

Yours in Christ and His Blessed Mother,

David Allen White

P.S. If the SSPX does begin offering mass in the area, will it be the 1962 mass consented to by their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre or the new hybrid, hegelian service currently being concocted by Bendect XVI and company? Just wondering