CathInfo.com

Neil,

Yes, Ab. Lefebvre was fooled, but you are the 'smart' one. Please spare us.

Spare "us?"  Who do you think is with you?  Are you keeping a ghost
in your pocket?  Give me a break.

You fail to answer any of the basic points I make. If you can't answer just say so, no need to hide behind insults.

Do you think you can pick up tactics in HEBF's Rhetoric 101 and
come in here and get away with it?  It is YOU who fail to answer any
of the basic facts of history which you are incapable of denying,
so you go for the wholesale denial of the truth.  Does that sound
familiar?  Check it out: John viii. 45, maybe for the first time!

While I have been a staunch resistance follower for the greater part, [?!] I can say honestly, I can now see that they are not correct in their assessment. I think with time is becoming clearer to me and others. They want to combat what they perceive as an error on Part of the SSPX with another error, namely failing to make some of the basic distinctions which the SSPX has always made.

Face it, Johnnier:  You're all wet.

To me it seems like a emotional reaction to a real problem. Just look at how certain people here reaction [sic] to even basic object [sic] errors pointed out to them.

You strain the gnat and swallow the camel, Johnnier.  You have
utterly failed to answer the questions, so you say there are no
questions (the primary of the Three Greatest Heresies, which
see), and then you proceed to accuse others of the very thing
that you commit.  Did you learn that one from Krah or some
other Jew?

Fr. Pfieffer is mistaken on trying to claim that Fatima isn't merely a private revelation.

You are wrong, again, or should I rather say, "as usual?" ..

This point is basic Catholic teaching.

..I think I'll go for the latter option!

It seems to me, that all people have done is deflect what they persevered as the infallibility of Bp. Fellay to Fr. Pfieffer. [sic] I think this is madness to say the least.

"...what they persevered as the infallibility of" TGO?  So you're
either planting time bombs or obfuscating your logical fallacies,
but either way, it's junk, dude.  

I'm somewhat relieved to see you recognize your words as "madness."



I won't duplicate the whole post but some of J.Paul's words are a
focus of import:

Well, to say the least, you are a Menzingen apologist and that is the weight which must given to your efforts here.  It appears that the only 'following' of the resistance which you have done is to continue to harass their supporters.

IOW your human act of "following the Resistance" is more like
stalking, and lying in wait.  Both of which contribute to elevate
the seriousness of the crime, BTW.  (Cf. Matt. xii. 36-37)

We have no need to perceive the problems of the progressives in the Society, as they have already been docuмented and are undeniable to a reasonable person who is capable of critical thinking.  

And furthermore, you can't argue with a Modernist!  All it does is
get uglier and uglier.  At some point you have to recognize that his
allegiance is with the Adversary and there is no benefit to the
discussion, only a danger to your principles and perhaps to your
faith.

J. Paul,

Who is harrasing [sic] who? - If pointing out the basic facts is harasment [sic] - then what case do you have at all?

News flash for Johnnier:

You haven't pointed out any 'facts' but you have ignored
plenty of them.  See below.

And you can't spell very well, either.  In both cases you're
consistent:  consistently wrong.

Anyone who points out a basic fact is attacked as a 'Menzingen apologist'.

It appears to me what is docuмent [sic] is the selective reading of things. One can also 'docuмent' the various statements and actions of the Archbishop and interpret them in a liberal light as well, as various Sedevacantist groups have done. As Neil himself wanted to claim that somehow, even the Archbishop was 'fooled', reason being is because he doesn't agree with current resistance ideas. - I find this pure madness.

There is a whole long list of things ABL taught that you are wont to
deny, along with your potentate apostates.  I'd call THAT "madness" --
in the objective order, that is.

Even within the resistance itself various priests view things differently, are they for that reason also 'Menzingen apologist'? [sic] This is becoming foolish.  

It's refreshing to see you recognize foolishness, but unfortunately,
you haven't managed to perceive the fact that your posts have been
"foolish" all along.

So, you think I'm crazy, eh, Your Johnnier?  
Who is ignoring the facts, you or I?  

You have been provided a long list of facts, not one of which you can
refute, nor have you tried, then you come off saying that "it's
all emotion" for us to provide you with objective facts that you cannot
refute nor defend against -- but then it's somehow 'reasonable' for you
to make unfounded (lying) blanket accusations?  

Pure madness, eh?  Spare us!  



Here's a sample list, which you no doubt missed before and that's
why you're invincibly-yet-culpably-ignorant:  


New Position on Judaism
Decreasing devotion to Our Lady
Vatican II and Religious Liberty
GREC, Krahgate, and the secular PR firm
Reversal of Novus Ordo outlook
The New Attitude of Priests
Dealings with Rome
Their new, more hostile position on sedevacantism,
Their new position on Indultery Masses,
Their refusal to criticize the conciliar popes

Etc.

But there's no point in going on with you, Johnnier, because
you can't address even one of these, so why give you more?  







P.S.  First of the Three Greatest Heresies:  "There is no truth."

J. Paul,

Who is harrasing who? - If pointing out the basic facts is harasment - then what case do you have at all?

Anyone who points out a basic fact is attacked as a 'Menzingen apologist'.

It appears to me what is docuмent is the selective reading of things. One can also 'docuмent' the various statements and actions of the Archbishop and interpret them in a liberal light as well, as various Sedevacantist groups have done. As Neil himself wanted to claim that somehow, even the Archbishop was 'fooled', reason being is because he doesn't agree with current resistance ideas. - I find this pure madness.

Even within the resistance itself various priests view things differently, are they for that reason also 'Menzingen apologist'? This is becoming foolish.  

If one puts forth Menzingens current interpretations of the Archbishop and his orientation as "basic fact", then that person is rightly suspected as being an apologist for the reformulations of the administration.

We who have followed the Society for years were told and knew that the Archbishop did not intend the meanings which the business office now proposes were always what they now say that they were.

To deny that modernism and progressive thought has now taken hold in the Society is an exercise in self deception.

If you can't answer the points, just admit it. A little honesty would be good for a change :)