Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Catechist99 on January 08, 2013, 10:04:28 PM
-
Can hardly wait to see Fr. Rostand celebrating his first Christmas Mass with anatomically correct baby GIRL doll:
This should better illustrate to the Faithful the miracle of the Incarnation.
(photo credit Archdiocesan Shrine of San Nicolas de Tolentino in Cebu)
-
I don't understand it. I can understand disagreeing with Fr. Rostand, but I cannot understand stupid puerile cheap shots like this.
-
Not to mention the scandal of posting this disgusting photograph. I get it, the Novus Ordo is bad, I haven't attended one in several years, but there is a certain manner of doing things, and a certain Catholic sense of decency that should prevent someone from posting this photograph.
-
Those of you with little kids or grandkids will recognize this scene from Disney's Lion King... Its the Circle of Life...
-
Not to mention the scandal of posting this disgusting photograph. I get it, the Novus Ordo is bad, I haven't attended one in several years, but there is a certain manner of doing things, and a certain Catholic sense of decency that should prevent someone from posting this photograph.
No the NO isn't bad--it's Satanic. You may already realize that but there are those "trads" who don't. This is real. This really happened in a "Mass".
If Matthew wants to delete, he will.
But rather than be scandalized that I brought attention to this abomination people need to be scandalized that traditionalists are pursuing recognition by these wicked men.
It's not just guitars and altar girls.....it's pure Satanic worship.
-
Those of you with little kids or grandkids will recognize this scene from Disney's Lion King... Its the Circle of Life...
NOW you get it......................it's not just the naked baby.
THIS IS FROM HELL.
-
I think we all need to wake up a smell the coffee - the Novus Ordo has become the gates of hell unleashed and we have become anesthetized to it - the more horrible and the more barbarous the act the greater our existential awakening and yes we need to smash it over our thick skulls until we ALL realize this isn't about a decent set of cricket rules but war for souls !
-
I wanted to delete the post, and I can't. Matthew, what is up with that? That's so gross.
-
I wanted to delete the post, and I can't. Matthew, what is up with that? That's so gross.
Sherman to Atlanta: "War is hell" - analogy Americans fighting Americans in US cινιℓ ωαr now Trads fighting Trads because some are asleep at their post.
-
Yeah, that picture should have never been posted. Disgusting.
We folks in the resistance really need to avoid posts like this, because it only makes us look bad.
-
I removed the picture.
-
Yeah, that picture should have never been posted. Disgusting.
We folks in the resistance really need to avoid posts like this, because it only makes us look bad.
It is essential that one does not allow emotions and passions to overpower and control oneself in a way that would lead to regrettable pictures like this being posted. Of course, this can be difficult in light of the great injustices happening in the Church today.
-
Now I know what Father Pfeiffer meant when he said there are many "armchair philosophers on the Internet"....ones who pontificate to others how they should and shouldn't act but never involve themselves directly for fear of getting dirty.
Well why you don't you get in the fight so overemotional and impulsive women like myself don't have to do it? You would do a better job than me, no doubt. The Resistance priests would benefit more from your presence than mine anyway.
What's worse...that I posted that picture or that an ARCHBISHOP of the Church that the SSPX is desperately trying to merge with performed that vile and wicked act?
No, don't bother to answer.
-
It is essential that one does not allow emotions and passions to overpower and control oneself in a way that would lead to regrettable pictures like this being posted. Of course, this can be difficult in light of the great injustices happening in the Church today.
You're probably one of the people who complained about Fr. Pfeiffer's dark and evil looking posters, right?
The pic is gone. Matthew graciously removed it. You can go back to your usual programming now.
-
You know, some of us have children in our houses, that are around the computer regularly. So, you posted NO WARNING in the title of that thread. It's as if you didn't care that the children would have seen something so graphic. Are you single, Catechist? It sure seems like it. You really show callous disregard for those of us who have children by not using any discretion whatsoever.
Matthew, is there a way you can put in a "spoiler tag" for things like that? Like a hide/show button?
-
You know, some of us have children in our houses, that are around the computer regularly. So, you posted NO WARNING in the title of that thread. It's as if you didn't care that the children would have seen something so graphic. Are you single, Catechist? It sure seems like it. You really show callous disregard for those of us who have children by not using any discretion whatsoever.
Matthew, is there a way you can put in a "spoiler tag" for things like that? Like a hide/show button?
Our Lady showed three little children a vision of Hell. This vision was not the PC version but truly Hell itself. What do you think they saw? Wickedness and abominations unimaginable to our minds. Were the children scandalized?
Shame on you for attacking me for posting the abomination rather than attacking the abomination itself. This was not a pornographic photo but a PUBLIC MIDNIGHT MASS AT A CATHEDRAL.
I do have children and I do not let them use the Internet. Bishop Williamson just recently reiterated for the millionth time for parents to not let their children on the Internet.
It is YOU who is callous to your own children by not protecting their virtue.
You call yourself parentsfortruth but you hate the truth. Pablo has exposed you and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Instead of attacking me why don't you write a letter to the Archbishop of Cebu and condemn him for his public Satanic act of blasphemy.
-
Additionally - how do the parents in Syria keep the truth of the cινιℓ ωαr from their children by giving them candy floss ?
That's war for the body - how about the war for the soul ?
-
You know, some of us have children in our houses, that are around the computer regularly. So, you posted NO WARNING in the title of that thread. It's as if you didn't care that the children would have seen something so graphic. Are you single, Catechist? It sure seems like it. You really show callous disregard for those of us who have children by not using any discretion whatsoever.
Matthew, is there a way you can put in a "spoiler tag" for things like that? Like a hide/show button?
Our Lady showed three little children a vision of Hell. This vision was not the PC version but truly Hell itself. What do you think they saw? Wickedness and abominations unimaginable to our minds. Were the children scandalized?
Shame on you for attacking me for posting the abomination rather than attacking the abomination itself. This was not a pornographic photo but a PUBLIC MIDNIGHT MASS AT A CATHEDRAL.
I do have children and I do not let them use the Internet. Bishop Williamson just recently reiterated for the millionth time for parents to not let their children on the Internet.
It is YOU who is callous to your own children by not protecting their virtue.
You call yourself parentsfortruth but you hate the truth. Pablo has exposed you and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Instead of attacking me why don't you write a letter to the Archbishop of Cebu and condemn him for his public Satanic act of blasphemy.
I don't let them "use" the internet. They do their schoolwork on the internet because I can't afford a fancy cirriculum. And if they're in the same room with me when I'm on cathinfo, I have a REASONABLE EXPECTATION of NOT HAVING GRAPHIC IMAGES ON MY COMPUTER FROM IT!
You love to hurl insults at me because you think I'm allowing my children to look at these things, but since you put no warning there, it's on you. You refuse to take responsibility for posting such filth here.
I've written to the bishops until my fingers bleed. It does no good. They allow blasphemy to stand no matter what. They're NOT EVEN OUR RELIGION. They're apostates. What do you expect from people that sell their souls to the devil as they have?
Dialogue? Do we even OWE them a letter of outrage? Will it do any good? NO! Will "dialogue" do any good? NO, and that's the lesson the SSPX will have to learn if they haven't already, and if they don't learn it fast, they're taking the entire organization down with them.
Pablo exposed me as what? He exposed himself as a loon. He continues to do so, with his blathering attacks on people, making the rest of us look like total nutcases. He's already been chastised by Father Pfeiffer (in his own admission in another thread) and all I said was GOOD for Father Pfeiffer. We don't need his constant negativity, and his graphic threads. You two are birds of a feather.
Everyone can see through you and him. But the difference between he and you, is that Pablo actually has some merit to his arguments. You, on the other hand, are just acting wicked.
I wonder where you were when JPII got the mark of shiva on his head, a worse blasphemy against God than the one you posted. Did you write a letter of outrage? What about Assissi I, II and III? Where were you for that? Did you write another one? Tell me where it got you. Dialoging with the newchurch get you anywhere? No. And it won't. You can't "dialogue" with satanists.
So I HATE THE TRUTH because I ask that there be a "spoiler tag" on such things out of respect for the Church of the home? Wow. That's such an unreasonable expectation so that blasphemous and DISGUSTING things don't enter my home. Very sad.
-
Catechist, with all due respect, the behavior you're displaying in this thread is unCatholic. Yes, the actions of those in the conciliar church tend to be quite disgusting, but two wrongs don't make a right. You shouldn't post graphic pictures like that and expect anyone to approve of it, nor should you say that someone who doesn't want to look as such filth doesn't care about the truth.
Our Lady showed three little children a vision of Hell. This vision was not the PC version but truly Hell itself. What do you think they saw? Wickedness and abominations unimaginable to our minds. Were the children scandalized?
Ok, and do you think Our Lady would show people graphic pictures like that? It's illogical to show someone a picture of a naked baby or a devil and use the excuse "Well, Our Lady showed the three little children a vision of Hell".
Shame on you for attacking me for posting the abomination rather than attacking the abomination itself.
There are some abominations out there that people would rather not look at. Do you think it's a good idea to fill your mind with images like that? I doubt Fr. Pfeiffer or any other good Traditional priest would think so.
You call yourself parentsfortruth but you hate the truth. Pablo has exposed you and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Pablo has not "exposed" anyone. He is a mere layman who often attacks Bishop Williamson because he doesn't think he goes far enough, he doesn't speak for the rest of the resistance.
I'm sorry Catechist, but I think you went way too far in posting that picture and then going on the attack after it was removed.
-
I'm not "attacking" anyone. Just pointing out inconsistencies and duplicity. My behavior is not unCatholic at all. It's unProtestant. I will not be silent about evil in our world. Even from our bishops, the ones with whom the SSPX seeks reconcilation.
For those who were truly harmed my apologies to you. I honestly did not think the image of a baby would be offensive, rather I found the blasphemy more offensive. I thought this the proper Catholic reaction. Apparently I was wrong.
I certainly won't post anymore pictures on this site rather a link with a big huge warning for those who wish to keep their sanctity.
I ask the same of others who post things on this forum that I find offensive.
Please take a moment to reflect on your own behavior towards others on this forum. Does Christ really approve of your lack of charity, namecalling, and condemnations? Can you honestly say that you've NEVER offended or harmed another on this or other forums?
True kindness and charity would go a lot farther with conversions than personal attacks. You can lead by example rather than judging as the hypocrites do.
I've admitted my sins.....can you admit yours?
-
Here's a more respectful way to do it.
Let's say I had wanted to show something horrible that the novus ordo was doing, like, barechested women reading the "epistle" at a papal "mass." Here's what I would do.
"WARNING: EXPLICIT"
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A028rcReceivingCommunion1.htm
There! See, I didn't even have to POST the picture here, and people could look at it THEMSELVES by CLICKING THE LINK!
I wonder if you even KNEW about the above picture, should you decide to look at it. Did I have to post it so everyone when clicking the thread could see it? NO! That's what's so outrageous about what you posted! You didn't have to post the filth here. You could have provided a link, or, if Matthew was so inclined, he could post a "spoiler tag" option, so that the image itself was hidden, and could be shown by clicking on the word "show." (Which some forum operators have provided their forum with the option of doing.)
MY option, provides a choice to the user whether they want to see the actual picture. Yours INVADES everyone by people unwittingly clicking on the thread and being FORCED to see such disgusting filth.
Here's another thing you could have opted to do. You could have posted in the actual title "WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGE" in the description, which would have given people a choice to click on the cathinfo thread, or not. Since you didn't do that, you're getting the blowback. Totally disrespectful.
If there'd been a warning there, I wouldn't have clicked on your thread at all.
-
I wanted to delete the post, and I can't. Matthew, what is up with that? That's so gross.
Where is the photo? Deleted?
-
Here's a more respectful way to do it.
Let's say I had wanted to show something horrible that the novus ordo was doing, like, barechested women reading the "epistle" at a papal "mass." Here's what I would do.
"WARNING: EXPLICIT"
If there'd been a warning there, I wouldn't have clicked on your thread at all....
I've already admitted my most grievous sin, repented, apologized, and stated that I will only post links with BIG WARNINGS IN RED BOLD LETTERS in the future. For you to belabor the point is unnecessary. Any future posts from you on this becomes NAGGING or worse. :soapbox:
Goodbye and goodnight.
If anyone wants the photo...send me a PM.
FYI--a naked infant is not pornographic. A naked woman is. Just sayin...........
-
I wanted to delete the post, and I can't. Matthew, what is up with that? That's so gross.
Where is the photo? Deleted?
Thank God Matthew removed it. There used to be an option of "deleting" a post, but I think it's not working now. Right next to your quote button there, there's a delete feature that, if you click it, you'll "never see this post again." I guess it's not working because I tried doing that, and it didn't work.
-
Here's a more respectful way to do it.
Let's say I had wanted to show something horrible that the novus ordo was doing, like, barechested women reading the "epistle" at a papal "mass." Here's what I would do.
"WARNING: EXPLICIT"
If there'd been a warning there, I wouldn't have clicked on your thread at all....
I've already admitted my most grievous sin, repented, apologized, and stated that I will only post links with BIG WARNINGS IN RED BOLD LETTERS in the future. For you to belabor the point is unnecessary. Any future posts from you on this becomes NAGGING or worse. :soapbox:
Goodbye and goodnight.
If anyone wants the photo...send me a PM.
FYI--a naked infant is not pornographic. A naked woman is. Just sayin...........
Thanks. It's appreciated. Also, I wasn't calling you names at all. Just sayin'.... Also, yes, a naked baby could be considered pornographic. It's called child pornography.
-
Thanks. It's appreciated.
No problem. Glad to do my part in protecting your children while they surf the web.
-
Thanks. It's appreciated.
No problem. Glad to do my part in protecting your children while they surf the web.
You have bad reading comprehension. I said my children are in the room when I'm reading Cathinfo. When I clicked on that link, they were in the room. Maybe they weren't staring at my screen, but all they had to do was glance over when I clicked the thread. :fryingpan:
You really don't get it, do you?
-
You know, some of us have children in our houses, that are around the computer regularly. So, you posted NO WARNING in the title of that thread. It's as if you didn't care that the children would have seen something so graphic. Are you single, Catechist? It sure seems like it. You really show callous disregard for those of us who have children by not using any discretion whatsoever.
Matthew, is there a way you can put in a "spoiler tag" for things like that? Like a hide/show button?
I was shocked by the photo like most of you. But after the initial response what really upset me was the context-the idea that the priest and people attending the Mass seemed to think that this "presentation to the Great Spirit" type of thing was appropriate for a Christmas Mass, or any Mass, actually. The photo also reminded me of illustrations of ancient human sacrifices. The fact that the baby was naked was secondary. Would it have been okay if he was wearing a diaper? I don't think so.
As an after thought, I think it may say something about the world we are stewing in when people shriek at the sight of a naked baby. Have we all been so scandalized by perverts that the sight of a naked newborn makes us think there is something inherently nasty rather than innocent and sweet about a naked baby? What of all those Renaissance paintings of the Madonna and Child where the Christ Child is nude and exposed? Are those now kiddie porn? And what about all those naughty little cherubs adoring Our Lady in Catholic art? And the ones peeing in fountains all over the world, for that matter? Just thinkin'.
-
Thanks. It's appreciated.
No problem. Glad to do my part in protecting your children while they surf the web.
You have bad reading comprehension. I said my children are in the room when I'm reading Cathinfo. When I clicked on that link, they were in the room. Maybe they weren't staring at my screen, but all they had to do was glance over when I clicked the thread. :fryingpan:
You really don't get it, do you?
Not wishing to judge you but shouldn't you attend to to your children (as Bishop Williamson would have a Mother do) than post incessantly on this forum ?
I do agree that the photograph could easily pass for child pornography and for that sake alone it isn't wise to download it or post it in the forum.
-
Catechist99,
I didn't see the photo, but have always found your posts to be worth reading. In addition, unlike most of us here at CathInfo, you have had your identity made public, and have dealt with that very well. Many of us--myself included--have posted things that we have regretted. There was a particular post of mine that I found to be very powerful, but others thought otherwise. I had Matthew delete it. He may well have deleted it even had I not asked him to. Sometimes it's like that. Forge ahead.
-
Child pornography? that's a bit of a leap, I think.
-
CAUTION PORNOGRAPHY
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/15th-century_unknown_painters_-_Madonna_and_Child_with_a_Goldfinch_-_WGA23927.jpg)
(http://ipaintingsforsale.com/Uploadpic/Correggio/big/Virgin%20and%20Child%20with%20an%20Angel%20(Madonna%20del%20Latte).jpg)
(http://www.augustastylianougallery.com/Gallery/PerinoDelVaga/PerinoMadonnaAndChild.jpg)
If you think this is actually pornography, you have got real problems. A picture of a football cleat could be porn to someone with a shoe-fetish.
-
No. And I wasn't even saying it was. The Catechist said that no pictures of naked infants are pornographic, and I say that there are surely some, and labeled the ones that are, child pornography. I didn't even say that the one she linked was one. I did say, though, that the totally obscene photograph that she linked was invasive, and not labeled in a way that people would be warned not to look at it. THAT was the real issue.
I'm not going to belabor the point though.
-
Not wishing to judge you but shouldn't you attend to to your children (as Bishop Williamson would have a Mother do) than post incessantly on this forum ?
I do agree that the photograph could easily pass for child pornography and for that sake alone it isn't wise to download it or post it in the forum.
Oh, Curious. I never saw the photo, but trying to subtly imply that PFT is somehow not caring for his children is just plain icky, and then guilt-tripping with Bp. Williamson as her sole authority when it's her husband who's the boss...it's all not so bad. :cheers: People multi task all the time.
-
......
But rather than be scandalized that I brought attention to this abomination people need to be scandalized that traditionalists are pursuing recognition by these wicked men. It's not just guitars and altar girls.....it's pure Satanic worship.
You are correct. And the Accordistas want Canonical Recognition from this crowd!
A certain Laura Yantos published An Open E-mail To Bishop Fellay sometime back. Some would find it to be rather strong meat. But this lady obviously thought it the right thing to do, even some would be scandalized. Perhaps she would send interested parties a copy. (yantsos@optonline.net)
-
Images of Our Lord and His Blessed Mother from Early Christian art through the Middle Ages shows them clothed with no exposure of private parts (see examples below).
By the Renaissance, a moral shift had occurred, with a return ("rebirth") of ancient classical Greek/Roman culture which glorified/deified Man and his naked body. Sadly, this seeped into sacred art.
Michelangelo, who was by all accounts a disordered man with sodomite tendencies, brought this immodest (and downright blasphemous in the case of Our Lord and Our Lady) nudity to it's height with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They officials in Rome were rightly outraged and ordered the "parts" to be covered up.
This persisted through the Renaissance period, through the Baroque. I need not post examples here. Many images of Our Lady and other female saints were painted from models who were in fact the artists' concubines.
I believe that this art, showing Our Lord naked, or Our Lady with Her breasts exposed/cleavage, is a moral outrage.
PLEASE, my friends, do not think that because the art is "old", that it is right.
(http://www.longwood.edu/staff/cormierrj/STA_PRASSEDE-Mosaic-Madonna-Child.jpg)
(http://www.auranet.org/stpau/ftp/advent3.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Cimabue_033.jpg/277px-Cimabue_033.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Giotto_Ognissanti_Madonna.jpg/312px-Giotto_Ognissanti_Madonna.jpg)