So, you're saying you object to the Epistles written by St. Paul and believe he has no business teaching morality since in his past life he was a great sinner and persecutor of Christians who participated in the killing of St. Stephen?

Michael Voris, is that you?? 

Michael Voris, is that you??

It's not entirely weird to suggest that he might have an account on here. And that it could actually be Sam Smith. 

St. Paul, a rabbinic, perfidious jew, was chosen by God to change from an instrument of chastisement, to a:

“Vessel of election, to carry Christ’s name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.”


On the other hand:

Michael Voris, a former ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ broken vessel, was chosen by the Opus Judei, to bring false teachings and confusion to the traditional Catholic remnant.

Apparently God disagrees since it is Voris who took on the story that no one else would touch. Our Catholic "journalists" did a great job reporting on the SSPX abuse. Oh, wait a minute...

So, you're saying you object to the Epistles written by St. Paul and believe he has no business teaching morality since in his past life he was a great sinner and persecutor of Christians who participated in the killing of St. Stephen?

A common tactic in histrionic, pilpul-like argumentation I've noticed is to take an extreme and extraordinary exception to a rule, and use that to judge a scenario far from exceptional, far from extraordinary, in order to make the rational opponent question the rational application of ordinary rules to ordinary scenarios. 

We can agree, I hope, that St. Paul is a singularly extraordinary example (the only true Apostle not among the Twelve called by Our Lord in his earthly ministry, but after His Resurrection). So why do we need to jump to him in the case of Voris - a man whom - I hope we can agree - is neither singular nor extraordinary? Ordinary, common-sense rules about recently active sodomites taking positions of leadership in the life of the Church ought to apply to him, no matter how much of an extraordinary Special Boy he may fancy himself to be.

What about the Church's policy against ordaining sodomitically-inclined men? Do you object? If not, then the same rationale should apply here. If you do - kindly explain yourself.

Sam,


In case you hadn’t noticed, this forum is dedicated to exposing the errors of the neo-SSPX.


But your ardent support of the pseudo “Church Militant” sex scandal campaign, only tells you must be a troll in Voris’s camp.

Well said. 

Voris is Grima Wormtongue in a Justin Bieber bouffant. It's never advisable to accept the help of devils in casting out devils.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am definitely NOT Michael Voris.

You're making any criticism of Voris personal, so I do suspect that you are somehow associated with him or with CM.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am definitely NOT Michael Voris.

The reception here to the story is very disappointing and a sad statement on Catholics.

It's very similar to how The Remnant Newspaper reacted to the Boston Globe's report on abuse in the Church in 2002. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth and cries of "this is just a plot against the Church."

Yet, here we are nearly 20 years later and after all the individual state grand jury reports showing the stunning VOLUME of crimes by priests is not in dispute.

It seems like too many here are in some state of hysterical spiritual blindness. So what if it happened in your backyard, or at your favorite priestly society? Why does that make you unable to accept the facts? Don't you want the corruption out? Doesn't the truth matter? Because it seems like more people here care about shooting the messenger than giving careful consideration to the facts.

You turned up at the same time as the Voris story and have talked of little else.  And you approach the subject in a very emotional way.  It is not surprising that many of us speculate that you have some sort of personal connection.  

But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps, because you are so new here, you simply do not understand what people here mean when they talk about Resistance.  This is a position that the SSPX has gone astray from the original vision of Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore the current organization needs to be resisted.  While this is not the only view on this forum, it is the position of the owner and a large proportion of its members.  

Criticism of the SSPX is one of the major functions of this forum.  Advertising for a book on the subject appears on a banner on the home page. People who blindly excuse any actions of the SSPX do not fit in well here and generally do not last long.  It is highly unlikely that anyone writing on the subject here is motivated by uncritical loyalty to the SSPX.

As far as I can tell, everyone posting is in favour of careful consideration of the facts.  One of the facts is that Michael Voris, for a variety of reasons, has limited credibility so we cannot just automatically accept his assertions as true.  

I think it is fair to assume that everyone here wishes to uncover the truth and is strongly opposed to abuse and sɛҳuąƖ perversion.  If you cannot understand this and assume this, then you are simply wasting your time by writing about this subject.
 

You turned up to tell me what threads I should follow or comment on? Are you a moderator?

I've noticed several new members on these threads. Would you like to go and ask them why want to talk about this story?

There is no criticism of the SSPX's handling of the abuse and coverup happening here so far, only criticism of Voris himself for bringing the story into the public realm.

I have not witnessed anyone yet here who is "in favour [sic] of careful consideration of the facts."
Maybe you would like to be the first?

And this marks the end of my "giving Sam the benefit of the doubt" phase.