Author Topic: Position Statement: (Read 6845 times)

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #45 on:** March 30, 2013, 12:47:46 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Matthew
Wow. Just wow.

Machabees -- you need to learn how to read carefully, or the enemies of God will use you even despite yourself to further their aims.

We all need to be able to read, reason, and express ourselves carefully and with precision.

Seraphim clearly said "perfectly orthodox chapels" but your mind read "perfectly orthodox SSPX"

There is a world of difference in between those two things -- the difference between truth and error.

???

Can you both not understand?

Hello...the SSPX owns the Chapels!

They are controlled by the SSPX leaders!

What happens in Menzingen happens in the District Houses. What happens in the District Houses, happens in the Priories. What happens in the Priories, happens in the Chapels. What happens in the Chapels, happens to the faithful. Very simple...

No "orthodoxy" in the top, no "orthodoxy" in the bottom!

The "dancing" of word games here, are on Seraphim...

Follow the "bouncing ball" on how each post had followed -in everything Seraphim had wrote.

You may be surprised in his (new) demeanor...

Such is an inordinate attachment for "colored lights".

No, they won't understand.

Seraphim is obsessed with green light and will do anything to debunk the red light. Matthew thinks the SSPX is "almost intact" and even throws a number: maybe "less than 5% or 10%.

It's interested to notice though that both have claimed their local SSPX Chapels are just fine, while at the same time -in between the two, they have admitted getting in contact with RESISTANCE priests, attended their Masses and even organized a group with a possibility of building a Chapel.

"Rebels" without a cause I suppose?!? :scratchchin:

Machabees · « **Reply #46 on:** March 30, 2013, 01:00:29 AM »

Seraphim,

You surprise me with your overall lack of charity, your lack of decency, your lack of comprehension skills, and your lack of conversation and debate.

When you do not like something, as many of your posts show over the year, you go on a "belittling and smear campaign".

Have you anything good to say?

Can you not articulate your thoughts or ideas without getting aggressive and digressive?

Seraphim, with your irrational behavior, I no longer wish to respond to any of your (digressive) posts.

I would offer you, to reconsider your ill-attitude. Remember what today is -Good Friday- and what our Lord had done for all of us. Your behavior is not at all becoming.

I again will pray for you.

God bless.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #47 on:** March 30, 2013, 07:22:24 AM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Quote from: Machabees
Quote from: Matthew
Wow. Just wow.

Machabees -- you need to learn how to read carefully, or the enemies of God will use you even despite yourself to further their aims.

We all need to be able to read, reason, and express ourselves carefully and with precision.

Seraphim clearly said "perfectly orthodox chapels" but your mind read "perfectly orthodox SSPX"

There is a world of difference in between those two things -- the difference between truth and error.

???

Can you both not understand?

Hello...the SSPX owns the Chapels!

They are controlled by the SSPX leaders!

What happens in Menzingen happens in the District Houses. What happens in the District Houses, happens in the Priories. What happens in the Priories, happens in the Chapels. What happens in the Chapels, happens to the faithful. Very simple...

No "orthodoxy" in the top, no "orthodoxy" in the bottom!

The "dancing" of word games here, are on Seraphim...

Follow the "bouncing ball" on how each post had followed -in everything Seraphim had wrote.

You may be surprised in his (new) demeanor...

Such is an inordinate attachment for "colored lights".

No, they won't understand.

Seraphim is obsessed with green light and will do anything to debunk the red light. Matthew thinks the SSPX is "almost intact" and even throws a number: maybe "less than 5% or 10%.

It's interested to notice though that both have claimed their local SSPX Chapels are just fine, while at the same time -in between the two, they have admitted getting in contact with RESISTANCE priests, attended their Masses and even organized a group with a possibility of building a Chapel.

"Rebels" without a cause I suppose?!? :scratchchin:

You can "de-bunk" me right now:

Quote me where Bishop Williamson says there is a red light.

You can't.

Every post you write says there is a red light.

Yet you can't demonstrate it.

You are a solipsist who lives in her own world.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #48 on:** March 30, 2013, 07:26:51 AM »

Quote from: Machabees

Seraphim,

You surprise me with your overall lack of charity, your lack of decency, your lack of comprehension skills, and your lack of conversation and debate.

When you do not like something, as many of your posts show over the year, you go on a "belittling and smear campaign".

Have you anything good to say?

Can you not articulate your thoughts or ideas without getting aggressive and digressive?

Seraphim, with your irrational behavior, I no longer wish to respond to any of your (digressive) posts.

I would offer you, to reconsider your ill-attitude. Remember what today is -Good Friday- and what our Lord had done for all of us. Your behavior is not at all becoming.

I again will pray for you.

God bless.

I have no patience for your type of willful stupidity, and resent having to condescend to someone of your muted intelligence.

You and your sister Miletia are the first people I have had to put on ignore on this forum in over a year.

COngrats.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #49 on:** March 30, 2013, 07:38:21 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Since a certain few members of this forum have seen fit to characterize my objective observations about the non-existence of any formal doctrinal statement against the Faith having become official policy of the SSPX (thereby contradicting the "red light" others have tried to defend on this basis), and attempted to construe this objective observation into "attacking Fr Pfeiffer," a few thoughts seem to be in order:

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

2) As Michael Davies used to say, "Facts are neither obedient nor disobedient. They are simply facts." Likewise in the present debate: The fact is that there is no justification to claim a "red light" on the basis of this rejected docuмent;

3) How, then, some can construe making this observation as an attack against Fr. Pfeiffer is revealing about the deficient intellectual horsepower of those people;

4) Alternately, one is tempted to wonder about the motives of those denouncing this objectively veritable observation:

5) Do they even attend an SSPX parish?

6) If not, have they always been hostile to the SSPX, such that they WANT a red light?

7) If they WANT a red light, which means they WANT catastrophe, what does this reveal about the souls of these people who would DESIRE such a situation as would throw up the red light?

8) Has it occurred to these red-lighters that they have formed the same conclusion as the accordistas (i.e., You must leave the chapel)?

9) Interesting that both accordistas and red-lighters want internal resisters gone.

10) So far as I am aware, Fr Pfeiffer is alone in red-lighting the entire SSPX.

11) This position is not shared by Bishop Williamson, or any other resistance priest I am aware of, despite the fact that I was assured by my antagonists that Bishop Williamson was going to announce his red light 2 Eleison Comments ago.

12) Are the French 37 enemies or attackers of Fr Pfeiffer?

13) At the end of the day, I think some people just have an axe to grind, and they end up grinding it on public forums.

From the OP:

In case anyone forgot what this thread was about, and why Machabees and Miletia are so enraged.

cathman7 · « **Reply #50 on:** March 30, 2013, 08:41:31 AM »

Seraphim,

With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #51 on:** March 30, 2013, 09:20:29 AM »

Quote from: obscurus

Seraphim,

With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.

Good point.

The blind cant be helped to see, especially when the blindness is willful.

Goodbye.

cathman7 · « **Reply #52 on:** March 30, 2013, 11:51:42 AM »

Quote from: obscurus

Seraphim,

With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.

*It should be "you were no longer..." and "due to advice."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #53 on:** March 30, 2013, 11:59:25 AM »

Quote from: obscurus @ 9:51

Quote from: obscurus @ 6:41
Seraphim,

With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer* going to post on the forum due to advise* from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.

*It should be "you were no longer..." and "due to advice."

Now, here's a great example of how the post-post-edit timer could be set to
3 hours and 11 minutes with beneficial results! HAHAHAHAHA

Matthew · « **Reply #54 on:** March 30, 2013, 12:22:16 PM »

Quote from: obscurus

Quote from: obscurus
Seraphim,

With all due respect, didn't you state a few months ago that you were longer going to post on the forum due to advise from your spiritual director? I have noticed that, while you may make some good arguments, you fly off the handle far too frequently.

*It should be "you were no longer..." and "due to advice."

Maybe you've been reading too many Eleison Comments -- British English has a few extra words ending in "se" where Americans use "ce" or "ze".

Telesphorus · « **Reply #55 on:** March 30, 2013, 12:55:01 PM »

I would like to point out Militia Jesu didn't suggest that someone said the SSPX is perfectly orthodox.

He said "Saying SSPX is perfectly orthodox"

- he means implicitly - the individual's SSPX mass center.

Now if your priest isn't allowed to criticize the doctrinal preamble, I wouldn't call that doctrinally orthodox.