Author Topic: Beware slander against good priests and bishops (Read 5275 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2015, 01:37:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
Including a sketch is far from proof.

Nobody said this constituted "proof", but it is serious enough to warrant further investigation. As you said on a different thread regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ infiltrators, any suspicion, whether proven or not, would warrant caution and further investigation. In fact, I was attacked for not wanting to name names of those whom I suspected of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs due to lack of any concrete evidence.

Oh I gave it plenty of thought, and concluded that it is ridiculous.

What is the charge exactly? Of all the possible charges, none of them make any sense.

Fr. Juan is saying that Bp. Faure is a Jew, or some kind of crypto-jew/Marrano who happens to do nothing bad to the Church? Even though he doesn't have any Jєωιѕн features and is of French ancestry? And why would he let these 3 seminarians in the rectory to see "the evidence" if it was such a threat to his "cover" as an infiltrator of the SSPX?

Why didn't these men start a blog years ago exposing this?

And the other charge, that he wanted to be a bishop, isn't exactly grave in the first place. But I believe it's a complete lie. It's conjecture and vacant speculation taken to the Nth degree. A couple of hearsay quotes, along with "just look at his face on June 30, 1988. You can tell he wanted to be among them". That is ludicrous. Where is the proof?

And why would he leave the SSPX (which is far from "cooked", despite the opinions of a few) to join a microscopic Resistance? Couldn't an "operative" do more good for "the cause" in the bosom of the SSPX?

And according to these sedevacantists, +Williamson is already an infiltrator/controlled opposition. Why would the microscopic Resistance need TWO infiltrators? It doesn't make sense. It only makes sense if you consider that certain petty sedevacantists don't like the competition of an organized, burgeoning resistance led by these 2 bishops and experienced priests working with them, like Fr. Zendejas.

Think about it. Use your brain. Why did they say NOTHING about what evil he's actually DOING present-tense today? Because to them, the evil is merely BEING INVOLVED IN and PROMOTING what we call "the Resistance". Sedevacantists consider that to be an evil, a controlled opposition, by its very nature. Since I totally deny that premise, I don't see ANY evil in what Bp. Faure is doing on a daily basis today. In my opinion, he's on the best possible side right now.

Why would +Faure wait until age 75 or later to BEGIN his life's work of destruction of the Church? He didn't even know he would live to the age he's at right now.

I haven't heard any scandals connected with +Faure. Even after reading the 27 page PDF. Hasn't he done or said ANYTHING against Catholic teaching, or done anything scandalous? If he were an unconverted Jew, he would be pushing liberalism, other errors, and in general trying to undermine the Church and push morality ever downward. Even if he were careful and subtle, there would be some kind of evidence IN HIS DEEDS. I see no evidence at all of this. The hit piece was pretty weak.

The whole thing makes ZERO sense. It's a transparent attempt to smear a good man, nip the resistance in the bud, and "Cui bono?" points to the sedevacantists and/or other enemies of the Church, such as the Masons.

What Centroamerica said rings true.

As for the libelous PDF, I don't buy it.

Peter15and1 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2015, 01:50:08 PM »

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/1OwpGUI-TAI[/youtube]

Matthew · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:00:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Not every accusation amounts to slander, Matthew. This priest named names of other priests who can witness to the situations he has described. He went to see +ABL about it and contacted Father Laisney, while still a member of the SSPX. He posts Father Laisney's response.

1. This has NOTHING to do with Urrutigoity. No connection or bearing whatsoever.

2. Where ARE all these priests, and even his (2) confreres who he mentions, hmm? Do NONE OF THEM know the basic Catholic doctrine about the common good -- NONE of them love the Church enough to come forward? None of them are coming forward, except this Fr. Juan? That makes me more than a little suspicious.

3. For all his fancy footnotes, cut-paste sentiments from Butler's Lives of the Saints, and solemn oath, it's still the "he said she said" testimony from ONE man -- virtually all of which can't be proven, and much can be DISproven using various arguments and evidence. Men can lie. Men can even commit perjury. It happens every day, horrible as it is. Men commit some pretty horrible sins in this world. It's hard for innocent Catholics to believe sometimes. It's the mystery of iniquity.

He took such trouble to write a TWENTY SEVEN PAGE PDF smattered with footnotes, but didn't manage to get the signatures of ANYONE ELSE to corroborate his testimony? The silence of his "confreres" is deafening, and speaks volumes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:03:20 PM »

OK, then, let's start with this point.

Father Faure kept claiming that +ABL had chosen him to be one of the original four bishops but that he, Father Faure, turned down the offer.

Has anyone found any evidence to back up this claim?

I know this question has already been asked on other threads.

Matthew · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:03:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
And according to these sedevacantists, +Williamson is already an infiltrator/controlled opposition. Why would the microscopic Resistance need TWO infiltrators? It doesn't make sense.

Show me where they claim that +Williamson is an infiltrator. Years ago Father Morello warned +Williamson about Urrutigoity, and now this priest writes to +Williamson about then-Father Faure. There's no indication that they consider +Williamson to be an infiltrator.

Oh, they don't like any of them, right up to and including +Lefebvre. They consider the classic SSPX to be controlled opposition. You better believe they don't like +Williamson either. They consider the whole R&R movement a thorn in their side, preventing the Church from being restored.

Matthew · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:05:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

OK, then, let's start with this point.

Father Faure kept claiming that +ABL had chosen him to be one of the original four bishops but that he, Father Faure, turned down the offer.

Has anyone found any evidence to back up this claim?

I know this question has already been asked on other threads.

Who cares?

It sounds pious and edifying, those who like +Faure tend to repeat it. Even if it's apocryphal, then we were just mistaken about a small matter.

Explain why it would be grave/dreadful if that story turned out to be apocryphal or an urban legend.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus
OK, then, let's start with this point.

Father Faure kept claiming that +ABL had chosen him to be one of the original four bishops but that he, Father Faure, turned down the offer.

Has anyone found any evidence to back up this claim?

I know this question has already been asked on other threads.

Who cares?

It sounds pious and edifying, those who like +Faure tend to repeat it. Even if it's apocryphal, then we were just mistaken about a small matter.

Explain why it would be grave/dreadful if that story turned out to be apocryphal or an urban legend.

Only if the story can be traced back to +Faure himself. In that case, it's not just "apocryphal" but a LIE.

JPaul · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:09:18 PM »

Quote from: ManuelChavez

Libel is written. Slander is spoken. In any case, they are both serious offenses against God and man.

Both of these are spread through the sins of the tongue (or in the case of libel, the fingers, which is essentially the same). False witness is nearly impossible to take back, since ideas implant themselves into the minds and hearts of those exposed to such evils. Even when one rejects the libel and slander, it had still found its way into the mind.

I pray for those who espouse or encourage libel and slander against anyone. These are sins that can lead souls to hell.

Your comments address nothing related to the subject. They simply chastise those who you have apparently decided are guilty of the crimes that you alledge.

Matthew · « **Reply #23 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:09:54 PM »

Well I personally know nothing of that story's pedigree, so you'll have to look elsewhere to get to the bottom of that one.

ManuelChavez · « **Reply #24 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:21:08 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: ManuelChavez
Libel is written. Slander is spoken. In any case, they are both serious offenses against God and man.

Both of these are spread through the sins of the tongue (or in the case of libel, the fingers, which is essentially the same). False witness is nearly impossible to take back, since ideas implant themselves into the minds and hearts of those exposed to such evils. Even when one rejects the libel and slander, it had still found its way into the mind.

I pray for those who espouse or encourage libel and slander against anyone. These are sins that can lead souls to hell.

Your comments address nothing related to the subject. They simply chastise those who you have apparently decided are guilty of the crimes that you alledge.

I have not decided or judged anyone as guilty, nor is this a chastisement. It is a reminder to avoid the sins of slander and libel. It is very much the heart of this particular thread.

Matthew · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:25:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm not going to say much more on this topic.

Let me simply remind you that +Williamson ignored the warnings from Father Morello about Urrutigoity for precisely the same reasons that you're ignoring this warning about +Faure. That didn't really work out so well. How many young men's bodies, souls, and minds were corrupted as a result of that? How much damage was done to the SSPX?

Do I have your word on that? hahaha

Seriously though, you don't need to "remind me" of something you've said about 7 times on this thread in the past 2 hours.

My memory goes back much further than 2 hours. It really does.

What dog do you have in this fight anyhow? Who's paying you to subtly plant certain impressions about Bp. Faure? Why are you shilling this so desperately? We heard you the first time. You've mentioned "Urrutigoity" a MINIMUM of 8 times in this thread, even though no one is talking about him.

The PDF doesn't allege ANYTHING about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, sixth-and-ninth, even something as remote as enabling/protecting others to commit these crimes.

You actually had ME confused! And I have the PDF. I went and looked it up, just to be sure they weren't make that accusation.

You really are muddying the waters here, Ladislaus. It borders on defamation. I just hope you're not doing it on purpose. You even confused me for a minute -- I had to go look at the PDF again just to be sure! That is why I removed some of your posts. I can't have you starting rumors, accidentally OR on purpose.

So don't talk about "bodies and souls" of "young men" in this thread about Bishop Faure. You seem to be suggesting (without actually suggesting it) that Bp. Faure poses a risk to the young men at his seminary. That would certainly be a danger and an evil.

But, as I said, Bp. Faure is a good bishop, and has done nothing scandalous that the world knows about, not for the past 30 years. Why the sudden libel against him? It has to be animus against the Resistance. It has to be politically motivated. No other motivation makes sense.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Centroamerica
Also, it is very difficult to find anything ever about the Tecos or the Yunque, but this is clearly connected to them.

We don't know anything about them, but this is CLEARLY their work.

:wink:

No, you don't know anything about them. Don't include Latin America in your particular ignorance.

Matthew · « **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:36:56 PM »

I just read over the PDF again -- I noticed another ridiculous assertion, that in La Reja, Argentina they were doing away with teaching on cօռspιʀαcιҽs, instead fighting vague entities such as "liberalism" and "the Revolution" thus allowing the enemies room to concretely destroy the Church in the meantime.

Don't make me laugh! You think Bishop Williamson would put up with that?
You do you realize +Faure is working with +Williamson, right? The one who the mainstream media calls an αnтι-ѕємιтє? The bishop BEST KNOWN for his preaching about cօռspιʀαcιҽs?

You think +Williamson would ever allow ANY seminary he works with, or would ordain any candidate to the priesthood who didn't know about the cօռspιʀαcιҽs (Freemasons, Jews, Illuminati) especially those touching on the infiltration of the Church? Give me a break! That's rich.

What, do you think +Faure is going to bully +Williamson or something? I'd like to see that. I have to laugh just thinking about it!

This is one of the "dangers" Fr. Juan is all in a tizzy about. Well, I can tell him right now to STOP WORRYING. The Resistance will be fine with these two fine bishops at the helm.

If you'll notice, this thread was about BEING ON THE LOOKOUT for slander against good priests and bishops.

This thread isn't about Bishop Faure, believe it or not! Go read the OP if you don't believe me.

I deleted the slander thread, and I'm not looking to piece it back together here, 1 piece at a time. I decided that thread was libel/slander, and I haven't changed my mind.

It's not credible. Period.

Since the OP was sufficient to be a "good Catholic warning" about such things, and we've added plenty already -- I need to lock this thread.

I can tell if I left it open it would be "one of those threads".

MaterDominici · « **Reply #28 on:** November 17, 2015, 03:43:41 PM »

I've only read the first 2 pages of this thread, but I looked up the interview Centro referenced and here is the English translation:

Quote

Coming back to the critics and lies about yourself, some of them are extremely ridiculous. Therefore, forgive this question that we are asking with the purpose of honouring the truth and in order to protect some simple and excessively gullible souls: Can you tell us something about the circuмstances of the burial of your father?

In March 3, 1986, my father’s body was taken to my home for the wake. There he was placed upon my bed, and not upon the floor, as the slanderous sedevacantists falsely claim. Let them say the names of the witnesses! Personally, I can name Fr. Canale, SSPX, who celebrated the Requiem Mass, Fr. Ricardo Olmedo, SSPX, and the seminary professors who knew the facts, the seminarians that today are priests, Fr. Schmidberger, SSPX, who was in the Mass and in the cemetery, and also the members of Mesuda family, who were great benefactors of the seminary when it began and who were present at the wake ceremony. These ones later gathered in their field, moved by mercy, the twenty seminarians that left seminary during the sedevacantist rebellion of 1989. My father was buried in the little cemetery of the Society where his his tombstone was made visible after the mass attended to by all the seminarians and many priests and faithful. In this incident there was nothing abnormal and nothing to hide; but what we have here is an example of the sedevacantist logic to say Bp. Faure is Jew: I was born in Algeria; Jews are numerous in Algeria; therefore, “I must be a Jew”. But, as muslims are much more numerous, maybe I am a marrano muslim? Against all these very ridiculous calumnies and fabrications, I have a very good genealogical tree of my family in France that I will make public when I go back there.

And what can you tell us about the crisis of the Argentinian seminary, in 1989? They also blame you for this.

About the crisis in the Buenos Aires Seminary, I am making it clear that I arrived in Mexico in September 24th, 1985, five days after the terrible earthquake, after having been appointed Superior of the District of Mexico, but this crisis took place in 1989, in the period the sedevacantist rebellion against Arch. Lefebvre. The rector, one professor and many priests of this tendency had influenced half of the seminarians of La Reja, that waited the visit of Fr. Schidberger in 1989 to leave wholesale the seminary and get into a “seminary” made by a secular group in Mexico. A complete failure: a little group of them remained in an abandoned monastery near Cordoba, Argentina, and afterwards around Luján, and finally in El Bolsón (South of Argentina). Therefore, it is an evident lie that the supposed scandal around the burying of my father, that happened three years before, had provoked the immediate departure of these twenty seminarians. Bp. Tissier writes about these facts in the biography of Arch. Lefebvre. (page 546, 2nd Ed., Edi. Clovis, 2002).