CathInfo.com

IT DID NOT RAIN THAT DAY.

At least not significantly.

We have photos videos of everything afterwards to prove it too. People smiling, happy in the sun afterwards including Bishop Z.

What do you care anyway, you're a whackjob dogmatic sede.

I am literally not a dogmatic sede. Go be a fαɢɢօt somewhere else.

So, on X it was the Semi-Trads making the argument "ex pluvia" (a new absurd fallacy, "from the rain"), and I responded that it demonstrates the profundity of their "theology" ... but I guess we have to call out our very own Cabbage for this stupidity also.

So, the rain could be ...

1) God expressing displeasure (the confirmation bias applied by anti-SSPX clown-foolery)
2) devil expressing displeasure
3) a sign that a chastisement approaches
4) government weather modification device (we know they have them)

or ... wait for it ...

5) God simply allowing the laws of nature to cause natural events, where it was caused by a couple of weather fronts coming together.

Shocking, I know.  God sometimes does just let the laws of nature operate the way He designed them without micromanaging each event.

But we have NO idea how to "interpret" this event ... so this was perhaps the single most egregious application of eisegesis by confirmation bias that I have ever witnessed.