Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Zeitun on August 31, 2013, 04:24:04 PM
-
Speaks Russian and lives in the UK.......how ironic.
2010
One year after the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina and his billeting at St. George’s House - headquarters of the Society of Saint Pius X in the U.K. - a well dressed , BMW driving 47 year old woman, a native of Edinburgh, sought a course of instruction in the Catholic religion at the headquarters of the British District of the Society of Saint Pius X . She began to make regular visits to St. George’s House and attended Mass at their church in Woking. She informed people her name was Sian Ballantine, said she was married to a BMW car salesman called Eddie and she lived at an address in upmarket North Warnborough, Hampshire. She also claimed to speak Russian and showed herself to be culturally and politically knowledgeable of the old Soviet Union.
2011
Just before her course of instruction finished the women disappeared and was never seen again at St. George’s House or any of the SSPX churches. The woman began to make regular visits to St. John Fisher House - headquarters of the Society of Saint Peter - under the pretext of seeking instruction. She attended a retreat and the FSSP’s monthly Saturday morning women’s group. After several months of observing and gathering information on the Society of Saint Peter the woman abruptly disappeared again.
2012
A woman writing under the pseudonym ’spiritustempore’ began posting on a blog called ‘Catholic Truth Scotland‘. As the months passed by the woman’s agenda revealed itself with vicious post after post scurrilously attacking the traditional British bishop, priests and faithful as ‘neo-nαzι infiltrators’ for opposing the policy of the Swiss based regime in overall charge of the SSPX that was seeking reconciliation with a Masonic orientated Vatican The woman manipulated the moderator and readers of the blog to engage in a virulent and vicious campaign of lies aimed at disrupting the SSPX operation in Britain. One strategy suggested to achieve this was to make complaints to the Charity Commission of England and Wales alleging the SSPX in the U.K. pursued an ’extremist’ political - instead of a charitable - agenda. The intent was that the SSPX would be struck off the Register of Charities and maybe find itself in legal trouble. Another was to republish on the ‘Catholic Truth Scotland’ blog scurrilous articles from the Communist ‘Searchlight’ magazine that attacked the old guard SSPX.
Over a period of time the woman messed up and gave away vital pieces of personal information that identified her as the instruction seeking Sian Ballantine. Further investigation revealed that the residents of the property where Sian Ballantine claimed to live with her husband Eddie were in fact a woman called Sharon Jane Ballantine, a native of Edinburgh, and a man called Eddie Cheung.
Public records show that in 2002 Mrs. Sharon Jane Ballantine - as she was officially titled - and Mr. Edward Cheung moved from Barnes, West London, and Wokingham, Berkshire, to jointly live at an address in North Warnborough, Hampshire. Public records further reveal that Mrs Sharon Jane Ballantine officially changed her public persona to Ms. Sharon Jane Ballantine in March 2010, shortly before she made contact with the Society of Saint Pius X, apparently to provide herself with the appearance of using a maiden name for public purposes.
2013
A series of posts appeared on the ‘Ignis Ardens’ discussion forum written in the style of press releases and posted under the pseudonym ‘Gertrude’. The posts continued in the theme and the textual style established by Sharon Jane Ballantine on ‘Catholic Truth Scotland‘, attacking British SSPX apostolates and faithful as ‘neo-nαzι’ and ‘extremists’ plotting to overthrow the SSPX’s central Swiss regime by replacing it with the expelled British Bishop Williamson and his supporters.
The most interesting of the series of posts, made in late May, revealed that complaints had been made to the English and Welsh Charity Commission - just as discussed by Sharon Ballantine and other ‘Catholic Truth Scotland’ bloggers. It claimed - falsely - that “The commission reminded each trustee of their obligations and legal duties, and cautioned that such political activity is prohibited under Charity Law. The society could lose its charitable status if the political activism continues the commission warned”
Coincidently, on May 13 just one week before public news of the Charity Commission complaints were published the moderator of the ‘Catholic Truth Scotland’ blog, Patricia McKeever, announced that her blog had collapsed due to serious technical problems, and a new blog would be launched under the same name but all the posts made on the original blog were irretrievable - lost forever (except to those who had the foresight to make screenshots)! The new Catholic Truth blog launched on May 18.
On May 24 ‘Searchlight’ editor Gerry Gable - a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and a docuмented former associate of Zionist terrorists, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predators and pimps - sent out a scurrilous press release that was reported and copied in part by Damien Thompson in the ’Daily Telegraph‘. It was given further publicity by David V. Barrett in the ‘Catholic Herald’ on May 31. It was ignored by the rest of the print media.
Gerry Gable has a long and well docuмented working relationship with the British State security service MI5 and the police Special Branch, as well as the Israeli Mossad. David V. Barrett worked for British State security as an intelligence analyst at GCHQ, while Damien Thompson is a vewy nithe boy working for the 'Telegraph' newspaper group which is notorious for acting as a disinformation conduit for British intelligence.
The complaints made to the Charity Commission are revealing. There are a total of five complaints - all made by the same person - a series of complaints totaling six pages that get more agitated and hysterical with each uninterested response received from the Charity Commission. The grammar, syntax and material substance of complaint is undoubtedly identical to the blog posts of ‘spiritustempore’ - Sharon Jane Ballantine.
Sharon Jane Ballantine - Catholic Truth Scotland blog - 7/22/12
“The late WJ Morgan, father of GB District Superior Fr. Paul Morgan, was a good friend of Bp Williamson”.
Text from Charity Commision complaint received 1/23/13
“Bp Williamson was a close personal friend of Fr Morgan's father and sponsored his application for the seminary at Econe and has maintained extremely close links throughout Fr Morgan's life“.
Sharon Jane Ballantine - Catholic Truth Scotland blog - 10/20/12 & 10/26/12
“These individuals have been quite deliberately invited into the Society by Bp Williamson. As one example, Michael Fishwick was previously in charge of communications for the Young National Front… He’s only associated with the Society because Williamson supported him and Fr Morgan gave him a job. Hopefully, his situation will change in the near future“.
Text from Charity Commission complaints received 1/23/13 & 2/12/13 & 3/25/13
“Bp Williamson and Fr Morgan have directly recruited a number of right wing activists to work directly for the Society, including Michael Fishwick, former Chairman and Communications Director of the Young National Front…. Michael Fishwick was previously chairman of the Young National Front and also its communications director. He was recruited by Fr Morgan to work for the Society as Manager of Carmel Books, the Society's publishing arm, as should be plain if you have made the appropriate enquiries…. You say that "it is not clear how Bp Williamson/Fr Morgan" recruited right wing activists to work for the Society. It should be clear to you that Fr Morgan is the GB District Superior and has sole responsibility for recruitment and management of lay employees to the Society. The character and history of Michael Fishwick, former Chairman of the Young NF should be clear to anyone with the ability to carry out a Google search!”
Sharon Jane Ballantine - Catholic Truth Scotland blog - 11/5/12 & 11/6/12
“On the subject of the St Marcel Initiative, I notice that they’re hosted by the same company and on the same server as the National Front sites although why the NF would be hosted on a server in Brea, California, I’m not sure…. John Sharpe lives in Carrollton VA, the same town given on Williamson’s new website for donations... A couple of weeks back, Fishwick took issue with Stephen Heiner’s claim to have set up Williamson’s Dinoscopus site and was very clear that he had been responsible for setting the site up. This was then acknowledged by Heiner. The NF sites were set up around three years ago. That would be around the same time as their UK servers were hacked and their membership lists published in the UK press. I’d imagine that someone based in the UK thought it safer to use an off-shore server to stop it happening again. With in-house skills here in the UK, I guess they’d have designed and set up the site themselves. If I were a betting person, I’d lay odds on that same person having designed and set up the St Marcel Initiative site as well. I’d lay further odds on that person being an employee of the SSPX in Berkshire. It’s also interesting because it implies that said individual would have been in the confidence of the senior management of the NF as recently as three years ago“.
Text from Charity Commission complaint received 1/23/13
“Michael Fishwick recently set up Bp Williamson's personal website: the St Marcel Initiative, which coincidentally shares the same servers as the BNP at an obscure Arizona location. The site seeks donations to unspecified causes, but is administered by John Sharpe so these are likely to be political in nature“.
The striking similarity between the Charity Commission complaints and Sharon Ballantine’s blog posts continue page after page, even to including the typical Ballantine habit of constantly getting the BNP and NF groups mixed up.
Ballantine & Searchlight linked
Just five days before 'Searchlight' editor Gerry Gable sent out his turgid 5 page Press Release to the British media claiming that “Neo-nαzιs plan takeover of Catholic group… Their objective is to replace SSPX’s current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, with the convicted-h0Ɩ0cαųst denier Bishop Richard Williamson… The plotters intend to make a major step towards their takeover at a conference on the weekend of 1 and 2 of June, which we ca reveal will be held at Earlsfield Library Hall, 276 Magdalen Road, Earlsfield, London, SW18 from 9am to 5pm” Sharon Ballantine sent a final desperate complaint to the Charity Commission:
“Fishwick is leading a campaign to split the SSPX in the UK away from its parent organisation in Switzerland and to hand control of the Society's assets to Bishop Williamson and his supporters on the political far right. A conference will be held in London on 1st and 2nd June to plan and organise against one of the trustees of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, and the splitting of the Society into a UK entity under the control of Bishop Richard Williamson. This conference is being organised by Father Paul Morgan, Gregory Taylor (BNP), Alun Rowland (BNP) and Fishwick. The conference will be held in Earlsfield Public Library Hall, London SW18 from 0900-1700 on both 1st and 2nd June 2013".
Even more striking is the textual precision between a paragraph in one of Sharon Ballantine’s Charity Commission complaints - which have not been made public until now - and the 'Searchlight' Press Release of May 24.
Sharon Ballantine Complaint to Charity Commission, March 25 2013
“The audience are all laity and mostly members of the BNP. You can see them in the Society newsletter for June/July 2012, which has a photograph of Bishop Williamson with the attendees, posing at St. Saviour's House. Attendees included Michael Fishwick“.
Searchlight Press Release, May 24 2013
“The audience are mostly members of the BNP. You can see them in the Society newsletter for June/July 2012, which has a photograph of Bishop Williamson with the attendees, posing at St. Saviour's House. Attendees included Michael Fishwick“.
The good as identical word for word paragraph of a private letter sent to the Charity Commission positively identifies Sharon Jane Ballantine collaborating with the Communist and Zionist inspired ‘Searchlight’ magazine against Catholic Tradition. It’s editor Gerry Gable is recorded as boasting of his collaboration with the British Security Service on several occasions. 'Catholic Herald' journalist David V. Barrett boasts of his service as an intelligence analyst for the British State. So who is Sharon Jane Ballantine, the Russian speaking, BMW driving, well dressed career woman who attempted to infiltrate Catholic Tradition under the auspices of receiving instruction?
Whoever she is, and whoever she works for she certainly isn't a Catholic. Earlier this year Sharon Ballantine and Edward Cheung put up their North Warnborough property for sale. The realtor they chose was Mackenzie Smith. The online advertising brochure reveals no crucifix or Catholic religious pictures or any other devotional Catholic items anywhere in the property. Instead viewers are shown a statue of Buddha sitting on a bookshelf.
www.mackenziesmith.co.uk/pdf/getpdf.php?file=2835151.pdf
Other photographs of the house interior obtained elsewhere reveal another Buddha statue in a bedroom.
Who are you really Sharon Jane Ballantine?
-
Another example as to why Ignoramus Ardens is just as atrocious as FishEaters.
-
:sign-surrender:And who, exactly, believes such nonsense, save those who wish to believe it? Apparently, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer is correct in his assessment of Bishop Williamson's ability to pull off a conspiracy. See his third conference in Brazil if it is still on YouTube.
-
And who, exactly, believes such nonsense, save those who wish to believe it?
I don't know what your point is, but this sounds EXACTLY the same head-in-the-sand-fingers-in-ears-"la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" response that comes from I(diot)A(rdens).
One more thing, the lack of commentary about this subject from CI is very troubling. Makes me wonder if there are similar infiltrators on this site.
-
And who, exactly, believes such nonsense, save those who wish to believe it?
I don't know what your point is, but this sounds EXACTLY the same head-in-the-sand-fingers-in-ears-"la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" response that comes from I(diot)A(rdens).
One more thing, the lack of commentary about this subject from CI is very troubling. Makes me wonder if there are similar infiltrators on this site.
The society, the resistance, the church (as we well know) ARE NOT IMMUNE TO INFILTRATORS. In fact, they're targeting us the MOST because we offer what all the other religions around the world do not: The Faith, Salvation. The two most important things in the entire world. Why would the devil not bother with us?
:shocked:
-
One more thing, the lack of commentary about this subject from CI is very troubling. Makes me wonder if there are similar infiltrators on this site.
You seem like a single guy. You have lots of time and energy to 'react' to everything.
It was just posted yesterday afternoon. Many of us with families are busy spending time with our children because we value this time because we work all week (supporting said family).
Mellow out.
Also, this is neither surprising nor in need of comment. So, it probably happened, I've no reason to doubt it. What shall we do about it?
-
One more thing, the lack of commentary about this subject from CI is very troubling. Makes me wonder if there are similar infiltrators on this site.
You seem like a single guy. You have lots of time and energy to 'react' to everything.
It was just posted yesterday afternoon. Many of us with families are busy spending time with our children because we value this time because we work all week (supporting said family).
Mellow out.
Also, this is neither surprising nor in need of comment. So, it probably happened, I've no reason to doubt it. What shall we do about it?
No, Juvie, not a single guy, not young either. That wouldn't be Catholic. At an average of .69 posts per day, any rational person would see that I'm not perpetually on CI 'reacting' to 'everything.' I'd have a mega-huge number of posts if that were the case.
I will cop to bringing the issue up rather early. As you mentioned, time is to be valued. So my apologies there. Time will tell however, if, by the middle of the week, this thread has been passed on in favor of hard-hitting and insightful threads about the wearing of tweed or the immodesty of Catholic women. Should that be the case, it will be telling.
You or others can choose to look the other way, comment or not comment, or whatever it is you want to do. No harm here; I won't lose sleep over it. But it does set a precedent which becomes obvious very quickly. Silence is a really good barometer of complacency. As Frances The Resistance Supporter noted earlier, this issue is "nonsense" and I was struck by how nobody was fazed by it. I'm glad to see Parents and a few others on other forums see this for what it is.
What to do? Be vigilant. Call out the obvious heresies, call out the hypocrisies. But that requires action (large or small) and action doesn't always adhere to a calendar.
Cheers!
-
It appears that Ignis Ardens has been "disabled" within the past 15 minutes. Why? Is it because of the allegations against Sharon Jane Ballantine? Interesting times we live in ...
-
It appears that Ignis Ardens has been "disabled" within the past 15 minutes. Why? Is it because of the allegations against Sharon Jane Ballantine? Interesting times we live in ...
I just did notice that myself. And it certainly looks like this may in fact be the case.
-
It appears that Ignis Ardens has been "disabled" within the past 15 minutes. Why? Is it because of the allegations against Sharon Jane Ballantine? Interesting times we live in ...
Saw that too. Hope it's wiped off the internet and its bandwidth sowed with salt.
Now the miscreants and drooling tradlodytes that frequented that cesspool will look for somewhere else to go. Be vigilant.
-
What in the world is going on?
I'm trying to make heads or tails of all this.
Anyone from Ignis Ardens...?
Come on, we Yanks from the wrong side of The Pond won't bite...
-
What in the world is going on?
I'm trying to make heads or tails of all this.
Anyone from Ignis Ardens...?
Come on, we Yanks from the wrong side of The Pond won't bite...
It's still early re: separating all the facts from the conjecture, but what it's looking like is that there was a person named Sharon Jane Ballantine (avatar'd as Deo Non Fortuna) who was exposed by another as working for, or having direct links to, an organization whose intent was to paint +Williamson and other Traditionalist as being part of an 'extremist' or 'Neo-nαzι' plot to to "overthrow the SSPX’s central Swiss regime by replacing it with the expelled British Bishop Williamson and his supporters." This included info given to the Searchlight rag, probably in an attempt to build a dossier and discredit +Williamson and his followers.
In a nutshell (or nutters-shell as the IA zombies would oink), this person was paid to sow dissent and possibly collect information. There is conjecture (be aware of that word for the sake of prudence and sanity) that this DNF or SJB was given marching orders by a certain Society HQ.
There will probably be more info forthcoming. Keep in mind that this issue is much much bigger than just IA. It should be blatantly evident that certain powers will go to extreme lengths to undermine the Resistance and that means CathInfo and other sites are on their radar also. Indeed, the diaspora from IA is already attempting to gain a foothold on another Catholic forum in order to spread their leechcraft.
This is not IN ANY WAY to be written off as the doings of some little internet troll. This was calculated, this was organized, this was deliberate. I don't see how anyone can put their head in a hole anymore.
The fact that I(diot)A(rdens) was shut down in less than 24 hours - indeed, less than 12 - after this all came out speaks volumes, and none of it good. The potential for lawsuit and very public humiliation was/is profound. IA let its members run amok and unaccountable to their words; now we see the fruits. That's what happens when a moderator shuts himself off.
Again, I re-emphasize that the diaspora from IA will look for another forum in which to sow their filth. Be vigilant.
-
Wonder if she's really a Jєω as well...
-
Wonder if she's really a Jєω as well...
She certainly wasn't Catholic, what with living with a man with an Asian last name in a house with Buddha statues...
-
The people on IA who were suspicious of the agent's activities were singled out for horrible treatment, and bullying, and intimidation- with disclosure of their RLI and personal details, or threats to do so. Very cold and calculating.
-
Wonder if she's really a Jєω as well...
She certainly wasn't Catholic, what with living with a man with an Asian last name in a house with Buddha statues...
Sounds like a Jєωess...
-
Hey Iuvenalis! Someone doesn't like our healthy skepticism about whether this lady is a Jєω (or Jєωess.) :laugh2:
I feel sorry for whoever it is.
-
Wonder if she's really a Jєω as well...
She certainly wasn't Catholic, what with living with a man with an Asian last name in a house with Buddha statues...
She's married to him. There is one Buddha statue. The other statues are Terracotta Army figures. If he has Chinese ancestors its perfectly understandable that the statue might be a gift from a parent or a paperweight he picked up on a visit to the Orient. She is a convert so, presumably, her husband is not a Catholic.
Let's assume she supported the resistance. What would you have her do? Divorce him and get an annulment, use the Pauline privilege?
-
The people on IA who were suspicious of the agent's activities were singled out for horrible treatment, and bullying, and intimidation- with disclosure of their RLI and personal details, or threats to do so. Very cold and calculating.
Yeah that never happens here? :roll-laugh1:
-
:confused1:Why the down-thumbs? I'm questioning Bp. W. being a willing participant or instigator of a conspiracy. Do others think he is? I don't. But human nature is such that any one of us can fall into sin. Upon re-reading my post, pg.1, I should not have used the word "nonsense." I don't disbelieve the entire post. The word was meant to apply only to Bp. W.'s willful involvement in a dishonest scheme. If King David could fall, why not Bp. W.? Although I hope he has not!
-
The people on IA who were suspicious of the agent's activities were singled out for horrible treatment, and bullying, and intimidation- with disclosure of their RLI and personal details, or threats to do so. Very cold and calculating.
Yeah that never happens here? :roll-laugh1:
If it has, then I haven't been privy to it, gratefully.
-
The people on IA who were suspicious of the agent's activities were singled out for horrible treatment, and bullying, and intimidation- with disclosure of their RLI and personal details, or threats to do so. Very cold and calculating.
Yeah that never happens here? :roll-laugh1:
ggreg, why are you here if you're so much better than all of us?
Is it to grace us with your presence? Do you feel we need your sage advice? We would all do better to pick a bag and start selling? Clip and trim our faiths to fit into a neat compartment in our lives, but otherwise live a life indistinguishable from the rest of the world?
We are all a bunch of losers. Save your time and your breath, we cannot be reformed. So sorry to have disappointed you.
People are here to *grow* in their Faith. To learn more. Not to denigrate any increase in faith, piety, or devotion. Not to ridicule piety, make light of chastity, or make scathing remarks about poverty.
Not sure why you're here. Don't you have some airline rewards points you can jetset off somewhere with?
"...for power is made perfect in infirmity." 2 Cor. 12:9
-
The people on IA who were suspicious of the agent's activities were singled out for horrible treatment, and bullying, and intimidation- with disclosure of their RLI and personal details, or threats to do so. Very cold and calculating.
Yeah that never happens here? :roll-laugh1:
ggreg, why are you here if you're so much better than all of us?
Is it to grace us with your presence? Do you feel we need your sage advice? We would all do better to pick a bag and start selling? Clip and trim our faiths to fit into a neat compartment in our lives, but otherwise live a life indistinguishable from the rest of the world?
We are all a bunch of losers. Save your time and your breath, we cannot be reformed. So sorry to have disappointed you.
People are here to *grow* in their Faith. To learn more. Not to denigrate any increase in faith, piety, or devotion. Not to ridicule piety, make light of chastity, or make scathing remarks about poverty.
Not sure why you're here. Don't you have some airline rewards points you can jetset off somewhere with?
"...for power is made perfect in infirmity." 2 Cor. 12:9
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2wfjlK1Tf1qh2o7zo1_500.gif)
-
She's married to him.
Was she married by the SSPX?
-
No, they been married much longer than that according to public records.
-
Wonder if she's really a Jєω as well...
She certainly wasn't Catholic, what with living with a man with an Asian last name in a house with Buddha statues...
She's married to him. There is one Buddha statue. The other statues are Terracotta Army figures. If he has Chinese ancestors its perfectly understandable that the statue might be a gift from a parent or a paperweight he picked up on a visit to the Orient. She is a convert so, presumably, her husband is not a Catholic.
Let's assume she supported the resistance. What would you have her do? Divorce him and get an annulment, use the Pauline privilege?
What an asinine statement.
She never supported the Resistance; in fact, she went out of her way to undermine it, so don't make assumptions of his ancestry or former travel itineraries or her state of spirituality you can't cover. Unless you are more privvy to their personal life than you care to let on. Face it, she's a fraud through and through.
I don't have one single Buddha statue in my house, so yes, I am better than her, and I'm one of the barely articulate idiot Catholics out there.
-
It should concern us all that I am actually in agreement with Novus Weirdo on something.
This clearly means ggreg has run afoul of the very forces of nature.
-
It's been bandied about that Patricius may have been threatened with lawyers, so he just shut it down.
-
So you are suggesting it is more reasonable to assume she is some kind of Buddha worshipping pantheist Jєωess plant funded by B'Nai B'Rith rather than a recent Scottish convert married to a Chinese/Asian BMW salesperson who found aspects of the Resistance, such as the fact they are being spearheaded by a racist and former National Front member Michael Fishwick, highly distasteful?
I attended in the SSPX London for many years and remember those tossers turning up at St Padarn's Church and causing no end of trouble with their meddling and racist politicking.
-
It should concern us all that I am actually in agreement with Novus Weirdo on something.
This clearly means ggreg has run afoul of the very forces of nature.
I assume you agree with the part about "barely articulate idiot Catholic."
Yeah, guilty.
-
So you are suggesting it is more reasonable to assume she is some kind of Buddha worshipping pantheist Jєωess plant funded by B'Nai B'Rith rather than a recent Scottish convert married to a Chinese/Asian BMW salesperson who found aspects of the Resistance, such as the fact they are being spearheaded by a racist and former National Front member Michael Fishwick, highly distasteful?
I attended in the SSPX London for many years and remember those tossers turning up at St Padarn's Church and causing no end of trouble with their meddling and racist politicking.
No, it is more reasonable, not to assume, but to actually see, that she's a fraud.
Why you felt the need to tart it up is beyond us.
-
It should concern us all that I am actually in agreement with Novus Weirdo on something.
This clearly means ggreg has run afoul of the very forces of nature.
I assume you agree with the part about "barely articulate idiot Catholic."
Yeah, guilty.
No, the 'asinine statement' part.
While you and I havent agreed on much that I can recall, you are no fool.
-
So you are suggesting it is more reasonable to assume she is some kind of Buddha worshipping pantheist Jєωess plant funded by B'Nai B'Rith
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
rather than a recent Scottish convert married to a Chinese/Asian BMW salesperson who found aspects of the Resistance, such as the fact they are being spearheaded by a racist and former National Front member Michael Fishwick, highly distasteful?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
I attended in the SSPX London for many years and remember those tossers turning up at St Padarn's Church and causing no end of trouble with their meddling and racist politicking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Anyone keeping score?
-
No, they been married much longer than that according to public records.
So she's a legitimate SSPX layperson? Is she trying to convert her husband? Do they have children? Hopefully they will baptize them.
Is she nice?
-
So you are suggesting it is more reasonable to assume she is some kind of Buddha worshipping pantheist Jєωess plant funded by B'Nai B'Rith rather than a recent Scottish convert married to a Chinese/Asian BMW salesperson who found aspects of the Resistance, such as the fact they are being spearheaded by a racist and former National Front member Michael Fishwick, highly distasteful?
I attended in the SSPX London for many years and remember those tossers turning up at St Padarn's Church and causing no end of trouble with their meddling and racist politicking.
No, it is more reasonable, not to assume, but to actually see, that she's a fraud.
Why you felt the need to tart it up is beyond us.
Why exactly is she a fraud? I would simply conclude from reading her website and her comments she is a recent convert to the SSPX with a lot of zeal. It would do these people some good if they could calm down a little and not presume to write newsletters about "Catholic Truth" only 3 years after discovering Catholicism. But hey, that is converts for you. Many are like that.
I feel the same way about 20 year old policemen telling me to drive safety or air hostesses going through that blasted safety demonstration as though I have forgotten it from last week.
Is the resistance really so weak and paranoid that it is threatened by someone like this and must demonised them as a Jєωιѕн infiltrator, rather than a zealous SSPX convert with a crappy website? Honestly, if she is all ʝʊdɛօ Masonry can throw at you you have nothing to fear.
-
Why do we have this fake Catholic here pretending that there aren't people trying agitating to use the power of the state and spread rumors (in this case the charity commission) to cause problems for trad Catholics, and that it's not a problem?
For this clown to speak of "zeal for the SSPX" is pure irony - this person is also an indultarian.
It's normal to have a problem with people spreading false accusations - especially when they don't seem to actually believe in the religion but have an obsession in hanging around those who do and then going to the authorities to talk about them.
-
Is she nice? [/quote]
No.
-
Is the resistance really so weak and paranoid that it is threatened by someone like this and must demonised them as a Jєωιѕн infiltrator, rather than a zealous SSPX convert with a crappy website? Honestly, if she is all ʝʊdɛօ Masonry can throw at you you have nothing to fear.
good point. what's her website?
-
Why exactly is she a fraud?
Maybe you should read the initial post again. Or for the first time.
-
Wonder if she's really a Jєω as well...
Like... Jane (Nee) Vallentine ?
-
Another example as to why Ignoramus Ardens is just as atrocious as FishEaters.
Diego used to call it "Judaica Ardens"
IA is an infiltraitor's hang-out.
Remember Blaise Compton a.k.a "Ashmolean" ?
A certified mega-troll. Mother Frump used to give him cover.
He was apparently a friend of Searchlight magazine:
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/fascists-join-catholic-traditionalists-at-london-conference.
Even Maxie Krah used to make cameo appearances on IA, much to his chagrin.
The neo-nαzι scam, sounds like zio-man, Maxie's MO.
-
Maybe you should read the initial post again. Or for the first time.
:roll-laugh1:
-
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:Somebody WANTS Bp. W. to be part of a nefarious conspiracy? Identify yourself if you are going to down-thumb me! (pg. 4)
-
IA shut down after this news came to light.
Two threads that started about it on ABL forums have now simply disappeared.
-
IA shut down after this news came to light.
Two threads that started about it on ABL forums have now simply disappeared.
Yes this is true. I wonder if Matthew has people pressuring him to take down this thread or threatening to sue him.
-
How would they sue him? He's only the moderator, and is not responsible for what individuals post here.
-
Lawsuits, the threat thereof, or legal bluster are used all the time to intimidate a person and control his behavior. Slander and libel are not threats if the information spread about is true. The real intimidation factor is the monetary cost in defending against a lawsuit accusing you of these things. Plaintiff attorneys may satisfy their monetary gain by obtaining a percentage of the judgment if they win, but the defendant must pay enormous amounts to defend themselves perhaps for a year or more or pay to settle, even when they perhaps cannot be proven guilty.
-
The ABL site had the threads removed by their host - not SSS - because the aforementioned trash had her info still posted. As said trash could not resort to legal action, in true cowardly feminista fashion, goes crying to the parent. It is believed that the threat of legal action forced ProBoards to act. They had to do something (maybe look for a vertabrae next?), but it is a moot issue since that stuff is all over the internet; I even saved a copy of it in case there is massive denial in the future.
I'd like to add again this is not IN ANY WAY to be written off as the doings of some little internet troll. This was calculated, this was organized, this was deliberate.
-
How would they sue him? He's only the moderator, and is not responsible for what individuals post here.
It wouldn't be the first time threats were doled out if Maximum Krap is involved. Apparently there's a also a lot more behind this Sharon B than would seem at first glance. It didn't take long to spook Patricius, and the host site for ABL forum as well.
-
I'd like to add again this is not IN ANY WAY to be written off as the doings of some little internet troll. This was calculated, this was organized, this was deliberate.
Yes and in all likelihood, the pressure was placed upon the right places by not one complaining harpy, but by a number of individuals simultaneously. The sayinim helpers of the Hasbara. A quick note or call by the right "organization" will usually render these almost instantaneous results as well.
-
I'd be interested to know if Matthew was approached by anyone trying to get this thread removed, and if there were any clues regarding who it was..
-
IA still offline! "Anthony Malleus" and "St. Justin" must be busting a gut about now, with no place to spew their venom.
-
IA still offline! "Anthony Malleus" and "St. Justin" must be busting a gut about now, with no place to spew their venom.
Several of those neo-trads, "St." Justin and tradical included, seem to have migrated back to AQ. That's where they always belonged.
-
I guess so.
Of course, I'm surprised AQ is even considered a forum anymore. It's more of a blog now...
-
IA was a zoo, but there is now one less place for SSPX (neo/resistance) to discuss happenings in the Society and relevant issues. So I guess Menz wins; now many will keep off the forums like they were ordered, and sit around in the dark till the Big Announcement is made. DNF- Ballentine made it that much easier for them.
-
IA was a zoo, but there is now one less place for SSPX (neo/resistance) to discuss happenings in the Society and relevant issues. So I guess Menz wins; now many will keep off the forums like they were ordered, and sit around in the dark till the Big Announcement is made. DNF- Ballentine made it that much easier for them.
If these SSPX Catholics avoid CathInfo (for example) because of false obedience, false piety, imprudent aloofness from fellow-Catholics, or any other ill-advised reason, they deserve whatever they get.
Unfortunately there's no law against being foolish. And there are plenty of fools.
Ecclesiastes 1:15
The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.
Sure, we seem pretty serious here on CathInfo, but then again...
Ecclesiastes 7:5
The heart of the wise is where there is mourning, and the heart of fools where there is mirth.
Ecclesiastes 7:6
It is better to be rebuked by a wise man, than to be deceived by the flattery of fools.
A Catholic that doesn't see the need for socializing or companionship with other traditional Catholics will not thenceforth become a hermit. No, he will find friends for himself from among the worldlings and infidels.
Proverbs 13:20
He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them.
-
Ignis Ardens Forum
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/24735851/2/stock-illustration-24735851-gravestone-rip-drawing.jpg)
2006 ~ 2013
(http://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bishop-fellay.jpg?w=604)
"I'm simply devastated at the news"
(http://fsspx.org/en/dl/fichiers/abschmidweb.jpg)
"Surely the result of a guerilla "Resistance" cyber attack."
(http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/colorbox-big/public/fr._rostand.jpg)
"Walla... at last!"
(http://www.dnn-online.de/queport/jrs?xpath=dti/media/_2012/_36/_1421344-20120907212500.jpg)
"Uh... what happened ?"
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQycFQu2ZMc9Lz5SPs0PN82Q-DV9dYS2pHjkJJeJfIIcEq8zk71)
" And one more Trad Cat forum to go..."
-
Haha, Incred, you're hilarious.
-
(http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.401730.1324005559!/image/4169413715.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/4169413715.jpg)
Now to get rid of Matthew and those goyim at cathinfo!
-
(http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.401730.1324005559!/image/4169413715.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/4169413715.jpg)
Now to get rid of Matthew and those goyim at cathinfo!
This man is very ugly-looking.
-
IA was a zoo, but there is now one less place for SSPX (neo/resistance) to discuss happenings in the Society and relevant issues. So I guess Menz wins; now many will keep off the forums like they were ordered, and sit around in the dark till the Big Announcement is made. DNF- Ballentine made it that much easier for them.
Greetings Denizens of Cathinfo,
Just wanted to clear up some of the fud being spread about the recent demise of Ignis Ardens.
On the thread in question the poster ended it with the word: Bitch.
I responded that the content was basically more conspiracy followed by an invective.
The poster responded with - shall we say - vulgarity / swearing.
I replied - "No thanks" and that this is why I knew the resistance was wrong (I also apologized to the resistors if the poster was no a resistor).
I assume that the poster completely lost the ability to disguise his/her vulgarity and decided to suggest anatomical impossibilities.
This appears to have tripped the robo-monitor and boom IA was taken offline.
The assumption at this time is that Patricius has decided to just leave it dormant.
God Bless!
-
Yeah, that sounds like bullcrap.
Someone had a potty mouth and the forum AI decided to self destruct? Please.
-
deleted
-
Yeah, that sounds like bullcrap.
Someone had a potty mouth and the forum AI decided to self destruct? Please.
Given:
a. the timeframe between when I responded and the forum shut down
b. that I am in North America so Patricius would probably be sleeping
It is a reasonable conclusion that an automated monitor was involved. There were no other moderators.
Aside from that the only person who could take the forum offline was Patricius.
God Bless!!!
-
IA was a zoo, but there is now one less place for SSPX (neo/resistance) to discuss happenings in the Society and relevant issues. So I guess Menz wins; now many will keep off the forums like they were ordered, and sit around in the dark till the Big Announcement is made. DNF- Ballentine made it that much easier for them.
Greetings Denizens of Cathinfo,
Just wanted to clear up some of the fud being spread about the recent demise of Ignis Ardens.
On the thread in question the poster ended it with the word: Bitch.
I responded that the content was basically more conspiracy followed by an invective.
The poster responded with - shall we say - vulgarity / swearing.
I replied - "No thanks" and that this is why I knew the resistance was wrong (I also apologized to the resistors if the poster was no a resistor).
I assume that the poster completely lost the ability to disguise his/her vulgarity and decided to suggest anatomical impossibilities.
This appears to have tripped the robo-monitor and boom IA was taken offline.
The assumption at this time is that Patricius has decided to just leave it dormant.
God Bless!
TROLL ALERT !!!!!
-
Yeah, that sounds like bullcrap.
Someone had a potty mouth and the forum AI decided to self destruct? Please.
Given:
a. the timeframe between when I responded and the forum shut down
b. that I am in North America so Patricius would probably be sleeping
It is a reasonable conclusion that an automated monitor was involved. There were no other moderators.
Aside from that the only person who could take the forum offline was Patricius.
God Bless!!!
Or perhaps some one woke him up with an urgent phone call.
-
Yeah, that sounds like bullcrap.
Someone had a potty mouth and the forum AI decided to self destruct? Please.
Given:
a. the timeframe between when I responded and the forum shut down
b. that I am in North America so Patricius would probably be sleeping
It is a reasonable conclusion that an automated monitor was involved. There were no other moderators.
Aside from that the only person who could take the forum offline was Patricius.
God Bless!!!
Or perhaps some one woke him up with an urgent phone call.
That is a possibility. Only P meister would know for certain.
God Bless!!!
-
IA was a zoo, but there is now one less place for SSPX (neo/resistance) to discuss happenings in the Society and relevant issues. So I guess Menz wins; now many will keep off the forums like they were ordered, and sit around in the dark till the Big Announcement is made. DNF- Ballentine made it that much easier for them.
Greetings Denizens of Cathinfo,
Just wanted to clear up some of the fud being spread about the recent demise of Ignis Ardens.
On the thread in question the poster ended it with the word: Bitch.
I responded that the content was basically more conspiracy followed by an invective.
The poster responded with - shall we say - vulgarity / swearing.
I replied - "No thanks" and that this is why I knew the resistance was wrong (I also apologized to the resistors if the poster was no a resistor).
I assume that the poster completely lost the ability to disguise his/her vulgarity and decided to suggest anatomical impossibilities.
This appears to have tripped the robo-monitor and boom IA was taken offline.
The assumption at this time is that Patricius has decided to just leave it dormant.
God Bless!
Typical IA phleghm from one of its biggest sycophants.
Spin it all you want. We can smell your desperation over here.
-
There were no other moderators.
Yeah, it was blatantly evident there were no moderators there for months. It's why IA resembled a pig trough.
-
IA was a zoo, but there is now one less place for SSPX (neo/resistance) to discuss happenings in the Society and relevant issues. So I guess Menz wins; now many will keep off the forums like they were ordered, and sit around in the dark till the Big Announcement is made. DNF- Ballentine made it that much easier for them.
Greetings Denizens of Cathinfo,
Just wanted to clear up some of the fud being spread about the recent demise of Ignis Ardens.
On the thread in question the poster ended it with the word: Bitch.
I responded that the content was basically more conspiracy followed by an invective.
The poster responded with - shall we say - vulgarity / swearing.
I replied - "No thanks" and that this is why I knew the resistance was wrong (I also apologized to the resistors if the poster was no a resistor).
I assume that the poster completely lost the ability to disguise his/her vulgarity and decided to suggest anatomical impossibilities.
This appears to have tripped the robo-monitor and boom IA was taken offline.
The assumption at this time is that Patricius has decided to just leave it dormant.
God Bless!
People are not ignorant of robo-monitoring. If someone had to purposely use potty language to get that site shut down then so be it.
Call it a kamikazee mission but deo gratias that site is gone.
-
It's pretty awesome that there are tools to block out such language and all the moderator would have to do is hit a button.
There are certain words on this forum that you'll see blocked out with a ####. Wow. Such an impossible thing to do to prevent that kind of thing. :rolleyes: Rather shut a whole forum down because of absolutely terrible moderation instead of putting that kind of failsafe in there instead.
-
The site wasn't shut down by any robo-monitor, the result have been instant, or nearly. In any case, it would have deleted no more than the putatively offending post. This tradical fella is just blowing smoke as he did on that forum. He's a troll. The Ballantine affair speaks to grave issues in the Neo-SSPX; far too well orchestrated to be a lone, confused malcontent.
-
Some one on the thread having potty mouth does not make the Ballentine info untrue.
-
Is there a Robo-Monitor that can filter out Tradical or Anthony Malleus or St Justin or Elisabeth/Elizabeth?....
I'd buy that for a dollar!
-
If people had a properly formed conscience then Net Nanny wouldn't need to monitor a Catholic forum.
-
Some one on the thread having potty mouth does not make the Ballentine info untrue.
Nor does it make it true.
However, from what I remember of the thread it was a lot of different posts / links and the author was trying to prove the D.N.F. was the Ballentine woman.
D.N.F. denied it etc, but the conspiracy kept on churning.
God Bless!
-
Nor does it make it true.
It's more true than you're willing to accept, Trad. IA's vehement hatred towards +Williamson made the site a petri dish where someone like SJB could fester.
However, from what I remember of the thread it was a lot of different posts / links and the author was trying to prove the D.N.F. was the Ballentine woman.
And he/she did a really good job because it was quite evident that they were one and the same! All the links sufficiently outed this person as an agent of disinformation with a real agenda of smearing +Williamson and his followers.
D.N.F. denied it etc but the conspiracy kept on churning.
Well, of course she'd do that but the genie was already out of the bottle and she had no other recourse. She's a modernist, a feminist, who are hardwired to protect themselves and their selfish interests.
Game's over, Tradical. Go home.
-
I am not sure DNF ever actually posted on the thread, much less denied anything. No doubt she's lurking around here in a dark corner somewhere, dripping her acid onto the carpet.
-
I am not sure DNF ever actually posted on the thread, much less denied anything. No doubt she's lurking around here in a dark corner somewhere, dripping her acid onto the carpet.
She was probably struck mute by being caught. She probably thought herself 'smarter' than everyone else. She was a despicable presence on that dead site.
-
I am not sure DNF ever actually posted on the thread, much less denied anything. No doubt she's lurking around here in a dark corner somewhere, dripping her acid onto the carpet.
The accusations had surfaced on other threads in the forum that she posted on prior to the offline event.
God Bless!
-
Game's over, Tradical. Go home.
As accommodating as ever.
God Bless!
-
I am not sure DNF ever actually posted on the thread, much less denied anything. No doubt she's lurking around here in a dark corner somewhere, dripping her acid onto the carpet.
The accusations had surfaced on other threads in the forum that she posted on prior to the offline event.
Quit making excuses.
-
IA suffered from the persistence of a few Menzingen groupies and yet in any poll the resisting hardliners would always be the majority. Furthermore, one detected a leaning away from any accommodation with the Roman entity whatsoever, giving it a refreshing independent feel overall. Whatever the reasons for groupies remaining on these sites, they continues to be a thorn in the sides of their father-confessors who would like to see their demise. Also, in an act of desparation we are now seeing the antics of a few organised hit and run spoilers using tired old mainstream phraseology. The English character of the place was of course lost many moons ago. The battle for the soul of the GB district and the mind of Fr. Morgan is over and folk are going their separate ways. If the SSPX is now a universal brand, those tied to it should obey their brand masters and not allow themselves the luxury of thought.
-
tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side. DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM. She's a blight on the tradosphere. That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.
Why don't you start your own forum?
-
IA suffered from the persistence of a few Menzingen groupies and yet in any poll the resisting hardliners would always be the majority. Furthermore, one detected a leaning away from any accommodation with the Roman entity whatsoever, giving it a refreshing independent feel overall. Whatever the reasons for groupies remaining on these sites, they continues to be a thorn in the sides of their father-confessors who would like to see their demise. Also, in an act of desparation we are now seeing the antics of a few organised hit and run spoilers using tired old mainstream phraseology. The English character of the place was of course lost many moons ago.
What has happened to the Church since Vatican II is the work of anti-Catholic pretending to be Catholic.
They ALL (I don't know an exception) have something in common. None of them have sympathy for historical Christendom and all of them have sympathy for its enemies, and use the language of its enemies, in order to attempt to discredit those who remain Catholic.
They are fanatical people, they know who butters their bread and they know who they hate.
-
IA suffered from the persistence of a few Menzingen groupies and yet in any poll the resisting hardliners would always be the majority. Furthermore, one detected a leaning away from any accommodation with the Roman entity whatsoever, giving it a refreshing independent feel overall. Whatever the reasons for groupies remaining on these sites, they continues to be a thorn in the sides of their father-confessors who would like to see their demise. Also, in an act of desparation we are now seeing the antics of a few organised hit and run spoilers using tired old mainstream phraseology. The English character of the place was of course lost many moons ago. The battle for the soul of the GB district and the mind of Fr. Morgan is over and folk are going their separate ways. If the SSPX is now a universal brand, those tied to it should obey their brand masters and not allow themselves the luxury of thought.
Ah, our good friend Wessex.
Thank you for the eloquent synopsis.
I hope now, you will post on CI more often.
-
tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side. DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM. She's a blight on the tradosphere. That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.
Why don't you start your own forum?
My blog is sufficient for now.
God Bless!
-
tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side. DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM. She's a blight on the tradosphere. That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.
Why don't you start your own forum?
My blog is sufficient for now.
God Bless!
Then stay there.
-
tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side. DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM. She's a blight on the tradosphere. That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.
Why don't you start your own forum?
My blog is sufficient for now.
God Bless!
Then stay there.
If I didn't know how open this forum was to debate and discussion I would believe that you are trying to get rid of me.
Not to worry, that was the reason why I stayed at Ignis Ardens. I made one post asking a question and zing 'Accordista Alert'.
Only here, the word Accordista has been exchanged for 'Troll'.
Now that I feel properly welcomed - I think I'll hang around for a while.
God Bless!!!
-
tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side. DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM. She's a blight on the tradosphere. That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.
Why don't you start your own forum?
My blog is sufficient for now.
God Bless!
Then stay there.
If I didn't know how open this forum was to debate and discussion I would believe that you are trying to get rid of me.
Not to worry, that was the reason why I stayed at Ignis Ardens. I made one post asking a question and zing 'Accordista Alert'.
Only here, the word Accordista has been exchanged for 'Troll'.
Now that I feel properly welcomed - I think I'll hang around for a while.
God Bless!!!
Unless of course I'm mistaken about my first statement concerning this site.
God Bless!!!
-
Tradical, if you are so sure that DNF is not Sharon Ballentine, which one did you come here to support and why? Surely you don't support DNF's unCatholic behavior despite the revelation? Even if they were different people, or one and the same, they are still vile.
-
tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side. DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM. She's a blight on the tradosphere. That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.
Why don't you start your own forum?
My blog is sufficient for now.
God Bless!
Then stay there.
If I didn't know how open this forum was to debate and discussion I would believe that you are trying to get rid of me.
Not to worry, that was the reason why I stayed at Ignis Ardens. I made one post asking a question and zing 'Accordista Alert'.
Only here, the word Accordista has been exchanged for 'Troll'.
Now that I feel properly welcomed - I think I'll hang around for a while.
God Bless!!!
Unless of course I'm mistaken about my first statement concerning this site.
God Bless!!!
Troll!
-
If I didn't know how open this forum was to debate and discussion I would believe that you are trying to get rid of me.
This forum is open to debate and discussion but that's not why you slithered here. You wanted a forum to belch and oink a monologue.
Not to worry, that was the reason why I stayed at Ignis Ardens. I made one post asking a question and zing 'Accordista Alert'.
You did no such thing. A review of all your posts - which are found in this thread only - shows you asked nothing. At. All. You came on and proceeded to post a flaccid defense of an IA miscreant. Since you wallowed in that filth also, by your own admission, you're just another carrier of the disease that was spawned in the fetid petri dish called Ignis Ardens.
Only here, the word Accordista has been exchanged for 'Troll'.
Ain't that something? Still makes you a mouth-breathing troll.
Now that I feel properly welcomed - I think I'll hang around for a while.
Yeah, well, keep in mind that clown act you belong to doesn't go on for a while. You know the one - the little Menzingen car drives in a crazy circle and stops, then the dozen or so Fellaybot clowns come spilling out.
-
You see Tradical, one of the differences between IA and this forum, we could not ignore your posts on IA. On Cathinfo, we can hide your sarcastic "bless you's" and indeed your entire posts by the press of the HIDE button, letting you to talk to yourself until you fall off the vine. I hope all will ignore your wasted words from here on out.
-
You see Tradical, one of the differences between IA and this forum, we could not ignore your posts on IA. On Cathinfo, we can hide your sarcastic "bless you's" and indeed your entire posts by the press of the HIDE button, letting you to talk to yourself until you fall off the vine. I hope all will ignore your wasted words from here on out.
Sound advice if one does not wish to become a specimen in the new CI petri dish, now that the IA dish has been broken.
-
I made a slight change to the OP after the following e-mail exchange.
I'm not going to add anything -- read it for yourself.
(The newest e-mail is at the top, and the original e-mail is all the way at the bottom)
Here is the link
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sharon-Jane-Ballatine
If I took the same rude attitude towards you that you have taken towards me, I’d be making equally sarcastic remarks about you clearly having some role on CathInfo (or why would you be receiving the emails from the site) but not even knowing what is on the site.
And the fact that you presumed the charge was “false” really says it all. Catholic charity presumes the opposite. You do not presume someone to be mentally unstable without firm evidence.
It’s much more likely that someone with a clear role of responsibility on a public internet forum who doesn’t know if he’s on horseback or foot, is in need of mental health treatment but I would not dream of posting that opinion on a public forum.
Now remove the lie or leave it – I am definitely NOT wasting even 30 seconds of my precious time registering for that site.
Patricia
From: Matthew [mailto:matthew@cathinfo.com]
Sent: 09 September 2013 20:38
To: Catholic Truth
Subject: Re: HIGHLY UNSTABLE MODERATOR AT CATHOLIC TRUTH CALLING!
It's not an article! Did you read my response at all!?
You didn't even give me a link to the so-called "article", as if I knew very well what "menu" the "article" is under, as if my site were an informational website like yours.
I also never said I wouldn't remove it. But I THOUGHT we were having a little discussion. I was planning to ask you for a link to the offending post.
I don't know... I was PRESUMING that the charge was false. You're not giving me the best impression of your stability...
You also assume that I know you, and that a charge of mental instability should be immediately understood as "false". For all I know, you've been treated by psychiatrists and committed to an institution several times. How am I supposed to know? To use a colorful Irish expression (that my dad often used), "I don't know you from a can of paint."
And you've had time to write 2 long e-mails to me, but registering for an account takes too long? Sorry, I know that's not true. It takes 30 seconds to sign up for an account.
On 09/09/2013 01:23 PM, Catholic Truth wrote:
Matthew,
Sorry, but your response does not wash. If you had received a legal threat over the defamation about me on the CathInfo forum, someone would have had to remove that comment and they would have done so in double quick time. So, don’t gimme a Pontius Pilate response, please and thank you.
Happily, those who know me, and who have read the CathInfo article, have all reacted in exactly the same way: that to say such a scurrilous thing, to publish (and allow to stand) such a blatant falsehood about me or any other individual, reveals a far from Catholic spirit on your forum.
I simply do not have the time to devote to registering, correcting that lie and then leaving myself open to a barrage of responses, so I’m going to leave it on your conscience, that you have allowed a lie to be peddled on the CathInfo forum, which could greatly damage the Catholic Truth apostolate, in the knowledge that you will have to answer for such a grave sin at your judgement.
Patricia
www.catholictruthscotland.com
From: Matthew [mailto:matthew@cathinfo.com]
Sent: 09 September 2013 01:02
To: Catholic Truth
Subject: Re: HIGHLY UNSTABLE MODERATOR AT CATHOLIC TRUTH CALLING!
Patricia,
There is something you need to know. Unlike you, I am not the "Editor" of CathInfo. If I were, everything on CI would be "from my mouth" as it were, and I would be running a blog or informational website, and as a matter of fact I would be responsible for everything posted there.
But as it stands, I'm not the editor, I'm just the owner and moderator. But to be clear: I don't pre-emptively moderate the posts (approving them before they appear). If I did, my site would effectively (and legally) be equivalent to a blog.
I visited your website briefly, and sure enough, it's a "website" with an editor, one person who approves all content, etc. That might be what you're used to, and why you're confused. But in your e-mail, you make references to "me" and "my post" about a dozen times, as if I'm running a site like yours. I'm not. I'm running a Catholic Message Board and a very open, almost "free-for-all", one at that.
I let people talk about whatever they want to. Especially current events that everyone is dying to talk about. I certainly don't try to curb every "sin against charity" because most people aren't saints -- I'd have to shut down the forum. So I don't bother. Only the most egregious violations are dealt with.
For one thing, I have this little problem of not being omniscient. One man's slander is another man's whistleblowing. One man's "insurgency" is another man's "freedom fighting". When insurgents fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, they're the enemy. When they're in America circa 1776, they're called Patriots and Founding Fathers. How is little old me the Moderator to know the difference?
I suggest you join CathInfo and add your comments to the discussion. I have no idea why the image wouldn't load -- if you look at the site, there doesn't seem to be any technical problem with the software, server, etc. as CI gets several new members every day.
Generally speaking, I'd say just sign up and contradict the person who claimed you were unstable. You know, it's a losing battle to try to "moderate" every persistent rumor about you.
If someone had no basis in calling you "mentally unstable", I guess it's best to just make them look like an awful Catholic by calling them on it. People have to be able to figure out the truth for themselves about each person, case, organization, etc. there is always much conflicting information out there. Unfortunately, we don't have an "Information Pope" that can sort the wheat from the chaff definitively. Hence the "babel" of information on the Net.
Hope to see you on the forum,
Matthew
On 09/08/2013 01:07 PM, Catholic Truth wrote:
Hello there,
This morning after Mass, I was pointed in the direction of your post on “spiritustempore” (31 August) by a blogger at Catholic Truth (we’re not called Catholic Truth Scotland, by the way, just Catholic Truth – only our domain name includes “Scotland” for technical reasons)
Anyway, I was completely riveted by your expose of Sian Ballantine (or whatever her name is) whom I met some time ago – at her request - when she visited Glasgow.
However, I was disappointed to see myself described as “highly unstable” and would make the following two points:
(1) it strikes me as curious, to say the least, that you would publicly describe me in such a derogatory and damaging way when we’ve never even met and I’d be interested to know how you reached your diagnosis of my mental health
(2) I must be one of the few people in the land, if not the world, with a piece of paper from my doctor testifying to my sanity of mind - obtained when modernists in one teaching establishment did what you’ve done, and alleged that I was psychologically disturbed (because I held to traditional Catholic doctrine and morals – puts you in very dubious company....)
I did try to register on your forum to say this, but got stuck when I was asked to type the text in the image, there being no image.
Anyway, if you would be so kind as to notify your readers that I’m really not at all unstable, but that I thank your forum for the information about the former Catholic Truth blogger, spiritustempore. I found that an extremely formative post and well worth the insults!
God bless you.
Patricia McKeever
Editor
Catholic Truth
www.catholictruthscotland.com
-
The Lady doth protest too much....
-
SJB posts on CathTruth under the username CrofterLady.
-
SJB posts on CathTruth under the username CrofterLady.
NOTE WELL:
You need to be careful with the acronym "SJB" here on CathInfo. We have a longtime poster here by that name, who has nothing to do with Sharon Jane Ballatine.
We've had an SJB here from the Cincinnati, OH chapel, a sedevacantist man, who is a close friend of Eamon Shea. His initials stand for "St. John Bosco", and his last name is Bastaja.
If you've played Scrabble, you'll know that S isn't worth many points, and B isn't worth much more. Long story short, they're popular initials.
Anyhow, I just don't want anyone to be confused, or for any rumors to get started.
-
Whatever they did to IA and ALF must not have worked here, or they wouldn't have bothered Matthew with any "nicities". IMO
-
SJB posts on CathTruth under the username CrofterLady.
NOTE WELL:
You need to be careful with the acronym "SJB" here on CathInfo. We have a longtime poster here by that name, who has nothing to do with Sharon Jane Ballatine.
We've had an SJB here from the Cincinnati, OH chapel, a sedevacantist man, who is a close friend of Eamon Shea. His initials stand for "St. John Bosco", and his last name is Bastaja.
If you've played Scrabble, you'll know that S isn't worth many points, and B isn't worth much more. Long story short, they're popular initials.
Anyhow, I just don't want anyone to be confused, or for any rumors to get started.
So maybe for future reference, we ought to refer to the vet poster as SJB, and Sharon Jane Ballatine as "She-devil-Harpy-from-Hell?
-
From what little I have seen of this lady's site, she uses the SSPX as something of a refuge while focussing heavily on the local Scottish diocesan scene. She thinks that her own brand of traditionalism is the authentic one and naively assumes that bishops there (who are some of the worst in the world) will therefore sit up and take notice. While the Society remains Rome-friendly her mission is to single-handedly unite the church; on its own it would be too small for the size of her ego, especially in Scotland, and she would accuse it of having schismatic tendencies.
-
From what little I have seen of this lady's site, she uses the SSPX as something of a refuge while focussing heavily on the local Scottish diocesan scene. She thinks that her own brand of traditionalism is the authentic one and naively assumes that bishops there (who are some of the worst in the world) will therefore sit up and take notice. While the Society remains Rome-friendly her mission is to single-handedly unite the church; on its own it would be too small for the size of her ego, especially in Scotland, and she would accuse it of having schismatic tendencies.
A Scottish female "religious engineer".... :thinking:
-
The lady is quite transparent. She does not wish to pursue the avenue of defending herself as she knows that means scrutiny and exposing her activities and associations.
She simply cries victim and accuses Matthew as her latest persecutor, not to mention that it is she who was rude and abusive in her accusations and in her tone.
A good response by Matthew by the way.
-
SJB posts on CathTruth under the username CrofterLady.
NOTE WELL:
You need to be careful with the acronym "SJB" here on CathInfo. We have a longtime poster here by that name, who has nothing to do with Sharon Jane Ballatine.
We've had an SJB here from the Cincinnati, OH chapel, a sedevacantist man, who is a close friend of Eamon Shea. His initials stand for "St. John Bosco", and his last name is Bastaja.
If you've played Scrabble, you'll know that S isn't worth many points, and B isn't worth much more. Long story short, they're popular initials.
Anyhow, I just don't want anyone to be confused, or for any rumors to get started.
I didn't know. I meant Ms. Ballantine uses CrofterLady.
-
Tradical, if you are so sure that DNF is not Sharon Ballentine, which one did you come here to support and why? Surely you don't support DNF's unCatholic behavior despite the revelation? Even if they were different people, or one and the same, they are still vile.
I came here (originally) to explain what had happened on the 'Sharon Ballentine' thread - the provided some explanation as to why the site went down.
With respect to DNF - The accusations against her stalking etc was never demonstrated by the posting of the PM's etc.
DNF stated on another thread that she was not Sharon B etc. Given her posting history (from what I remember) and the lack of any real evidence - I see no reason to believe that she is this Sharon person.
What Sharon B was/is - is another matter entirely.
God Bless!
-
Not to worry, that was the reason why I stayed at Ignis Ardens. I made one post asking a question and zing 'Accordista Alert'.
...
Novus Weirdo,
Did you really not understand the grammar involved or are you just giving me some 'low hanging fruit'?
God Bless!
-
You see Tradical, one of the differences between IA and this forum, we could not ignore your posts on IA. On Cathinfo, we can hide your sarcastic "bless you's" and indeed your entire posts by the press of the HIDE button, letting you to talk to yourself until you fall off the vine. I hope all will ignore your wasted words from here on out.
If a thread that I post is 'ignored' by those who are uncomfortable with what I write, that is their prerogative.
The other denizens of Cathinfo will be able to decide for themselves.
Given the nature of online forums, I anticipate significant exchanges because what I post will definitely challenge some of the key assumptions held dearly by other posters on this site (as occurred on Ignis Ardens).
If this gets me banned (as some would like) then so be it.
God Bless!!!
-
With respect to DNF - The accusations against her stalking etc was never demonstrated by the posting of the PM's etc.
That's because the people she was stalking knew that posting PMs is against forum policy and would cause them to be banned. DNF also knew that and so she was "safe". Several people complained to Pat and sent copies of the harassing PMs but he never took action. I know of one person who contacted a lawyer but since Pat didn't answer emails it kinda fizzled out.
It's patently untrue to suggest that the victims didn't try to resolve the problems.
-
Very, very true, Zeitun. Tradical, you are going to have a hard time covering up for DNF, there are too many victims of her cyberstalking, bullying behavior, and gross mistreatment. And you participated on at least a few of the threads where she did some of her dirty work, so you can't be entirely oblivious. You're going to have to give that witch more than a coat of white-wash before you can trot her back out on the playing field. I sometimes thought you made a good point now and again, despite your egotistical smarminess. But now I am suspicious of the company you keep, and your ulterior motive in defending such people as DNF/Sharon J, Ballentine. So, dance off into the sunset with your two-headed, two-faced buddy, who will undoubtedly be seeping back up through the drains of Trad-dom as soon as she has a new nose-job and alias.
-
I came here (originally) to explain what had happened on the 'Sharon Ballentine' thread - the provided some explanation as to why the site went down.
With respect to DNF - The accusations against her stalking etc was never demonstrated by the posting of the PM's etc.
DNF stated on another thread that she was not Sharon B etc. Given her posting history (from what I remember) and the lack of any real evidence - I see no reason to believe that she is this Sharon person.
What Sharon B was/is - is another matter entirely.
Still spinning it. You have a sick obsession with her. Good God, even AOL is telling you to give it up.
If a thread that I post is 'ignored' by those who are uncomfortable with what I write, that is their prerogative.
The other denizens of Cathinfo will be able to decide for themselves.
No one is uncomfortable with what you oink. We just can't send it to the trash fast enough.
Given the nature of online forums, I anticipate significant exchanges because what I post will definitely challenge some of the key assumptions held dearly by other posters on this site (as occurred on Ignis Ardens).
Yes, and you're so on the ball that it'll be another 2 or 3 days in between posts. And you being who you are, why would anyone ever put any stock into it?
If this gets me banned (as some would like) then so be it.
:pray:
-
clear as mud to me... all this... :confused1:
-
Some one on the thread having potty mouth does not make the Ballentine info untrue.
Nor does it make it true.
However, from what I remember of the thread it was a lot of different posts / links and the author was trying to prove the D.N.F. was the Ballentine woman.
D.N.F. denied it etc, but the conspiracy kept on churning.
God Bless!
There simply was zero proof of anything about anybody. On the IA thread I wrote that it looked like a psychology grad student's experiment in forum dynamics.
Some of the same players who failed in their attempts to say I was three different people (and were corrected by Matthew here on Cathinfo) seem to be at it again.
It just ran amok due to lack of forum moderators, IMO. None of the stuff that happened would have gone so far downhill had there been mods.
-
You have a sick obsession with her.
:facepalm:
-
clear as mud to me... all this... :confused1:
Well, that's mudslinging and hoping something will stick for ya!
:laugh2:
-
I received another e-mail from Patricia McKeever in which it was vehemently denied that "CrofterLady" was Sharon Jane Ballatine.
She also ranted on against the Resistance, the SSPX, CathInfo... I skimmed a few words of it and promptly ignored it.
-
Very, very true, Zeitun. Tradical, you are going to have a hard time covering up for DNF, there are too many victims of her cyberstalking, bullying behavior, and gross mistreatment. And you participated on at least a few of the threads where she did some of her dirty work, so you can't be entirely oblivious. You're going to have to give that witch more than a coat of white-wash before you can trot her back out on the playing field. I sometimes thought you made a good point now and again, despite your egotistical smarminess. But now I am suspicious of the company you keep, and your ulterior motive in defending such people as DNF/Sharon J, Ballentine. So, dance off into the sunset with your two-headed, two-faced buddy, who will undoubtedly be seeping back up through the drains of Trad-dom as soon as she has a new nose-job and alias.
This is interesting - I simply stated what I was aware of.
Regarding the 'company you keep' - that could be said equally about the denizens of this forum.
Also, your extension of 'defending Ballentine' is unwarranted.
As far as dance off in the sunset - why?
God Bless!
-
Just wanted to say God bless!
-
Just wanted to say God bless!
Thank you!
-
Just wanted to say God bless!
:laugh1:
I'll make an addition to this, and qualify it. God bless YOU!
-
This is interesting - I simply stated what I was aware of.
Then you were either misled or blind or silently approving. Your defense of She-Devil-Harpy on I(diocy)A(ll the Time) defines your support of her actions. Simply stated, you knew.
Regarding the 'company you keep' - that could be said equally about the denizens of this forum.
Tell us all again, why are you here?
As far as dance off in the sunset - why?
Because "off in the sunset" means the same as "into the sunset," which means a conclusion or an end. Since you're too dense to get the hint, it means we want you gone or nonexistent on this forum.
-
I received another e-mail from Patricia McKeever in which it was vehemently denied that "CrofterLady" was Sharon Jane Ballatine.
She also ranted on against the Resistance, the SSPX, CathInfo... I skimmed a few words of it and promptly ignored it.
Ballantyne Family History
http://thegilmours.wordpress.com/history-of-our-family-names/ballantyne/
Ballantyne Says:
October 18, 2011 at 10:17 pm
the name Ballantyne has a gaelic root BAILE AN DEADHAIN meaning THE FARM IN THE VALLEY. There are many places in Scotland which bear the name Bellandean or something of a similar spelling, and they are all farmsteads of some kind . As a Border Ballantyne, I would like to point out that BORDERERS ARE NOT CL:ANSMEN. This is something found in the Highlands. It is a common mistake made by those of Scots descent that we must be of a clan, but we are not. There are so many versions of where Ballantynes come from and who are the chiefs etc and it’s mostly made up because no one knows. However, given the translation it is possible that this is a name given to peasant farmers, or crofters, the.sept is usually some poor distant relation and in this instance you give, they were probably the crofters. Gaelic incidentally was not a language confined to the Highlands but spoken widely – mainly welsh celtic in the Borders pre1000 AD. There was also movement through the Black Douglas and the Bruce of men and families between the Borders and the West Coast – inner Hebrides during the 13/14th centuries through thier struggle against the Stuarts, so not Campbell men and not Stuart men either. – I know my roots are from Bellendean between Hawick and Selkirk – in 450 years we only moved about 20 miles away as the crowflies so not a huge migration. According to my late great aunt born in 1906, her grandfather used to say that ‘we were Watty’s men before he was a Duke…..’ clearly we were Reivers not highland clansmen. We wear the Hunting Scot because we were Watty Scott of Buccleuch’s men. I think you will find that there is an enormous difference between highland history and Border History. May I recommend a book called the Steel Bonnets for those whose roots are in the Borders. Borderers were attacked on both sides – by the highland clansmen from the north and the English from the South. Major Bellenden is a poem by Scot – have a look for it if you have the time – it celebrates a Border Ballantyne..Frankly I might as well be called English if I’m going to be referred to as a clansman!!!
You will also note a "Sharon" posts on that page but it's probably a coincidence.
-
I received another e-mail from Patricia McKeever in which it was vehemently denied that "CrofterLady" was Sharon Jane Ballatine.
She also ranted on against the Resistance, the SSPX, CathInfo... I skimmed a few words of it and promptly ignored it.
Ballantyne Family History
http://thegilmours.wordpress.com/history-of-our-family-names/ballantyne/
Ballantyne Says:
October 18, 2011 at 10:17 pm
the name Ballantyne has a gaelic root BAILE AN DEADHAIN meaning THE FARM IN THE VALLEY. There are many places in Scotland which bear the name Bellandean or something of a similar spelling, and they are all farmsteads of some kind . As a Border Ballantyne, I would like to point out that BORDERERS ARE NOT CL:ANSMEN. This is something found in the Highlands. It is a common mistake made by those of Scots descent that we must be of a clan, but we are not. There are so many versions of where Ballantynes come from and who are the chiefs etc and it’s mostly made up because no one knows. However, given the translation it is possible that this is a name given to peasant farmers, or crofters, the.sept is usually some poor distant relation and in this instance you give, they were probably the crofters. Gaelic incidentally was not a language confined to the Highlands but spoken widely – mainly welsh celtic in the Borders pre1000 AD. There was also movement through the Black Douglas and the Bruce of men and families between the Borders and the West Coast – inner Hebrides during the 13/14th centuries through thier struggle against the Stuarts, so not Campbell men and not Stuart men either. – I know my roots are from Bellendean between Hawick and Selkirk – in 450 years we only moved about 20 miles away as the crowflies so not a huge migration. According to my late great aunt born in 1906, her grandfather used to say that ‘we were Watty’s men before he was a Duke…..’ clearly we were Reivers not highland clansmen. We wear the Hunting Scot because we were Watty Scott of Buccleuch’s men. I think you will find that there is an enormous difference between highland history and Border History. May I recommend a book called the Steel Bonnets for those whose roots are in the Borders. Borderers were attacked on both sides – by the highland clansmen from the north and the English from the South. Major Bellenden is a poem by Scot – have a look for it if you have the time – it celebrates a Border Ballantyne..Frankly I might as well be called English if I’m going to be referred to as a clansman!!!
You will also note a "Sharon" posts on that page but it's probably a coincidence.
It's probably a coincidence. And it's probably another coincidence that this same person, proud of her Scottish heritage, posted on the Catholic Truth Scotland blog. I wonder if it's the same person as ’spiritustempore’? Nah....
-
To be honest, the politcs of tradition in England and Scotland is rather small beer. One may conclude that tradition no longer exists in the UK, so fearful Catholics are of being considered 'extremist', 'schismatic', 'anti-semitic' or at odds with life in the mainstream. It could be they have a acquired a 'minority mentality' over the years and are so keen to fit in and easily turn on those who demur.
The site called Catholic Truth Scotland tries to corral the few trads into being loyal subjects of the hierarchy. It is not alone here; much of the Latin Mass crowd have been so herded and are content with what they have. The 'minority mentality' at work! Anyone upsetting this ring-fencing, like Bp. W, hardline trads, Fr. Kramer, etc., has to be suppressed!
-
Matthew:
I received another e-mail from Patricia McKeever in which it was vehemently denied that "CrofterLady" was Sharon Jane Ballatine.
Who cares a damn, Matthew? BTW, just a word to the wise: If you want this forum not to turn completely to crud, keep the likes of Tradical off of it. :pop:
-
So glad Wessex, Hollingsworth and Skunkwerksspx are back to contributing. Those are the people, personally, I like hearing from, versus some of the rejects from IA. (I mean reject, as in people that can't post there anymore due to the site being down, by the way.)
-
Parentsfor:
So glad Wessex, Hollingsworth and Skunkwerksspx are back to contributing. Those are the people, personally, I like hearing from, versus some of the rejects from IA. (I mean reject, as in people that can't post there anymore due to the site being down, by the way.)
Thank you for the compliment. But I think that a number of Cathinfo forum members may be holding their noses. :laugh1:
-
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/italians-1911.jpg)
Matthew will surely welcome the veteran Resistance from IA.
However, he's tasked to tighten up his forum's "Ellis island" checkpoint.
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
.
I addition, CI Resistance veterans are immigrating to other forums.
-
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/immigration/italians-1911.jpg)
Matthew will surely welcome the veteran Resistance from IA.
However, he's tasked to tighten up his forum's "Ellis island" checkpoint.
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
.
I addition, CI Resistance veterans are immigrating to other forums.
That's a good likeness of Matthew. :drillsergeant:
-
I wonder if people here can recognise their ancestors from Naples and Limerick. What happened to the women?
-
wer'nt they segregated, at ellis island?
-
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
This is hardly the case. The one post that 'sank' IA (in reality Patricius or the software drained the water from the bath tub by pulling the plug) was by a virulent resistor.
Furthermore, the questions about k-gate etc are linked to the 'resistors' and their arguments.
So, if anyone is responsible for the problems encountered by Ignis Ardens, it is the resistors.
God Bless!!!
-
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
This is hardly the case. The one post that 'sank' IA (in reality Patricius or the software drained the water from the bath tub by pulling the plug) was by a virulent resistor.
Furthermore, the questions about k-gate etc are linked to the 'resistors' and their arguments.
So, if anyone is responsible for the problems encountered by Ignis Ardens, it is the resistors.
God Bless!!!
Has anyone made you aware that bearing False Witness is sinful?
-
Do you really think that software that blocked me from posting the name of English author Charles Dickens on IA wouldn't block out the profanities in question without collapsing the the site? I also remember people posting the phrase "stop *itching", and "don't be *itchy" and a few forms of the ever popular a**. And those are just the ones I know of. I think you seem desperate somehow to establish this still unproven software meltdown. Why is it evidently so important to you that that be the case?
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
This is hardly the case. The one post that 'sank' IA (in reality Patricius or the software drained the water from the bath tub by pulling the plug) was by a virulent resistor.
Furthermore, the questions about k-gate etc are linked to the 'resistors' and their arguments.
So, if anyone is responsible for the problems encountered by Ignis Ardens, it is the resistors.
God Bless!!!
-
Do you really think that software that blocked me from posting the name of English author Charles ####ens on IA wouldn't block out the profanities in question without collapsing the the site? I also remember people posting the phrase "stop *itching", and "don't be *itchy" and a few forms of the ever popular a**. And those are just the ones I know of. I think you seem desperate somehow to establish this still unproven software meltdown. Why is it evidently so important to you that that be the case?
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
This is hardly the case. The one post that 'sank' IA (in reality Patricius or the software drained the water from the bath tub by pulling the plug) was by a virulent resistor.
Furthermore, the questions about k-gate etc are linked to the 'resistors' and their arguments.
So, if anyone is responsible for the problems encountered by Ignis Ardens, it is the resistors.
God Bless!!!
Nothing of the sort - as I noted earlier I made my posting (and there was nothing in it to trigger such a reaction automatically) and then a short while later <boom> the site was offline.
My assumptions were that:
1. The original poster lost it completely and was explicit.
2. Patricius, being in Ireland was asleep.
3. The forum software reached some limit and took the site offline.
It is quite possible that assumption #2 was faulty and Patricius has been watching the site and had just had enough.
Patricius had been notably absent for months from the forum, leading me to speculate the resulting offline condition as a result of a bot intervention.
If I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. If it wasn't an automatic software event, then perhaps Patricius was up early one morning and decided to check the forum - found the argument and in disgust pulled the plug.
Either option is viable, and I don't have the time to delve into the settings of the IA forum to investigate further in order to rule out a programmed response.
God bless!!!
-
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
This is hardly the case. The one post that 'sank' IA (in reality Patricius or the software drained the water from the bath tub by pulling the plug) was by a virulent resistor.
Furthermore, the questions about k-gate etc are linked to the 'resistors' and their arguments.
So, if anyone is responsible for the problems encountered by Ignis Ardens, it is the resistors.
God Bless!!!
Has anyone made you aware that bearing False Witness is sinful?
Oh yes, I have been made aware of it - although if you believe I have done so above - I don't think you understand what it means to bear false witness.
I have also noted that a number of 'resistors' in their fervor has trespassed that and a number of other commandments with great regularity.
This doesn't even begin to delve into their doctrinal aberrations.
God Bless!!!
-
Matthew, I warn you again: Get rid of Tradical or you're in for endless sophistry and rhetorical nonsense. There is nobody like him who can move a thread from the sublime to the ridiculous, and do it very quickly. I don't care how you react to me. I don't care anything about being banned. I don't care if Cathinfo folds tomorrow. I'm just telling you what a Tradical brings to an otherwise pretty good discussion forum thus far. :whistleblower:
-
Don't be afraid, Hollingsworth. I have only seen Tradical behave as a Catholic gentleman, despite being constantly baited.
Since you say you do not care if Cathinfo folds tomorrow, one has to wonder why you would bother backbiting in this instance.
-
Patricius opened the floodgates to the Accordistas and they sank IA.
This is hardly the case. The one post that 'sank' IA (in reality Patricius or the software drained the water from the bath tub by pulling the plug) was by a virulent resistor.
Furthermore, the questions about k-gate etc are linked to the 'resistors' and their arguments.
So, if anyone is responsible for the problems encountered by Ignis Ardens, it is the resistors.
God Bless!!!
Oh yes, I have been made aware of it - although if you believe I have done so above - I don't think you understand what it means to bear false witness.
I have also noted that a number of 'resistors' in their fervor has trespassed that and a number of other commandments with great regularity.
This doesn't even begin to delve into their doctrinal aberrations.
Does anyone else notice a pattern here? Do you see on which side of the fence this fellow stands?
This doesn't even begin to delve into their doctrinal aberrations
And given the chance, delve he will. Into their "doctrinal errors" and all of yours as well. That is what he is here to do.
-
Matthew, I warn you again: Get rid of Tradical or you're in for endless sophistry and rhetorical nonsense. There is nobody like him who can move a thread from the sublime to the ridiculous, and do it very quickly. I don't care how you react to me. I don't care anything about being banned. I don't care if Cathinfo folds tomorrow. I'm just telling you what a Tradical brings to an otherwise pretty good discussion forum thus far. :whistleblower:
I fail to understand why you are so afraid of me.
God bless and keep you!!!
-
Don't be afraid, Hollingsworth. I have only seen Tradical behave as a Catholic gentleman, despite being constantly baited.
Since you say you do not care if Cathinfo folds tomorrow, one has to wonder why you would bother backbiting in this instance.
Hollingsworth is absolutely correct in his assessment, and he made no comments as to any gentlemanly deficiency, but rather to antics and behavior which undermines honest discussion and the forums where this might occur.
So, there is not element of backbiting, only the wisdom of a warning.
-
"... Does anyone else notice a pattern here? Do you see on which side of the fence this fellow stands? ..."
Many think they 'know' where I stand.
What they seem to fail to realize is that I stand upon Church teaching in my arguments.
This truth is somewhat uncomfortable for some because it challenges their preconceived notions about the Church and Her teaching.
Plain and simple.
Thanks to Bishops Williamson and Fellay this is something that I have made some progress in overcoming.
As Bishop Williamson often said: Think!
It all started when I heard Bishop Fellay say something that Pope Benedict XVI had said a month or so earlier. When the Pope had said it, I assumed that he was saying something wrong, and I was confused with Bishop Fellay made the same statement.
This caused to me think, and instead of mindlessly reacting, I studied the matter. It wasn't long before I found the Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay had been quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent - almost word for word.
Of course, now Hollingsworth will ask for a reference to the quote. I am afraid that in this case I can no longer do so as it was in 2009/10 and I can no longer recall it.
What I do know is that I realized that I had developed a number of prejudices. As I studied Church teaching I realized that they (prejudices) were narrowing my perception of this crisis in the Church. As a consequence of this narrowed perception, my ability to develop options to respond to this crisis was limited.
This is bad. If you have a smaller perception of a battle field than your enemy, he can out maneuver you. In the air force they call it target fixation. The one with the fixation ends up a lawn dart, called a maneuvering kill.
Perhaps this is why Hollingsworth is afraid of me. What I post does not agree with his 'world view' and the fact that I draw my conclusions from Church Teaching makes him uncomfortable and afraid that he might be wrong.
So, yes, I can guarantee that I am not on the side of the resistors.
God Bless!
-
J. Paul:
Hollingsworth is absolutely correct in his assessment, and he made no comments as to any gentlemanly deficiency, but rather to antics and behavior which undermines honest discussion and the forums where this might occur.
So, there is not element of backbiting, only the wisdom of a warning.
This thread fell apart pages ago. Figuratively, it lies in meaningless, senseless pieces on the ground. Tradical will simply grind those pieces to fine powder. Thanks, J. Paul. You obviously know something about Tradical's MO. I'm just trying to spare Matthew and Cathinfo from future headaches with him. There is nobody quite like Tradical who can turn a topic into tasteless mash quite as effectively as he can.
-
J. Paul: Hollingsworth is absolutely correct in his assessment, and he made no comments as to any gentlemanly deficiency, but rather to antics and behavior which undermines honest discussion and the forums where this might occur.
So, there is not element of backbiting, only the wisdom of a warning.
This thread fell apart pages ago. Figuratively, it lies in meaningless, senseless pieces on the ground. Tradical will simply grind those pieces to fine powder. Thanks, J. Paul. You obviously know something about Tradical's MO. I'm just trying to spare Matthew and Cathinfo from future headaches with him. There is nobody quite like Tradical who can turn a topic into tasteless mash quite as effectively as he can.
You are blaming me for the downward spiral of this thread?
I assume that you believe that I am responsible for the 'offline' status of Ignis Ardens ...
Wow, I didn't think that I was that powerful.
God bless!
-
I assume that you believe that I am responsible for the 'offline' status of Ignis Ardens ...
Wow, I didn't think that I was that powerful.
God bless!
Several people worked together to shut that site down. I know you weren't one of them. Deo gratias.
-
I assume that you believe that I am responsible for the 'offline' status of Ignis Ardens ...
Wow, I didn't think that I was that powerful.
God bless!
Several people worked together to shut that site down. I know you weren't one of them. Deo gratias.
Thank you.
God Bless!
-
This thread is starting to develop signs of IA's Disease.
BTW, good to see you again, hollingsworth.
-
Miserere:
This thread is starting to develop signs of IA's Disease.
BTW, good to see you again, hollingsworth.
Exactly! The IA disease is setting in. 49 pages of this insane thread prove it to my satisfaction. The infection can only spread, and Tradical-like viruses, allowed to travel freely about Cathinfo, will produce exactly the same results in the end. :whistleblower:
-
Many think they 'know' where I stand.
What they seem to fail to realize is that I stand upon Church teaching in my arguments.
This truth is somewhat uncomfortable for some because it challenges their preconceived notions about the Church and Her teaching.
What you seem to be standing on is your own pomposity!
-
Matthew, I warn you again: Get rid of Tradical or you're in for endless sophistry and rhetorical nonsense. There is nobody like him who can move a thread from the sublime to the ridiculous, and do it very quickly. I don't care how you react to me. I don't care anything about being banned. I don't care if Cathinfo folds tomorrow. I'm just telling you what a Tradical brings to an otherwise pretty good discussion forum thus far. :whistleblower:
I fail to understand why you are so afraid of me.
God bless and keep you!!!
NO ONE is afraid of you, Tardical. We don't like you. That's all. If you question why, is like this: Your home base of Idiot Ardens is flushed down the toilet, you find yourself flailing like some '50's housewife with a burning casserole, so you decide to leech onto CathInfo. Yes, leech is the appropriate word. You slither here and your first course of action is to defend someone who has been outed - outed without a shadow of a doubt and with much evidence, evidence that you willingly put your head into the sand (or elsewhere) when confronted with - as a paid shill with a feminist agenda to undermine the efforts of +Williamson and paint his supporters as extremists. Do you seriously think that would endear you to anyone? And you do it with what you think is humility and a velvet touch, which is the mask you hide behind. All the while, desperately trying to establish a foothold here in order to belch your pro+Fellay oinking points while painting yourself as being 'misunderstood'. Much of like what you did on IA. Thank God that others here have a memory that goes beyond two weeks and who see you for what you really want to do.
-
Many think they 'know' where I stand.
What they seem to fail to realize is that I stand upon Church teaching in my arguments.
This truth is somewhat uncomfortable for some because it challenges their preconceived notions about the Church and Her teaching.
What you seem to be standing on is your own pomposity!
People, please note that Tardical does NOT mention that the Church teachings he stands on are those of the Church of Fellay.
-
I assume that you believe that I am responsible for the 'offline' status of Ignis Ardens ...
Wow, I didn't think that I was that powerful.
God bless!
Several people worked together to shut that site down. I know you weren't one of them. Deo gratias.
Thank you.
God Bless!
:roll-laugh2:
Trad, you completely missed the point.
-
Miserere: This thread is starting to develop signs of IA's Disease.
BTW, good to see you again, hollingsworth.
Exactly! The IA disease is setting in. 49 pages of this insane thread prove it to my satisfaction. The infection can only spread, and Tradical-like viruses, allowed to travel freely about Cathinfo, will produce exactly the same results in the end. :whistleblower:
In the real world, viruses and infections shut down coffee shops.
-
Many think they 'know' where I stand.
What they seem to fail to realize is that I stand upon Church teaching in my arguments.
This truth is somewhat uncomfortable for some because it challenges their preconceived notions about the Church and Her teaching.
What you seem to be standing on is your own pomposity!
I have been told that I sound pompous before - usually on Ignis Ardens (RIP).
However, setting aside the ad hominem attacks that will follow, I present a short thesis:
1. The Pope is the visible head of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ.
2. Pope Benedict XVI, was the Pope.
3. If the Pope wants a religious (priest, monk, bishop, nun) etc to do something that is not a sin - such as accepting a canonical regularization within the Church, which that Pope was the visible head of then:
4. To refuse to do so:
4a. Is an act of sinful disobedience.
4b. Is a refusal of submission to the Pope and could be construed as an act of schism.
This is the situation that Bishop Fellay found himself in last year.
( I think I can predict the objections that will now be raised - perhaps someone will surprise me ... )
For those of you who believe that the 'conciliar Church' is something more than merely a 'movement' that has infested the Mystical Body of Christ - you will not understand this but I will try to explain it for you.
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) - Ott
The Church founded by Christ is an extemal visible commonwealth. (Sent. certa.) - Ott
The visibility of the Church is tied to the visible hierarchy - including the Pope. (First Vatican Council)
If the Church, of which Pope Francis is the visible head, is not the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic Church ... then I ask you this question:
Where is the Church?
Try to answer this without violating any of the dogmas of the Church describing how the Church is visible, united to its visible head, indefectible and infallible (as She understands it).
For the sedevacantists who will now leap from the shadows (if they follow form as on Ignis Ardens):
Dogmatic Fact: When a Pope is recognized by the hierarchy as the Pope after an election - it is infallible. This is tied to the indefectibility of the Church.
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.
I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.
or perhaps something more recent:
I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.
Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.
May God bless all who read these words!
-
Tradical, will you provide a real-life historical example of what you would consider an 'unambiguous declaration of heresy?' A quote, please.
-
Many think they 'know' where I stand.
What they seem to fail to realize is that I stand upon Church teaching in my arguments.
This truth is somewhat uncomfortable for some because it challenges their preconceived notions about the Church and Her teaching.
What you seem to be standing on is your own pomposity!
I have been told that I sound pompous before - usually on Ignis Ardens (RIP).
However, setting aside the ad hominem attacks that will follow, I present a short thesis:
1. The Pope is the visible head of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ.
2. Pope Benedict XVI, was the Pope.
3. If the Pope wants a religious (priest, monk, bishop, nun) etc to do something that is not a sin - such as accepting a canonical regularization within the Church, which that Pope was the visible head of then:
4. To refuse to do so:
4a. Is an act of sinful disobedience.
4b. Is a refusal of submission to the Pope and could be construed as an act of schism.
This is the situation that Bishop Fellay found himself in last year.
( I think I can predict the objections that will now be raised - perhaps someone will surprise me ... )
For those of you who believe that the 'conciliar Church' is something more than merely a 'movement' that has infested the Mystical Body of Christ - you will not understand this but I will try to explain it for you.
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) - Ott
The Church founded by Christ is an extemal visible commonwealth. (Sent. certa.) - Ott
The visibility of the Church is tied to the visible hierarchy - including the Pope. (First Vatican Council)
If the Church, of which Pope Francis is the visible head, is not the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic Church ... then I ask you this question:
Where is the Church?
Try to answer this without violating any of the dogmas of the Church describing how the Church is visible, united to its visible head, indefectible and infallible (as She understands it).
For the sedevacantists who will now leap from the shadows (if they follow form as on Ignis Ardens):
Dogmatic Fact: When a Pope is recognized by the hierarchy as the Pope after an election - it is infallible. This is tied to the indefectibility of the Church.
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.
I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.
or perhaps something more recent:
I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.
Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.
May God bless all who read these words!
Excellent work!!!
Can you give an explanation of the following:
In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian the diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist what interferes with their faith… If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey… It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal church… I am not of that religion, I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion. Christians are divided… priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope. Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation, it is impossible to avoid a choice.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”)
-
Tradical - Christ himself called the very man he had picked to be the first Pope, Satan. He said, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a scandal unto me, because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."
He was equally rough on the scribes & Pharisees, calling them blind guides, whited sepulchres, serpents, generation of vipers and a few other choice words.
And then St. Paul left us this: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
The Pope is below an angel.
We can not follow ANYONE who preaches a different gospel than what Christ preached.
Where will the Antichrist be? He won't be in the false church. He will be in the true church - pretending he is Christ. He will be able to deceive even the elect. The true church will be few in numbers and will have stuck to the gospel and the church that Christ founded.
We don't know the future. PRAY MUCH.
-
Bp. Sanborn's/Fr. Cekada's radio discussion last night on True Restoration (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2013/09/13/true-restoration-xxviii-all-dogs-go-to-heaven) covers the latest Roman farce and ridicules any idea that what you have there is the Church in action. An old structure housing a collection of thieves and sociopaths just about describes the place. They conspire to leech on the human heart and spirit using the sickness of conciliarism as their main instrument.
I am not surprised that we encounter the sudden appearance of people like this Sharon woman to frighten away critics of the status quo. Whether she was planted by Menzingen's outside agencies to secure the GB district or was part of another mainstream assault on Lefebvrism in general by journalists like Damian Thompson, the message here is not to expect anything other from a vested interest. The tactics of groupies are rather different. They invest a lot in blindly following a changing position and are expert in the art of denial.
-
Tradical, will you provide a real-life historical example of what you would consider an 'unambiguous declaration of heresy?' A quote, please.
Of a Pope?
Can you give an explanation of the following:
In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian the diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist what interferes with their faith… If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey… It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal church… I am not of that religion, I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion. Christians are divided… priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope. Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation, it is impossible to avoid a choice.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”)
What don't you understand?
Is it the term religion vs Church?
Tradical - Christ himself called the very man he had picked to be the first Pope, Satan. He said, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a scandal unto me, because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."
...
We can not follow ANYONE who preaches a different gospel than what Christ preached.
...
Sorry Thorn, I fail to see how this alters adherence to the principles and doctrine noted above.
Bp. Sanborn's/Fr. Cekada's radio discussion last night on True Restoration covers the latest Roman farce and ridicules any idea that what you have there is the Church in action. An old structure housing a collection of thieves and sociopaths just about describes the place. They conspire to leech on the human heart and spirit using the sickness of conciliarism as their main instrument.
Wessex - then I ask you: Where is the Church?
Answer this in a logically consistent fashion without violating the aforesaid doctrine/dogmas of the Church and I will be seriously impressed.
God bless all and thank you!!!
-
Consistent? you want consistent? You're a consistent, obstinate Fellay-bot...eventually, hopefully, your Fellay-bot programming will break down and you can be a real trad again....but I won't discuss anything with a Fellayite troll especially when we don't know your name and where your smarmy little self attends Mass...
-
Perhaps I can be of some assistance by pointing to someone who has a wealth more knowledge of things than I do. Here, Tradical, go read THIS (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Chiesa-Viva-worth-reading), and then come back and ask again, where the Church is.
It would be well worth your time to see certain things in there that outline the agenda of the Freemasons, and how they've been "successful beyond their wildest imaginings" with their agenda.
Google translate isn't the best tool, but it did enough. Currently, this publication is being translated from Italian into English by people who know both languages, so we'll have a good concrete translation in the near future.
:detective:
-
good try Parents for Truth...but you just can't talk to a Fellay-bot...they'll just tell you what they sd in Jun 2012....their programming hasn't been updated and isn't likely to be..
-
Tradical, will you provide a real-life historical example of what you would consider an 'unambiguous declaration of heresy?' A quote, please.
Of a Pope?
Of anyone.
-
If you don't understand your enemy, you end up like +Fellay and company. I had a good teacher, former SSPX priest Father Hector Bolduc (RIP) that understood the enemy, and dealt with them the way the Church teaches us to deal with enemies of the Church. You simply go back to the way it was, UNCHANGED before the Crisis of Faith, and until THEY convert back to Catholicism, you continue to practice the Catholic Faith.
"The Church is where the FAITH is." -- Saint Athanasius
-
Perhaps I can be of some assistance by pointing to someone who has a wealth more knowledge of things than I do. Here, Tradical, go read THIS (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Chiesa-Viva-worth-reading), and then come back and ask again, where the Church is.
It would be well worth your time to see certain things in there that outline the agenda of the Freemasons, and how they've been "successful beyond their wildest imaginings" with their agenda.
Google translate isn't the best tool, but it did enough. Currently, this publication is being translated from Italian into English by people who know both languages, so we'll have a good concrete translation in the near future.
:detective:
Sorry but this doesn't negate the principles noted above - the Church is Visible and its visible foundation (for worse or better) is the reigning Pope.
Because:
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
So while the fear of the masonic/communist/modernist/lgbt infiltration may seem like a good reason to refuse a canonical regularization ...
it is still wrong.
If the conditions for obedience are present as noted - then there is an obligation to obey.
God Bless!
-
If you don't understand your enemy, you end up like +Fellay and company. I had a good teacher, former SSPX priest Father Hector Bolduc (RIP) that understood the enemy, and dealt with them the way the Church teaches us to deal with enemies of the Church. You simply go back to the way it was, UNCHANGED before the Crisis of Faith, and until THEY convert back to Catholicism, you continue to practice the Catholic Faith.
"The Church is where the FAITH is." -- Saint Athanasius
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
God Bless!
-
If you don't understand your enemy, you end up like +Fellay and company. I had a good teacher, former SSPX priest Father Hector Bolduc (RIP) that understood the enemy, and dealt with them the way the Church teaches us to deal with enemies of the Church. You simply go back to the way it was, UNCHANGED before the Crisis of Faith, and until THEY convert back to Catholicism, you continue to practice the Catholic Faith.
"The Church is where the FAITH is." -- Saint Athanasius
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
God Bless!
:dancing:
Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far?
God bless!!!
-
To Tradical. Maybe this will help.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/9rwA3k5CmBc?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
-
To Tradical. Maybe this will help.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/9rwA3k5CmBc?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Sorry, I have no access to youtube at this time.
What is in the vid?
God Bless!!!
-
If you don't understand your enemy, you end up like +Fellay and company. I had a good teacher, former SSPX priest Father Hector Bolduc (RIP) that understood the enemy, and dealt with them the way the Church teaches us to deal with enemies of the Church. You simply go back to the way it was, UNCHANGED before the Crisis of Faith, and until THEY convert back to Catholicism, you continue to practice the Catholic Faith.
"The Church is where the FAITH is." -- Saint Athanasius
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
God Bless!
:dancing:
Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far?
God bless!!!
For starters: No Catholic Priestesses.
God Bless!!!
PS. I'll be offline soon for about a week.
-
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.
I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.
or perhaps something more recent:
I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.
Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.
May God bless all who read these words!
Tradical, I'm still waiting for you to give a historical example of this unambiguous declaration of heresy. The Church has declared and excommunicated dozens upon dozens of heretics, so it shouldn't be difficult at all.
-
Tradical, will you provide a real-life historical example of what you would consider an 'unambiguous declaration of heresy?' A quote, please.
Of a Pope?
Of anyone.
Sorry I can't fetch for you now.
I'll keep an eye out for where Hans Kung explicitly denies the infallibility of the Pope - although I really don't want to read his garbage.
Barring that I'll have a look at Luther - with the same reluctance.
God Bless!
-
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
So while the fear of the masonic/communist/modernist/lgbt infiltration may seem like a good reason to refuse a canonical regularization ...
it is still wrong.
If the conditions for obedience are present as noted - then there is an obligation to obey.
God Bless!
So...it's wrong to not be regularized?
-
If you don't understand your enemy, you end up like +Fellay and company. I had a good teacher, former SSPX priest Father Hector Bolduc (RIP) that understood the enemy, and dealt with them the way the Church teaches us to deal with enemies of the Church. You simply go back to the way it was, UNCHANGED before the Crisis of Faith, and until THEY convert back to Catholicism, you continue to practice the Catholic Faith.
"The Church is where the FAITH is." -- Saint Athanasius
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
God Bless!
:dancing:
Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far?
God bless!!!
For starters: No Catholic Priestesses.
God Bless!!!
PS. I'll be offline soon for about a week.
:stare:
Uh.... :roll-laugh1: are you serious? DERP! We already knew that! It's called TRADITION, and there are MULTIPLE publications WHY a WOMAN CANNOT be a priest! For one thing, she's not a MAN and a woman cannot say "This is My Body" as Christ did.
Are you trying to suggest that we're denying the primacy of Peter by saying that he can't say that there can't be women priests?
:stare:
RIDICULOUS!
It's in Tradition. Who cares if Franny or RATzinger said it! WE ALREADY KNOW that's the truth! They didn't have to say it.
Like JPII said "there's no sex in hell." WELL DUH! Did we believe that before? Yeah? So how are we denying anything? These guys are not saying anything infallibly that we need to believe that hasn't already been said.
Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.
Also, if Franny had said there COULD be women priests, I'd imagine you'd go right along with him according to the way you stated that.
:stare:
By the way, the Youtube was the theme for Jeopardy, a quiz show that started running in the 1960s and still runs today in America. Sorry you couldn't hear it. The Americans here might find it comical.
-
NC Bill:
Consistent? you (Tradical) want consistent? You're a consistent, obstinate Fellay-bot...eventually, hopefully, your Fellay-bot programming will break down and you can be a real trad again....but I won't discuss anything with a Fellayite troll especially when we don't know your name and where your smarmy little self attends Mass...
I've tried to warn you all. Tradical, shameless, anonymous weasel that he is, nevertheless has the ability to commandeer an entire thread and to virtually take it over page after insane page until all active participants just finally collapse in exhaustion from the sheer absurdity of it all. This is what Tradical did on IA. This is what Matthew and some of you are allowing him to do on Cathinfo. Tradical has never revealed his real name, nor where his "smarmy little self" attends Mass. For that matter, I don't think that Tradical has ever revealed that he does attend a Mass anywhere.
Once we learned that that sspx church and all other sspx chapels are the property of Bp. Fellay, we stopped attending. I want nothing to do with churches of Bp. Fellay, or, for that matter, with priests belonging to Bp. Fellay. Again, Matthew, if you do not care for what I have written, you know exactly what you can do about it. I've simply told you all the truth, and what you can expect from the likes of Tradical now and into the indefinite future. As long as you allow him to play in the Cathinfo yard, he'll do so, and leave his malodorous piles all over it.
-
Consistent? you want consistent? You're a consistent, obstinate Fellay-bot...eventually, hopefully, your Fellay-bot programming will break down and you can be a real trad again....but I won't discuss anything with a Fellayite troll especially when we don't know your name and where your smarmy little self attends Mass...
Spewing personal hatred at someone you do not even know, who has never done anything to you...very confusing.
-
I wouldn't blame you after the way Fr Rostand and SSPX laity treated you. Perhaps stgobnait (who appears to be the sole Irish SSPX attendee on Cath Info)
There is an obvious hostility from the Irish towards Cath Info as many SSPX Trads post on Facebook but never Cath Info.
A question I would have to stgobnait or to the forum in general is are many that bothered about Sharon Jane Ballatine?
-
Im not :confused1: Happy now?
-
Im not :confused1: Happy now?
What I mean is how many in Ireland showed solidarity with hollingsworth? Several people in England did. Or is this your first time hearing of how hollingsworth was treated by Fr Rostand? It's old news for many though the way a man was waking up on the spot at the Bishop Williamson conference in June 2013 highlights perhaps people were not aware of key information. Some do not give a hoot regardless.
In summary a comrade was treated badly by Fr Rostand. Are you ignorant of this happening?
I allow for people not having access to the internet but SSPX folk in Ireland hardly are in the 1000s.
There is a thread where hollingsworth encounters Fr Rostand. Maybe you think it internet rumour?
-
I have great regard for hollingsworth but "offline" SSPX do not care. It's a mere opinion but I don't think your average joe in the chapel cares about Sharon Jane Ballatine. Whilst I accept to a degree "What could we do about Krahgate" there is a lack of radicalism in SSPX chapels. I'm a bit of a cynic.
Many in Ireland did support a man who aligned his organisation to Simon Wiesenthal Centre. This cannot be ignored.
Hollingsworth is for revisionism and solid on the Jєωs so I speculate now and perhaps more SSPX folk in Ireland are not anti Zionist?
-
Ithought you were asking me about sharon jane ballentine.... sorry bout that! :confused1:
-
Edited.
-
stgobnait,
Hollingsworth has what one calls principle and conviction.
-
John Grace:
I have great regard for hollingsworth but "offline" SSPX do not care.
I was certainly not aware that I even registered on your or anyone else's radar. But thanks for the kind words. I don't want anyone to think that I was abused by Fr. Rostand. He tried to set me up one time in a public meeting, but it came to nothing. I hold no grudge against him, nor do I hold one against the priest who obviously colluded with him. It might help immensely, however, if Fr. Rostand were relieved of his district superior duties here and sent back to France. He is a terrible lightweight.
-
John Grace: I have great regard for hollingsworth but "offline" SSPX do not care.
I was certainly not aware that I even registered on your or anyone else's radar. But thanks for the kind words. I don't want anyone to think that I was abused by Fr. Rostand. He tried to set me up one time in a public meeting, but it came to nothing. I hold no grudge against him, nor do I hold one against the priest who obviously colluded with him. It might help immensely, however, if Fr. Rostand were relieved of his district superior duties here and sent back to France. He is a terrible lightweight.
We have had all bad experiences with SSPX priests. I stated previously a priest no longer stationed in Ireland completely blanked me outside an SSPX chapel. I wasn't a regular at the chapel so wasn't priority.
At a pilgrimage at Knock and at the funeral of Deirdre Manifold again he ignored me.
I do accept what Clare on IA said about him but I was never too keen on him.
It differs to your experience though. I being blanked was because I was not a regular at the chapel. An outsider so to speak.
-
I do know him...fm the Menzingen party-line, mutual admiration society aka AngelQueen....the anonymous trolling Fellay-bot will drone on like a air conditioner void of freon with a broken fan.
-
Didn't tradical reveal on IA that he goes to the indult?
-
Tradical
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
Now this would also have to apply as well to a Pope who in defiance of the doctrinal condemnations of his predecessors, teaches and acts contrary to those same declarations, which must be seen to be commands in themselves that it is not permitted to hold such positions.
Such a one would have lost the Faith and this then must be applied to all of the conciliar Popes and which leaves the Church as having been ruled by men without Faith for sixty years.
God Bless!
-
Tradical
For starters: No Catholic Priestesses.
God Bless!!!
PS. I'll be offline soon for about a week
And you would equate that with not responding to a rumored unilateral regularization?
Leaving so soon?
God Bless!
-
Hollingsworth,
I've tried to warn you all. Tradical, shameless, anonymous weasel that he is, nevertheless has the ability to commandeer an entire thread and to virtually take it over page after insane page until all active participants just finally collapse in exhaustion from the sheer absurdity of it all. This is what Tradical did on IA.
As a voice of one crying in the wilderness........................again! :roll-laugh1:
-
Dogmatic Fact: When a Pope is recognized by the hierarchy as the Pope after an election - it is infallible. This is tied to the indefectibility of the Church.
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.
I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.
or perhaps something more recent:
I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.
Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.
May God bless all who read these words!
Seems to me "atheists who follow their consciences go to heaven" might well qualify as such.
-
Hollingsworth is right. People should resist replying to this constant 'obey the pope' mantra. The new SSPX is a backdoor device luring trads into conciliarism and is touted by those who really want the movement to collapse.
The Rome trads adhere to is not geographical or contemporary. And the visible Church resides wherever there is belief. To harbour lingering attachments to an apostate Rome is worthless sentiment or hedging one's bets. And that is before putting one's brain into gear and trying to explain why accommodating two religions makes any sense.
-
The excusing conservatives call it continuity; we call it contradiction.
-
Dogmatic Fact: When a Pope is recognized by the hierarchy as the Pope after an election - it is infallible. This is tied to the indefectibility of the Church.
Do the remaining members of the hierarchy accept Francis as Pope? Any faithful Catholic that accepts his claim, does so with reservations. If a Catholic does not accept a pope as the rule of Faith, then they are not accepting him.
-
Uh.... are you serious? DERP! We already knew that! It's called TRADITION, and there are MULTIPLE publications WHY a WOMAN CANNOT be a priest! For one thing, she's not a MAN and a woman cannot say "This is My Body" as Christ did.
Are you trying to suggest that we're denying the primacy of Peter by saying that he can't say that there can't be women priests?
That's interesting. Taking your assertion, one could conclude that Pope Pius IX did no need to declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Nor would Pius XII need to declare the dogma of the Assumption, since both of these dogma had strong ordinary and universal teaching to back up their acceptance by the Church.
For your betterment: That is why the Church has a living teaching authority (aka magisterium) not to be confused with a living tradition. To make clear what may not have been clear or contested.
You asked for a Law - I provided an example. If you don't like it ... that is your prerogative.
Now this part of your retort is particularly interesting:
Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.
If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith.
Now this would also have to apply as well to a Pope who in defiance of the doctrinal condemnations of his predecessors, teaches and acts contrary to those same declarations, which must be seen to be commands in themselves that it is not permitted to hold such positions.
Such a one would have lost the Faith and this then must be applied to all of the conciliar Popes and which leaves the Church as having been ruled by men without Faith for sixty years.
Well, now that is quite the logical jump that you've made. From a subordinate refusing submission to the Pope, to the Pope refusing submission to a Pope who is either dead (normal situation) or has abdicated (present position).
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one. Otherwise subsequent Pope's would not be able to condemn prior Popes inaction in the case of heresy spreading through the Church. Any non-infallible statement is as a consequence of not being infallible, by definition reformable.
So you assertion is simply non sequitur.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your response that was misunderstanding mine ... if so please clarify.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
So while the fear of the masonic/communist/modernist/lgbt infiltration may seem like a good reason to refuse a canonical regularization ...
it is still wrong.
If the conditions for obedience are present as noted - then there is an obligation to obey.
God Bless!
So...it's wrong to not be regularized?
If a Pope were to issue a command/request etc that did not involve sin - then yes the Pope would then have fulfilled the requirements and it would be wrong to not acquiesce to such a command.
Now if someone has an argument for why abiding by the Divine Constitution of the Church is immediately or proximately sinful (given the conditions noted by the SSPX), I would love to hear it.
Please don't just proof text Archbishop Lefebvre - I want a sound doctrinally based rationale for refusing a legitimate command from a reigning Vicar of Christ.
Hollingsworth is right. People should resist replying to this constant 'obey the pope' mantra. The new SSPX is a backdoor device luring trads into conciliarism and is touted by those who really want the movement to collapse.
The Rome trads adhere to is not geographical or contemporary. And the visible Church resides wherever there is belief. To harbour lingering attachments to an apostate Rome is worthless sentiment or hedging one's bets. And that is before putting one's brain into gear and trying to explain why accommodating two religions makes any sense.
Well, I hardly know where to start with this one, there are a number of things that are wrong with it.
"obey the pope mantra": It is a Catholic principle of obedience that one must obey a lawful superior in all things within their scope of authority. Sinful commands obviously fall outside of that scope of authority. This is called True Obedience.
"SSPX is a backdoor": As I understand it the fundamental issue between the resistance and the SSPX is twofold:
First, the SSPX believes that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and as such has Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over all Catholics as well as over heretics and schismatics.
Second, the SSPX believes that the visible Church (as understood by the Church) is the Church of which Pope Francis is the visible head.
As such the visible Church under the leadership of Pope Francis is the One Holy Roman Catholic Church. Of course now some will deny that the four marks are present in the Church lead by Pope Francis.
"the visible Church resides wherever there is belief":
This is an interesting an assertion as it is wrong.
The Eastern Orthodox (Schismatics) had the same belief at first when they separated from the Church. Were they still part of the visible Church? What caused them to be outside the Church?
The second aspect is that this strongly resembles the invisible Church because belief is internal - hence not visible. The visibility of the Church rests on the visible hierarchy - the foundation of which is the Pope (See Vatican I, Catechism of the Council of Trent).
"To harbour lingering attachments to an apostate Rome is worthless sentiment or hedging one's bets.": Well, given that it is dogma that the Church is indefectible, that there will be successors of Peter until the end of the world, that Pope Francis is the Pope (dogmatic fact), it is a safe bet that this assertion is wrong.
Dogmatic Fact: When a Pope is recognized by the hierarchy as the Pope after an election - it is infallible. This is tied to the indefectibility of the Church.
Do the remaining members of the hierarchy accept Francis as Pope? Any faithful Catholic that accepts his claim, does so with reservations. If a Catholic does not accept a pope as the rule of Faith, then they are not accepting him.
Based on the quoted theological text: The question of the valid election of a prelate to the Papacy is established as a dogmatic fact by the recognition of the elected candidate immediately after his election - not for months or years afterwards.
Sylvester Hunter - Outlines of Dogmatic Theology
The Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain ... it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith ... communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
...
affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the
simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time.
A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
This is an explicit of how a dogmatic fact is established upon the election of a new Pontiff and why it is so. Where does it say in the quoted text anything about the 'rule of faith'?
God Bless!
-
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.
WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?
-
Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm
Can't believe I'm citing this from 1976 :barf:, but it says what the Church has always believed in complete peace before regarding this issue.
Let me just give you a small excerpt.
A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.[7] It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed—especially in the canonical docuмents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.[8]
For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,[6] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.
6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.
7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.
So yes, Paul the sick made a statement on it in AAS already, and it's been WELL ESTABLISHED in Tradition that WOMEN CANNOT BE PRIESTS.
Read that closely: THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER HERSELF AUTHORIZED to admit women to priestly ordination.
It's not something the Church could even legitimately authorize. So it's redundant that JPII and Franny have said that there can't be, because the Church has already judged herself NOT AUTHORIZED to make such a concession.
-
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.
WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?
Now you know his whole purpose here.
-
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.
WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?
Yes, now you have it. That is his method of manipulation by which he hopes to place you within his semantic trap.
The more that one responds to him the more of this foolishness will issue forth.
And yes, a Pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline.
-
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.
WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?
Yes, now you have it. That is his method of manipulation by which he hopes to place you within his semantic trap.
The more that one responds to him the more of this foolishness will issue forth.
And yes, a Pope binds his successors in all but positive law and discipline.
Hilariously and famously, this is what not only the CONcilliar church tries to do, mindbending Quo Primum, taking it from something dogmatic and absolute, not needing to be interpreted, reducing it to something of discipline because of semantics like this, conveniently reducing the Mass to something that can be changed whenever, because Quo Primum was (get this) "part disciplinary and part dogmatic." (I have yet to be shown the distinction between what is, and what isn't yet.)
By the way, the Church teaches that something written infallibly (i.e. An Apostolic Bull) IS WHAT IT IS, and does not need further interpretation. If it says "in perpetuity," then that's exactly what it means.
It's absolutely a trap, and it's sad that tradical, and others *coughs* (Fr. Themann) are caught inside this same CONcilliar trap.
They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.
-
Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm
Can't believe I'm citing this from 1976 :barf:, but it says what the Church has always believed in complete peace before regarding this issue.
Let me just give you a small excerpt.
A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.[7] It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed—especially in the canonical docuмents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.[8]
For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,[6] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.
6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.
7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.
So yes, Paul the sick made a statement on it in AAS already, and it's been WELL ESTABLISHED in Tradition that WOMEN CANNOT BE PRIESTS.
Read that closely: THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER HERSELF AUTHORIZED to admit women to priestly ordination.
It's not something the Church could even legitimately authorize. So it's redundant that JPII and Franny have said that there can't be, because the Church has already judged herself NOT AUTHORIZED to make such a concession.
First, I am surprised that you were unable to find a reference of a Pope making the statement that did not meet your 55 year limit.
Second, you will note that the reference you provided was issued by a congregation and within your own arbitrary time limit.
Third, I didn't see anywhere something similar to this:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
Fundamentally, when it comes to the level of authority - a docuмent issued by a congregation - even if signed by the Pope - is not irreformable. The above statement however, at a brief glance, does appear to meet the criteria for just such a command.
Fourthly, I owe you an apology.
I misunderstood you question ("Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far? ") as concerning commands that were binding since the council. After re-reading your post I now understand that you meant a command as to which the Sedevacantists or Resistance are disobeying that would have them suffer the implications of my statement ("If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith. ").
The theoretical command that I had in mind was a reigning Pope commanding Bishop Fellay to accept a regularization without compromise. (I think I know where you'll go with that last phrase ...)
Anyway I apologize for misunderstanding your question.
God Bless!!!!
-
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.
I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.
or perhaps something more recent:
I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.
Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.
May God bless all who read these words!
Tradical, I'm still waiting for you to give a historical example of this unambiguous declaration of heresy. The Church has declared and excommunicated dozens upon dozens of heretics, so it shouldn't be difficult at all.
-
There is only one Pope at a time so one Pope cannot issue a lawful command to another one.
WRONG!
When a pope binds In Perpetuity, it means exactly that. - Forever: Kith, kin and successors alike.
Otherwise words have no meaning, and I'm starting to wonder if that isn't the case for you; e.g., that words are just a tool you use to manipulate people. Or maybe that's just the impression you're trying to give?
I suspected someone would miss construe the word 'command'. For example, a Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action. Where did I say anything about binding belief etc?
You also seem to have missed this part:
Otherwise subsequent Pope's would not be able to condemn prior Popes inaction in the case of heresy spreading through the Church. Any non-infallible statement is as a consequence of not being infallible, by definition reformable.
I think this answers your 'challenge' quite well.
Next time, think twice before you jump off the virtual cliff.
God Bless!
-
.
They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.
What did he teach you about Catholic Obedience?
God Bless!
-
Therefore, it is necessary to provide proof that the Popes denied a de fide truth of the Faith in a manner that requires no 'judgement' on your part.
I'll make it plainer for you by providing a simple example: I, Pope (insert name here) reject the dogma of the Assumption.
or perhaps something more recent:
I, Pope (insert name here) declare that women can be ordained as Catholic Priestesses.
Anything short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy will not suffice.
May God bless all who read these words!
Tradical, I'm still waiting for you to give a historical example of this unambiguous declaration of heresy. The Church has declared and excommunicated dozens upon dozens of heretics, so it shouldn't be difficult at all.
First, you need to be patient. I have not forgotten about your little request and if you as so anxious for it - go and look through the turbid writings of either Hans Kung or Martin Luther on your own.
Second, you seem to have be labouring under a misunderstanding of a heretic that has been 'declared' or judged heretical vs one that was simply manifest. If the Church has to go through and examine writings, the odds are that it wasn't manifest but more subtle.
God Bless!!!
-
Good point, sit tight while I go research and prove YOUR claim FOR you.
...
You claim that anything less than an unambiguous heresy (e.g., 'I, N, declare there will be womenpriests) will not suffice. Suffice to what? Presumably to resist him, whether in the fashion of the Resistance or the Sedevacantists.
I'm just wondering what unambiguous 'declarations of heresy' were made by the major heresiarchs (again, you have plenty to choose from) that justified the resistance of those Catholics who refused to follow them as they waited for Rome to definitively rule on the issue.
Or, perhaps had you lived then, you would kiss Luther's shoe?
-
Sufficienct for a Pope to be a manifest heretic and then to attempt to make use of the thoughts of St. Bellarmine et al.
Also my claim is not proved by anyone other than a Pope making the statement. As far as I know not one has since St. Bellarmine et al discussed the issue.
So ... good luck finding a Pope (btw I don't mean any of the 12 or 13 sede 'Popes').
What you need to find is the reference that I lost that backed up my affirmation.
With regards to 'resist' a Pope in such a situation - I don't know. What I do know is that the Pope's since V2 haven't made such statements and therefore it is 'simply', since the Pope is Pope, a matter of relying upon the principle of Obedience found in the Summa.
God Bless!
-
Give me one example of something that has been infallibly stated that the Catholic Church hasn't already pronounced as something that is required for belief in the last 55 years. You can't do it.
Before leaving off my example please provide the quotation in the magisterium where the Church (preferably a Pope directly not just a congregation) previous to BJP2 stated that Women could not ordained as a Catholic Priestess.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm
Can't believe I'm citing this from 1976 :barf:, but it says what the Church has always believed in complete peace before regarding this issue.
Let me just give you a small excerpt.
A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.[7] It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed—especially in the canonical docuмents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions—this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.[8]
For these reasons, in execution of a mandate received from the Holy Father and echoing the declaration which he himself made in his letter of 30 November 1975,[6] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination. The Sacred Congregation deems it opportune at the present juncture to explain this position of the Church. It is a position which will perhaps cause pain but whose positive value will become apparent in the long run, since it can be of help in deepening understanding of the respective roles of men and of women.
6. Cf. AAS 68 (1976), pp. 599-600; cf. ibid, pp. 600 601.
7. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus Haereses," 1, 13, 2: PG 7 580-581; ed Harvey, I, 114-122; Tertullian, "De Praescrip. Haeretic." 41, 5: CCL 1, p 221; Firmilian of Caesarea, in Saint Cyprian, "Epist.," 75: CSEL 3, pp. 817-818; Origen, "Fragmentum in 1 Cor." 74, in "Journal of Theological Studies" 10(1909), pp. 41-42; Saint Epiphanius, "Panarion" 49, 2-3; 78, 23; 79, 2-4; vol. 2, GCS 31, pp. 243-244; vol. 3, GCS 37, pp. 473, 477-479.
So yes, Paul the sick made a statement on it in AAS already, and it's been WELL ESTABLISHED in Tradition that WOMEN CANNOT BE PRIESTS.
Read that closely: THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER HERSELF AUTHORIZED to admit women to priestly ordination.
It's not something the Church could even legitimately authorize. So it's redundant that JPII and Franny have said that there can't be, because the Church has already judged herself NOT AUTHORIZED to make such a concession.
First, I am surprised that you were unable to find a reference of a Pope making the statement that did not meet your 55 year limit.
Second, you will note that the reference you provided was issued by a congregation and within your own arbitrary time limit.
Third, I didn't see anywhere something similar to this:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
Fundamentally, when it comes to the level of authority - a docuмent issued by a congregation - even if signed by the Pope - is not irreformable. The above statement however, at a brief glance, does appear to meet the criteria for just such a command.
Fourthly, I owe you an apology.
I misunderstood you question ("Pray tell, what "lawful commands" have been issued thus far? ") as concerning commands that were binding since the council. After re-reading your post I now understand that you meant a command as to which the Sedevacantists or Resistance are disobeying that would have them suffer the implications of my statement ("If a person, in their desire to hold onto the Faith, denies the primacy of Peter's successor and refuses submission to a lawful command because of this denial - then they have lost the Faith. ").
The theoretical command that I had in mind was a reigning Pope commanding Bishop Fellay to accept a regularization without compromise. (I think I know where you'll go with that last phrase ...)
Anyway I apologize for misunderstanding your question.
God Bless!!!!
You'll note that the letter you cited was also what I cited, the AAS of Paul the sick. Now, he's reiterating a position that was ALREADY HELD by the Church, and stated, once again, that the CHURCH had NO AUTHORITY, and NEITHER DOES HE, to make women priests. So that's a tautology, really.
"I can't do this because I have no authority to do it." Well, neither did his predecessors, and NEITHER do his successors. So really, what good did it do JPII to come out and say the exact same thing? We already KNEW by what the Fathers of the Church have stated on the matter that it wasn't possible. And by their own admission, the Church doesn't have the authority to make such a concession, as I said before. So... the citation I presented UPHELD already existing Church teaching on it. If Paul the sick didn't have the authority to make women priests, because the Church Herself didn't have authority to do it in the first place, then his statement, in reality, doesn't really matter at all. Neither his successors nor his predecessors could have made a statement to the contrary.
It should also be noted that "this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles."
THIS IS THE KEY. So that's all.
-
.
They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.
What did he teach you about Catholic Obedience?
God Bless!
:smile:
I'm glad you asked!
"We've had stupid popes in the past, and I'm sure we'll probably have some in the future. We have had terrible popes in the past that have made horrible mistakes. But we don't follow their mistakes!"
Take a listen to the sermon where he spells it out very neatly a week before his death.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/rZLc7OTdjuk?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
-
You'll note that the letter you cited was also what I cited, the AAS of Paul the sick. Now, he's reiterating a position that was ALREADY HELD by the Church, and stated, once again, that the CHURCH had NO AUTHORITY, and NEITHER DOES HE, to make women priests. So that's a tautology, really.
The letter I cited was BJP2 not Paul VI.
What I read was the Paul VI wrote a letter to the Anglicans, then had the congregation issue a docuмent.
This wasn't good enough for the extreme mods and it fell upon BJP2 to make a formal binding statement.
This is a clear difference in the levels of authority. As noted your argument could be used in criticizing the declaration of the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate conception. Both of these were generally held and could be considered binding under Universal and Ordinary. The Pope saw that it was necessary to make it formally binding.
Perhaps I'm missing something ...
God Bless!
-
Sufficienct for a Pope to be a manifest heretic and then to attempt to make use of the thoughts of St. Bellarmine et al.
Also my claim is not proved by anyone other than a Pope making the statement. As far as I know not one has since St. Bellarmine et al discussed the issue.
So ... good luck finding a Pope (btw I don't mean any of the 12 or 13 sede 'Popes').
What you need to find is the reference that I lost that backed up my affirmation.
With regards to 'resist' a Pope in such a situation - I don't know. What I do know is that the Pope's since V2 haven't made such statements and therefore it is 'simply', since the Pope is Pope, a matter of relying upon the principle of Obedience found in the Summa.
God Bless!
I'm assuming this is addressed to me.
You claimed that nothing short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy is sufficient to resist the pope. That is how I understood your statement, I have told you that I understood it this way, and you have not corrected my understanding, so we're settled that I understand you correctly.
Now you say that the only way to prove your statement is to provide an 'unambiguous heretical declaration' from a pope. And, I would gather that you argue there are no such statements. But I'm not asking for a statement from a pope. Any old statement will do. It doesn't have to be from a pope, as Catholics are obliged obedience to more than simply the pope. They are obliged obedience to any clergy with jurisdiction over them.
-
.
They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.
What did he teach you about Catholic Obedience?
God Bless!
:smile:
I'm glad you asked!
"We've had stupid popes in the past, and I'm sure we'll probably have some in the future. We have had terrible popes in the past that have made horrible mistakes. But we don't follow their mistakes!"
Take a listen to the sermon where he spells it out very neatly a week before his death.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/rZLc7OTdjuk?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Sorry, I don't have access to YT.
Secondly, we don't follow their mistakes does not mean that they aren't Pope, not does it mean that they can't issue lawful commands.
What he is stating appears to be in line with this:
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
So superiors need to be obeyed when they command something with the scope of their authority (sin obviously is not).
In the case that the Pope does issue such a command for the regularization of the SSPX - one that meets the criteria for obedience - then there is an obligation to obey.
This thesis put forth by Hollingsworth, Fr. Rua and Bishop Williamson contradicts the above principle.
Abandoning the reasoning of St. Thomas is not a good idea.
Can we trust Pope Francis - probably not as the Franciscans have found out. However, it is not a question of trust in the person in the position of authority. If the command is legitimate (meets the criteria) then the person commanded needs to place their trust in God (who knows the future) and obey.
Please note the key element: The command has to meet the criteria that it is not sinful or proximately sinful.
God bless!!!
-
You'll note that the letter you cited was also what I cited, the AAS of Paul the sick. Now, he's reiterating a position that was ALREADY HELD by the Church, and stated, once again, that the CHURCH had NO AUTHORITY, and NEITHER DOES HE, to make women priests. So that's a tautology, really.
The letter I cited was BJP2 not Paul VI.
What I read was the Paul VI wrote a letter to the Anglicans, then had the congregation issue a docuмent.
This wasn't good enough for the extreme mods and it fell upon BJP2 to make a formal binding statement.
This is a clear difference in the levels of authority. As noted your argument could be used in criticizing the declaration of the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate conception. Both of these were generally held and could be considered binding under Universal and Ordinary. The Pope saw that it was necessary to make it formally binding.
Perhaps I'm missing something ...
God Bless!
This wasn't a letter to the anglicans. Here's the direct link.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS%2068%20%5B1976%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf
Have fun translating it from Latin. It wasn't to the Anglicans, though. It was regarding evangelization. But he mentioned the women priests thing already, saying that the Church didn't have authority to allow women to be priests. Obviously, by Paul the sick saying this, he's saying that neither his predecessors, nor his successors have the authority to say anything differently than what has always been believed. So really it wasn't entirely necessary for him to say it since it simply, the Church COULD NOT allow it... neither BEFORE him, NOR after him.
-
I'm assuming this is addressed to me.
You claimed that nothing short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy is sufficient to resist the pope. That is how I understood your statement, I have told you that I understood it this way, and you have not corrected my understanding, so we're settled that I understand you correctly.
Now you say that the only way to prove your statement is to provide an 'unambiguous heretical declaration' from a pope. And, I would gather that you argue there are no such statements. But I'm not asking for a statement from a pope. Any old statement will do. It doesn't have to be from a pope, as Catholics are obliged obedience to more than simply the pope. They are obliged obedience to any clergy with jurisdiction over them.
Yes it was - I guess the label got lost.
The difference is that there is no one who can judge a Pope, you have no recourse.
In the event of a priest there is a recourse - the superior.
Before dealing with such a different case, do you agree with the principle stated as applied to a Pope?
God Bless!!!!
-
.
They can have it, I'm sticking with what I know. Fr. Bolduc taught us well.
What did he teach you about Catholic Obedience?
God Bless!
:smile:
I'm glad you asked!
"We've had stupid popes in the past, and I'm sure we'll probably have some in the future. We have had terrible popes in the past that have made horrible mistakes. But we don't follow their mistakes!"
Take a listen to the sermon where he spells it out very neatly a week before his death.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/rZLc7OTdjuk?feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Sorry, I don't have access to YT.
Secondly, we don't follow their mistakes does not mean that they aren't Pope, not does it mean that they can't issue lawful commands.
What he is stating appears to be in line with this:
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
So superiors need to be obeyed when they command something with the scope of their authority (sin obviously is not).
In the case that the Pope does issue such a command for the regularization of the SSPX - one that meets the criteria for obedience - then there is an obligation to obey.
This thesis put forth by Hollingsworth, Fr. Rua and Bishop Williamson contradicts the above principle.
Abandoning the reasoning of St. Thomas is not a good idea.
Can we trust Pope Francis - probably not as the Franciscans have found out. However, it is not a question of trust in the person in the position of authority. If the command is legitimate (meets the criteria) then the person commanded needs to place their trust in God (who knows the future) and obey.
Please note the key element: The command has to meet the criteria that it is not sinful or proximately sinful.
God bless!!!
The Vatican, giving them an option to a "personal prelature," was a "take it or leave it." That doesn't sound like a command to me. That sounds like, "Well this is what we're offering, and we reject your offer, so you're still not excommunicated, but you're not regularized." The Vatican rejected the offer that the SSPX put to Rome. So it wasn't a matter of obedience here. It was a matter of the Vatican rejecting what conditions the SSPX would go along with.
That doesn't sound absolute to me. Why would the SSPX want to be in COMMUNION with a bunch of people who reject very important elements of the Faith? Why would one want to share a space with the cafeteria variety of Catholics out there?
There are massive sins of omission going on here, that are leading to HUGE scandals. Why would an organization trying to maintain their faith, want to be lumped in with the "bad apples?"
I say what Father Bolduc taught us, which was STAY CATHOLIC and wait until Rome returns to the Faith! He had a good teacher in Archbishop Lefevbre.
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
-
I'm assuming this is addressed to me.
You claimed that nothing short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy is sufficient to resist the pope. That is how I understood your statement, I have told you that I understood it this way, and you have not corrected my understanding, so we're settled that I understand you correctly.
Now you say that the only way to prove your statement is to provide an 'unambiguous heretical declaration' from a pope. And, I would gather that you argue there are no such statements. But I'm not asking for a statement from a pope. Any old statement will do. It doesn't have to be from a pope, as Catholics are obliged obedience to more than simply the pope. They are obliged obedience to any clergy with jurisdiction over them.
Yes it was - I guess the label got lost.
The difference is that there is no one who can judge a Pope, you have no recourse.
In the event of a priest there is a recourse - the superior.
Before dealing with such a different case, do you agree with the principle stated as applied to a Pope?
God Bless!!!!
A future pope can judge a previous pope.
But you are trying to divert the issue again. You seem to have plenty of time to respond to everyone, yet you still haven't provided a single historical example of this 'unambiguous heresy' that you've been referring to.
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
-
I'm assuming this is addressed to me.
You claimed that nothing short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy is sufficient to resist the pope. That is how I understood your statement, I have told you that I understood it this way, and you have not corrected my understanding, so we're settled that I understand you correctly.
Now you say that the only way to prove your statement is to provide an 'unambiguous heretical declaration' from a pope. And, I would gather that you argue there are no such statements. But I'm not asking for a statement from a pope. Any old statement will do. It doesn't have to be from a pope, as Catholics are obliged obedience to more than simply the pope. They are obliged obedience to any clergy with jurisdiction over them.
Yes it was - I guess the label got lost.
The difference is that there is no one who can judge a Pope, you have no recourse.
In the event of a priest there is a recourse - the superior.
Before dealing with such a different case, do you agree with the principle stated as applied to a Pope?
God Bless!!!!
A future pope can judge a previous pope.
But you are trying to divert the issue again. You seem to have plenty of time to respond to everyone, yet you still haven't provided a single historical example of this 'unambiguous heresy' that you've been referring to.
For clarity: There is no one who can judge a Pope during his reign.
Do you agree with the principle as applied to a Pope?
Regarding providing an example: I believe that be irrelevant. As noted when I have a chance to look and if I come across such a manifestly heretical statement - I shall - but I do not work on your time table.
God Bless!!!
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Here is a good question.
If the Church has named Pope John Paul II as a Blessed - then why not use it?
Of course if you believe that the Church has defected and therefore Christ was not God - well then ... I guess your perspective makes sense.
Of course, using Blessed with Pope John Paul II offensive to some, but in reality it is what it is.
The real test will be when they attempt to canonize him - then life will get interesting if God allows this to occur. - Lots of ramifications will flow from such an action (many of which I am confident will be irrational).
God Bless and guide you ultrarigorist!!!!
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Yep and still if you believe that the Church in union with Pope Francis is the Church of Christ - you need to pick you theological battles very carefully.
I wonder if the sspx lists Pope John Paul II as Blessed ...
pause:
Nope nothing pops up on a simple google search.
God Bless!!!
-
I'm assuming this is addressed to me.
You claimed that nothing short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy is sufficient to resist the pope. That is how I understood your statement, I have told you that I understood it this way, and you have not corrected my understanding, so we're settled that I understand you correctly.
Now you say that the only way to prove your statement is to provide an 'unambiguous heretical declaration' from a pope. And, I would gather that you argue there are no such statements. But I'm not asking for a statement from a pope. Any old statement will do. It doesn't have to be from a pope, as Catholics are obliged obedience to more than simply the pope. They are obliged obedience to any clergy with jurisdiction over them.
Yes it was - I guess the label got lost.
The difference is that there is no one who can judge a Pope, you have no recourse.
In the event of a priest there is a recourse - the superior.
Before dealing with such a different case, do you agree with the principle stated as applied to a Pope?
God Bless!!!!
A future pope can judge a previous pope.
But you are trying to divert the issue again. You seem to have plenty of time to respond to everyone, yet you still haven't provided a single historical example of this 'unambiguous heresy' that you've been referring to.
For clarity: There is no one who can judge a Pope during his reign.
Do you agree with the principle as applied to a Pope?
Regarding providing an example: I believe that be irrelevant. As noted when I have a chance to look and if I come across such a manifestly heretical statement - I shall - but I do not work on your time table.
God Bless!!!
And *I* deem it to be irrelevant whether or not the pope can be judged during his reign, as lay Catholics have always resisted heretics, whether they have been judged or not, and they are given this duty by the Divine Law-- i.e., it is a responsibility that they have proceeding from God.
Heresy is heresy, whether it comes from your neighbor, your priest, a bishop or a pope. We do not avoid some heretics and not avoid others. We don't not refuse communion with heretics because they wear a cassock, nor do we wait for a judicial ruling on whether or not someone is a heretic when it is plainly in front of our face-- especially when the heresy is coming precisely from the institution that is supposed to judge heresy (by this I mean the conciliar Church, which has usurped the physical institutions of the Catholic Church)! Using your logic, if you neighbor was the chief of police and you walked in on him molesting a child family member, you would continue to invite him over and let your kids have sleep-overs at his house because no one had judged him yet. Preposterous.
The reason it is relevant and expedient for you to justify your position that a heresy must be an 'unambiguous declaration' is history shows examples of Catholics resisting their 'superiors' because of their heresy, and not once has the heresy involved the formula 'I, N, deny X dogma.' I wonder if you know what heresy is, if you think it is constrained to that. No heretic thinks he's a heretic, no heretic tries to separate himself from the body. He is separated nevertheless, but he does not make it a goal of his to achieve separation. The reason that you will not provide ANY examples is that there ARE none. Except maybe with Francis. He's really out there.
-
tradical,
I suspected someone would miss construe the word 'command'. For example, a Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action. Where did I say anything about binding belief etc?
When a Pope issues a command that certain things are to be believed or to be done, his successors are bound to submit to the command just as are all.
We suspected that you would begin your semantics antics soon, and we are not disappointed.
-
tradical,
I suspected someone would miss construe the word 'command'. For example, a Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action. Where did I say anything about binding belief etc?
When a Pope issues a command that certain things are to be believed or to be done, his successors are bound to submit to the command just as are all.
We suspected that you would begin your semantics antics soon, and we are not disappointed.
Well where to go with this?
First, to be specific, the Church proposes for belief.
Second, note carefully what I wrote: "Pope cannot issue a command to his successor to do such-and-such an action"
So to make it clear: If the Pope Benedict XVI were to have said: "I command my successor to regularize the SSPX without compromise" his successor in the Papacy is in no way obligated to do so because it is not an infallible statement on faith and morals.
I am concerned that, if the adherents on Cathinfo and Ignis Ardens are a representative sample, the resistance is simply scandalized to such a degree by the actions of the hierarchy that they no longer believe in the indefectibility of the Church.
As a consequence they don't believe that the Pope can issue a legititmate command for the SSPX to accept a no-compromise regularization. The foundation for this belief appears to be (based on +W and Fr. Rua et al) a mistaken belief that the Church under the leadership of Pope Francis, (labelled the conciliar Church) cannot be the Church of Christ.
Furthermore they are at a loss to explain how the Church of Christ can be visible without a visible hierarchy founded upon the successor of St. Peter as taught by the First Vatican Council.
Up until now, I've often assumed that the 'resistance' were just misguided, over reacting, ready to abandon Catholic principles and believe in any conspiracy theory uttered by their oracles.
Now I am faced with the another less complicated possibility: that they are simply schismatics.
God Bless and Enlighten the SSPX and the Resistance!
The SSPX, because the line between schism and true obedience is a razor's edge.
The Resistance, because they can't tell the difference between the authority vested in a position, and the person occupying the position.
The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
The Church, therefore, as the Scriptures and the writings of the Saints testify, includes within her fold the good and the bad; and it was in this sense that St. Paul spoke of one body and one spirit. Thus understood, the Church is known and is compared to a city built on a mountain, and visible from every side. As all must yield obedience to her authority, it is necessary that she may-be known by all.
That the Church is composed of the good and the bad we learn from many parables contained in the Gospel. Thus, the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church militant, is compared to a net cast into the sea, to a field in which tares were sown with the good grain, to a threshing floor on which the grain is mixed up with the chaff, and also to ten virgins, some of whom were wise, and some foolish. And long before, we trace a figure and resemblance of this Church in the ark of Noah, which contained not only clean, but also unclean animals.
-
I'm assuming this is addressed to me.
You claimed that nothing short of an unambiguous declaration of heresy is sufficient to resist the pope. That is how I understood your statement, I have told you that I understood it this way, and you have not corrected my understanding, so we're settled that I understand you correctly.
Now you say that the only way to prove your statement is to provide an 'unambiguous heretical declaration' from a pope. And, I would gather that you argue there are no such statements. But I'm not asking for a statement from a pope. Any old statement will do. It doesn't have to be from a pope, as Catholics are obliged obedience to more than simply the pope. They are obliged obedience to any clergy with jurisdiction over them.
Yes it was - I guess the label got lost.
The difference is that there is no one who can judge a Pope, you have no recourse.
In the event of a priest there is a recourse - the superior.
Before dealing with such a different case, do you agree with the principle stated as applied to a Pope?
God Bless!!!!
A future pope can judge a previous pope.
But you are trying to divert the issue again. You seem to have plenty of time to respond to everyone, yet you still haven't provided a single historical example of this 'unambiguous heresy' that you've been referring to.
For clarity: There is no one who can judge a Pope during his reign.
Do you agree with the principle as applied to a Pope?
Regarding providing an example: I believe that be irrelevant. As noted when I have a chance to look and if I come across such a manifestly heretical statement - I shall - but I do not work on your time table.
God Bless!!!
And *I* deem it to be irrelevant whether or not the pope can be judged during his reign, as lay Catholics have always resisted heretics, whether they have been judged or not, and they are given this duty by the Divine Law-- i.e., it is a responsibility that they have proceeding from God.
Heresy is heresy, whether it comes from your neighbor, your priest, a bishop or a pope. We do not avoid some heretics and not avoid others. We don't not refuse communion with heretics because they wear a cassock, nor do we wait for a judicial ruling on whether or not someone is a heretic when it is plainly in front of our face-- especially when the heresy is coming precisely from the institution that is supposed to judge heresy (by this I mean the conciliar Church, which has usurped the physical institutions of the Catholic Church)! Using your logic, if you neighbor was the chief of police and you walked in on him molesting a child family member, you would continue to invite him over and let your kids have sleep-overs at his house because no one had judged him yet. Preposterous.
The reason it is relevant and expedient for you to justify your position that a heresy must be an 'unambiguous declaration' is history shows examples of Catholics resisting their 'superiors' because of their heresy, and not once has the heresy involved the formula 'I, N, deny X dogma.' I wonder if you know what heresy is, if you think it is constrained to that. No heretic thinks he's a heretic, no heretic tries to separate himself from the body. He is separated nevertheless, but he does not make it a goal of his to achieve separation. The reason that you will not provide ANY examples is that there ARE none. Except maybe with Francis. He's really out there.
Well if you think that "Heresy is heresy" it would be good if you understood what constitutes Heresy and results in a separation from the Church and what does not.
Heresy Plain and Not So Simple 1 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/01/heresy-plain-and-not-so-simple.html)
Outside the Church (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/02/outside-church.html)
The principle is that the Pope remains the Pope because he is not a manifest heretic ( sede and manifest heretics (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sedevacantism-and-manifest-heretic.html) ) and, as a Catholic Principle, if he issues a legitimate command, those within his scope of authority have an obligation to submit. Refusal to do so, if it includes a "denial of their Divine right to command" is schism.
With regards to "Catholics resisting their 'superiors' because of their heresy", please provide some examples of Popes in this case and the method behind the 'resistance'.
If the resistance wants to abandon Catholic principles, doctrine and dogma - that is their decision.
However, it is important that those of us with sufficient knowledge expose their errors. In this manner those not prejudiced against the truth will be able to make an informed decision.
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Well there is a 'ton of evidence' that the WTC's collapsed due to structural damage caused by the impact of the airplanes and ensuing fire.
However, some are unable to believe that.
Further, some insist, in spite of hundreds of eye witnesses, that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. Some claim is was a missile with a titanium nose.
But I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
God Bless!
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Well there is a 'ton of evidence' that the WTC's collapsed due to structural damage caused by the impact of the airplanes and ensuing fire.
However, some are unable to believe that.
Further, some insist, in spite of hundreds of eye witnesses, that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. Some claim is was a missile with a titanium nose.
But I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
God Bless!
Okay, if this was a comedy post, I would be thumbing it up, but you're serious. The correlation you're trying to make does not fit.
Father Villa is something called a "reliable" source. He fought his entire life to expose Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Church.
You're citing a totally secular event, that happened and is still being disputed because of blatant lies from the US government. Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Were the IAE able to stop the 9/11 report from containing lies? No. But Father Villa single handedly STOPPED Paul the Sick's canonization with this report. Now that he's dead (November 18, 2012, RIP) they're trying to continue with it and stomp on his grave.
Go read about Father Villa, and how they tried to murder him no less than 7 times. God's Providence allowed him to live to the ripe old age of 95.
http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf
-
Good post, PFT.
Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That's my fallback line when I'm in discussion with my fallen away family members.
Not to siderail, but tradical should check out the website for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. THATS where you'll find legitimate "tons of evidence" that actually makes sense, not gov't propaganda.
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Well there is a 'ton of evidence' that the WTC's collapsed due to structural damage caused by the impact of the airplanes and ensuing fire.
However, some are unable to believe that.
Further, some insist, in spite of hundreds of eye witnesses, that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. Some claim is was a missile with a titanium nose.
But I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
God Bless!
Okay, if this was a comedy post, I would be thumbing it up, but you're serious. The correlation you're trying to make does not fit.
Father Villa is something called a "reliable" source. He fought his entire life to expose Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Church.
You're citing a totally secular event, that happened and is still being disputed because of blatant lies from the US government. Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Were the IAE able to stop the 9/11 report from containing lies? No. But Father Villa single handedly STOPPED Paul the Sick's canonization with this report. Now that he's dead (November 18, 2012, RIP) they're trying to continue with it and stomp on his grave.
Go read about Father Villa, and how they tried to murder him no less than 7 times. God's Providence allowed him to live to the ripe old age of 95.
http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf
First, where does it provide incontrovertible proof the Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
Second, my reference to 911 was actually a reference to a speech given by Bishop Williamson in which he espoused this belief (or disbelief) in the face of the witnesses.
I agree it is not a perfect parallel - but accusing Pope Paul VI of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without presenting proof - is simply over the top - even for this forum.
Regarding the 'blatant lies' of the faceless government. Every single 'claim' that I have reviewed of the conspiracy theorists either is baseless or has alternative equally valid explanations. The theorists reject them solely on the ground that they are from the 'government' and therefore they cannot be the truth.
God Bless and preserve you!!!
-
Good post, PFT.
Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That's my fallback line when I'm in discussion with my fallen away family members.
Not to siderail, but tradical should check out the website for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. THATS where you'll find legitimate "tons of evidence" that actually makes sense, not gov't propaganda.
I added that line as a tongue in cheek.
God Bless!!!
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Well there is a 'ton of evidence' that the WTC's collapsed due to structural damage caused by the impact of the airplanes and ensuing fire.
However, some are unable to believe that.
Further, some insist, in spite of hundreds of eye witnesses, that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. Some claim is was a missile with a titanium nose.
But I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
God Bless!
Okay, if this was a comedy post, I would be thumbing it up, but you're serious. The correlation you're trying to make does not fit.
Father Villa is something called a "reliable" source. He fought his entire life to expose Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Church.
You're citing a totally secular event, that happened and is still being disputed because of blatant lies from the US government. Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Were the IAE able to stop the 9/11 report from containing lies? No. But Father Villa single handedly STOPPED Paul the Sick's canonization with this report. Now that he's dead (November 18, 2012, RIP) they're trying to continue with it and stomp on his grave.
Go read about Father Villa, and how they tried to murder him no less than 7 times. God's Providence allowed him to live to the ripe old age of 95.
http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf
First, where does it provide incontrovertible proof the Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
Second, my reference to 911 was actually a reference to a speech given by Bishop Williamson in which he espoused this belief (or disbelief) in the face of the witnesses.
I agree it is not a perfect parallel - but accusing Pope Paul VI of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without presenting proof - is simply over the top - even for this forum.
Regarding the 'blatant lies' of the faceless government. Every single 'claim' that I have reviewed of the conspiracy theorists either is baseless or has alternative equally valid explanations. The theorists reject them solely on the ground that they are from the 'government' and therefore they cannot be the truth.
God Bless and preserve you!!!
God forbid you would actually READ Fr. Villa's publication.
:rolleyes:
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Well there is a 'ton of evidence' that the WTC's collapsed due to structural damage caused by the impact of the airplanes and ensuing fire.
However, some are unable to believe that.
Further, some insist, in spite of hundreds of eye witnesses, that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. Some claim is was a missile with a titanium nose.
But I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
God Bless!
Okay, if this was a comedy post, I would be thumbing it up, but you're serious. The correlation you're trying to make does not fit.
Father Villa is something called a "reliable" source. He fought his entire life to expose Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Church.
You're citing a totally secular event, that happened and is still being disputed because of blatant lies from the US government. Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Were the IAE able to stop the 9/11 report from containing lies? No. But Father Villa single handedly STOPPED Paul the Sick's canonization with this report. Now that he's dead (November 18, 2012, RIP) they're trying to continue with it and stomp on his grave.
Go read about Father Villa, and how they tried to murder him no less than 7 times. God's Providence allowed him to live to the ripe old age of 95.
http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf
First, where does it provide incontrovertible proof the Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
Second, my reference to 911 was actually a reference to a speech given by Bishop Williamson in which he espoused this belief (or disbelief) in the face of the witnesses.
I agree it is not a perfect parallel - but accusing Pope Paul VI of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without presenting proof - is simply over the top - even for this forum.
Regarding the 'blatant lies' of the faceless government. Every single 'claim' that I have reviewed of the conspiracy theorists either is baseless or has alternative equally valid explanations. The theorists reject them solely on the ground that they are from the 'government' and therefore they cannot be the truth.
God Bless and preserve you!!!
God forbid you would actually READ Fr. Villa's publication.
:rolleyes:
I opened it and did a number of searches for keywords and produced nothing.
As I am working on something else at the moment and as Pope Paul VI's does not have a bearing on the principle involved (ie ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not a heresy) I have no inclination to read it.
God bless!!!
-
Re the secular event...actually no event on God's green earth is really a "secular" event since he's the God of EVERYTHING...politics/economics/just wars..etc...Gen Stubblebein, Chief of Army Intelligence, sd no plane hit the Pentagon....Army Spec. April Gallop grabbed her injured baby and had to bend low to get through the hole in the wall ( before it collapsed ) and saw no wreckage of a 767...neither did Jamie McIntyre of CNN..and he sd so...bc there wasn't any...None larger than a picnic table..and that piece was traced to a AA crash is Cali, Columbia a few yrs before...
WTC7 was a conventional controlled demo...WTC1, 2 and 6 were not..Time and patience prevent me fm going on..( it's been 12 yrs..if you still like the Phil Zelikow/Warren Commission-oops 9-11 Commission-version of that day there's no helping you...) Dr. James Fetzer and Richard Gage have done some decent work on 9-11...
-
"BJP2"? I assume the "B" is for "blessed"?
Folks, this tradical is a papolater. Why are you wasting your time?
Annnd I'm sure that if Paul the Sick was called "blessed," he'd recognize that too, even though there is an absolute TON of evidence to prove that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
http://chiesaviva.com/paoloVI%20beatoin.pdf
But, that's just how lopsided their understanding is.
Oh, and "blessed" jpii, tons of evidence as to WHY he should NOT be beatified, much less canonized.
http://chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf
Well there is a 'ton of evidence' that the WTC's collapsed due to structural damage caused by the impact of the airplanes and ensuing fire.
However, some are unable to believe that.
Further, some insist, in spite of hundreds of eye witnesses, that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. Some claim is was a missile with a titanium nose.
But I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
God Bless!
Okay, if this was a comedy post, I would be thumbing it up, but you're serious. The correlation you're trying to make does not fit.
Father Villa is something called a "reliable" source. He fought his entire life to expose Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the Church.
You're citing a totally secular event, that happened and is still being disputed because of blatant lies from the US government. Just because people don't want to believe something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Were the IAE able to stop the 9/11 report from containing lies? No. But Father Villa single handedly STOPPED Paul the Sick's canonization with this report. Now that he's dead (November 18, 2012, RIP) they're trying to continue with it and stomp on his grave.
Go read about Father Villa, and how they tried to murder him no less than 7 times. God's Providence allowed him to live to the ripe old age of 95.
http://chiesaviva.com/donluigivilla%20ing.pdf
First, where does it provide incontrovertible proof the Paul VI was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
Second, my reference to 911 was actually a reference to a speech given by Bishop Williamson in which he espoused this belief (or disbelief) in the face of the witnesses.
I agree it is not a perfect parallel - but accusing Pope Paul VI of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without presenting proof - is simply over the top - even for this forum.
Regarding the 'blatant lies' of the faceless government. Every single 'claim' that I have reviewed of the conspiracy theorists either is baseless or has alternative equally valid explanations. The theorists reject them solely on the ground that they are from the 'government' and therefore they cannot be the truth.
God Bless and preserve you!!!
God forbid you would actually READ Fr. Villa's publication.
:rolleyes:
I opened it and did a number of searches for keywords and produced nothing.
As I am working on something else at the moment and as Pope Paul VI's does not have a bearing on the principle involved (ie ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not a heresy) I have no inclination to read it.
God bless!!!
Hmm...
You dare not read his heresy contained in his statements. I was simply pointing out that you would call him "Blessed" even if it was proven that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. I never said that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity was a "heresy. Practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, however, IS A SIN THAT CRIES TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE, and one that is known to have practiced this sin, OR EVEN SUSPECTED OF SUCH A SIN, cannot be called a saint.
Thomas A Kempis was not made a saint "because he might have despaired" being buried alive. But the newchurch is going to "canonize" a sodomite? And you'd recognize it "because it's not a heresy?"
You can't even hear yourself.
-
Bump