Sean

Your referred us to the Tradidi website on which Mr Loeman has put this comment about the sedevacantist Fr Le Gal -   May God bless Fr. Thomas Le Gal from the CMRI, who, like a good shepherd, travelled from France in order to help and support these sisters, while the local Resistance priest believes that God is better served by boycotting and persecuting His sheep.

We have read on this thread that the local Resistance priest was out of the country in the US when this event happened so why the calumnies from your friend, Mr Loeman against this priest who has done so much for Tradition in Ireland. Are you and your friend now in favor of the sedevacantist position? Yet again, Samuel Loeman is so blinded by his emotionalism over his daughter that he cannot see straight. Perhaps you could ask him outright rather than refer us to his website which is so critical of the good clerics of the Resistance.

C.

Sean

Your referred us to the Tradidi website on which Mr Loeman has put this comment about the sedevacantist Fr Le Gal -   May God bless Fr. Thomas Le Gal from the CMRI, who, like a good shepherd, travelled from France in order to help and support these sisters, while the local Resistance priest believes that God is better served by boycotting and persecuting His sheep.

We have read on this thread that the local Resistance priest was out of the country in the US when this event happened so why the calumnies from your friend, Mr Loeman against this priest who has done so much for Tradition in Ireland. Are you and your friend now in favor of the sedevacantist position? Yet again, Samuel Loeman is so blinded by his emotionalism over his daughter that he cannot see straight. Perhaps you could ask him outright rather than refer us to his website which is so critical of the good clerics of the Resistance.

C.

Hello Cebu-

Perhaps as a grown man, you are capable of asking Samuel these questions yourself, rather than asking me to do it for you?

Sean,

I have no wish to visit that website again with its anti Resistance diatribes. I do not expect an objective reply from Mr Loeman being blinded by emotionalism, so I ask you then why did you post this pro sedevacantist statement, and does it mean that you are now tending towards sedevacantism?

Cebu-

Since I am Resistance, and you are opposing me, may I presume you now oppose the Resistance, and support the SSPX?

:boxer:

Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I said that it appears as though you are drifting towards sedevacantism by promoting an SV priest. I will certainly oppose that, as you have done in the past, but you seemed to have changed and now be heading in that direction.

Cebu-

Why have you abandoned the Resistance, and taken such a hard stance of opposition against its bishops?

I cannot support you in your opposition to the Resistance, and hope you will stop your drift into the Novus Ordo.

I totally agree with you Cebu, Mr Loeman would have no interest whatsoever in the Irish nun if it wasn’t for the fact that his daughter is there. There was a time he shunned sedevecantist priests for the Resistance, now he has articles posted bashing the Resistance.

...and if Cebu should respond to you, can you please ask him what any of this has to do with me, and for him to recount for me my supposed "promotion" of sedevacantist priests?

Either he is an idiot, or he is a liar.

Not the best front man for Fr. Chazal, I would say.

Haven’t got a clue where you are coming from, have you got a map?

Yep:

Cebu runs the MCSPX Facebook page (i.e., the primary website of Fr. Chazal's group).

As Cebu had taken a couple recent swipes at me here on CI, I had written to Fr. Chazal, notifying him that I was abstaining from engaging Cebu out of respect for Fr. Chazal (i.e., I wanted to handle things offline).

Fr. Chazal said he would talk to him.

Either he did not, or, it was without effect, as he is itching for a fight today.

OK, I am happy to oblige!

Cebu stupidly believes me to be sliding towards sedevacantism (something the sedes on this forum will find quite delusional and humorous!) because I will not pick up my pen to condemn Samuel.

Apparently, Cebu believes it is simply not possible nor permissible for me to decide to stay out of the matter.

When earlier in the thread, he sought to draw me into the matter, I pointed him towards Samuel's own words.

When that attempt failed Cebu, he came back again, and now accuses me of "promoting" sedevacantist priests, and "drifting towards sedevacantism."

What he is REALLY itching for is to get me to say something against Samuel, and is attempting to goad me into such a response.

Yet he is afraid to contact him himself, and get the Samuel's reasons, which causes me to question his motives.

Instead, the goading continues, and you are all to believe that me pointing Cebu towards Samuel's blog to read his own words is synonymous with "promoting" sedevacantism (as will anything short of my personal condemnation of Samuel).

Cebu: If you will not contact Samuel to answer your questions, what other conclusion can I arrive at, but that you are really not interested in knowing?

And if that is the case, then what is your real aim?

You need to conjure up some testicular fortitude, and act like a man, and contact the one you so despise.

For myself, I resent the attempt to draw me into conflict with my friend, and you have me in a brawling mood.

If you want to pretend or construe my silence in the matter as "promotion" of sedevacantism, I leave you to your imagination.

Sean

I have no connection at all with Fr Chazal so leave him alone. He has many better things to do.

C.