It doesn’t mean that any of us “endorse” the author, or any of the author’s leanings, nor anything else in its article. By far. That is why I tore apart the hypocrisy of this article in the conclusion of “my post”.
Hello, Machabees.
I totally agree with the conclusion of your post at the top of the page. On the other hand, I do not agree that that article can be called "very good." I believe that you, too recognize the article as Neo-SSPX poison, do you not? Unfortunately, however, the sentence that I was picking on was badly worded, and it was necessary for someone to point it out so that people wouldn't go around saying "The [Neo-] SSPX has finally come out with a good article about Pope Francis!"
In conclusion, I agree with most of your post, but not with the part that calls the article "very good." That part I disagree with very strongly.
Sorry about my undiplomatic way of saying things in my other post. (For the record, I did not "thumbs down" your post; someone else did.)
God bless, and keep the Faith!
Sincerely,
Sean Govan :cheers:
SeanGovan,
I'm sorry that you are reading into this wrongly; I certainly do not agree with you. I can keep telling you that there is no intent. You are reading into something that is not there. Read the next line that follows my statement. If you were to read the rest of it, I said that the article is very good
because it shows the scandals and betrayals of the present Pope -Pope Francis.
Sean, if you take a line out of many, you loose the context. That is what you are doing. Let's stay focused on the fight of the Faith that the N-SSPX is attacking us on in a daily basis.
As like, if anyone else bothered to write about the same contents in description of the scandalous workings of the present Pope's history, it would also be very good. With the context of the sspx.org's "plot" to deceive us into thinking that they are still "cool", when they are not, is what I tore apart. Read it again. I am the author of it; it is not for you to change the context.
I think in your "limitedness" of reading this, that you may have deduced too quickly anything, or even something that may be good of what the SSPX did -to bring to light the scandals of the new Pope. That is not fair. Like Caiaphas who was bad, who hated Christ, and condemned Him throughout, he still said something that was a good (by the Holy Ghost), when he said that one must die for many...it was prophetic. So it shows that God can use many "donkeys" throughout history, even at times using the present N-SSPX betrayals to say something good, once and awhile, for the awakening of others, even if their audience is N-faithful who drink in their stuff. At least their article will brazen their thinking of this new Pope.
The rest of the article draws a different context for others to pick apart; Like Mea Culpa did.
There is nothing there; but what you are injecting into it.
Peace.
Topic: The left or right foot of the SSPX? (Read 1799 times)