Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: ggreg on August 20, 2013, 03:25:17 PM
-
One of the thought-experiments I do in order to check my own sanity when making significant decisions/judgements is to think what chain of events, outcomes or revelations in the future might convince me I was wrong. In other words, I decide when I am making the decision, the sorts of outcomes I might expect to see if I am correct and conversely the sort of outcomes I would expect to see if I have screwed up and made a bad judgement or picked the wrong horse. In this way I am less likely to "drink my own Kool-Aid", which I think we call ALL agree some groups of people are prone to do. I make a concerted effort to be honest with myself and either write down or remember those reasons/outcomes and not modify them over time to suit the changing circuмstances.
When I screw up I review and revise and try to learn from the experience so as to be better in my decision-making in future. Like any other skill, good judgement is a skill that can be sharpened with practise.
The act of considering what would define a poor decision and a negative outcome also helps keep one's decision making rational, logical and objective (as possible), rather than emotional. I was puzzled myself at Bishop Fellay's optimism at negotiating with B16 (my forum posting history confirms this). I just could not see any likelihood of B16, his successor or the living Roman bureaucracy treating the SSPX with justice and honesty. The previous 40 years, after all, had almost been a case study in Roman injustice. And life has taught me that leopards almost never change their spots.
I've listened to half a dozen Fr, Pfieffer sermons on this trip, because I like to understand as much as I reasonably can before having or developing an opinion, and, listening to the man speak, not just his messages via a third party, does give you a better understanding of what might be his motivations.
Fr. Pfeiffer talks frequently about SSPX chapels where 70% of people are dressed immodestly and the fruits of liberalism and feminism He is keen to point out the "bad fruits" of "liberalism" and "feminism" in the SSPX. Thus, one might expect bad fruits of those errors to appear within a decade in the SSPX as they certainly appeared in the mainstream Church (divorce, abortion, pederasty, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity).
Let's assume that Pope Francis lives another seven years and no deal is struck between the SSPX and Rome. It is now 2020 and the SSPX has grown 20% in that time. whilst the resistance is still limited to a handful of chapels and a diminishing number home-aloners or perhaps disintegrated into a half dozen splinter groups. Or, paint your own positive or negative scenario(s) about what could potentially happen. It does not really matter what scenario you paint, simply that - in that scenario - would you doubt, reverse your decision or change your mind?
If in 2020 or 2030 the SSPX's liberalism and feminism have not actually caused a greater number of them to lapse, they are still getting married having children, opening new chapels and mass centres; then do you conclude they need another 7, 20, 50, 100 years for the rot to really take effect, or, do you conclude that if the fruits were not bad then the tree cannot have been bad either?
Is it reasonable to compare the growth and relative success of the resistance versus the SSPX over the next decade and use them to measure the veracity of your choice? After all, this is exactly what Traditionalists have done with Novus Ordinarians for the last 40 years. If folk-guitar strumming Novus Ordinarians had produced a vibrant and healthy church, increased Church attendance, fewer divorces, less abortions and annulments and no whiff of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs scandal, Vatican Banking scandals, then one would have to admit that they had delivered their much hoped for new springtime for the Church.
-
Is it reasonable to compare the growth and relative success of the resistance versus the SSPX over the next decade and use them to measure the veracity of your choice?
No.
After all, this is exactly what Traditionalists have done with Novus Ordinarians for the last 40 years.
This was more of a fruit of Tradition, as opposed to explaining whether it was right or wrong.
If folk-guitar strumming Novus Ordinarians had produced a vibrant and healthy church, increased Church attendance, fewer divorces, less abortions and annulments and no whiff of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs scandal, Vatican Banking scandals, then one would have to admit that they had delivered their much hoped for new springtime for the Church.
Whether or not the NO grew, or didn't, is largely besides the point when considering, objectively, whether or not something is right or wrong, true or false. That is why the trad movement has grown so exponentially in prior years. Because people could see not only the fruits of VII compared with those of Tradition but, especially in the beginning, they could discern, by the Grace of the Holy Ghost, what was right and what was wrong.
If people in Tradition are willing to let themselves be deceived many years later, that is between them and God. I believe, that a scenario which you have presented is quite likely, actually. That the Resisitance was formed not to combat the SSPX from the outside, but to influence what happens to it through its own members. It may well turn out that it is a tool used by Our Blessed Lord to keep the Society in check. This is just one possibility I see, but I may be wrong of course.
-
Once the principles of the SSPX officially changed, it was right to take action and that officially started with the SSPX General Chapter of 2012.
-
Also, you seem to be listening to Fr. Pfieffer. But the Resistance is greater than him. I encourage you to listen also to Fr. Hewko and, of course, His Excellency Bishop Williamson, a man of your own land. I personally find Fr. Pfieffer too animated and prefer the deportment with which Fr. Hewko presents; but this is mere opinion. The man stands for Truth, and I cannot argue with that, nor would I have it any other way..
The point is this: besides the personalities (+Williamson, Hewko, Pfeiffer)- are the arguments being presented by resistance- that there was a deal in the works, pursued by Menzingen to the surprise and dismay of many; and that there should be no such deal made with Rome until it converts to Catholicism, as its founder +ABL held- true or not true?
-
Is it reasonable to compare the growth and relative success of the resistance versus the SSPX over the next decade and use them to measure the veracity of your choice?
No.
Can you expand on this?
If the resistance was incredibly successful, found a billion dollar financial backer who made his fortune in survival foods, started up rival mass centres and grew through conversions, then resistance priests and laity would surely suggest that these good fruits were signs of them being a good healthy tree and that they were enjoying to Providence of God for their 'fidelity' and 'courage'.
Why does this reasoning not work in the reverse scenario?
Presumably, if The Resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principles and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless, then God has to make The Resistance reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery which 99% of Trads have no chance of winning.
Why would God reward a principled stand (made according to the resistance in the same mind as ABL) to less growth, success and the ability to deliver the sacraments and convert souls than ABL and the SSPX enjoyed over the last 40 years?
If failure is disconnected from doing the right thing, then every heresy over the last 2000 could lay claim to the truth, couldn't it?
-
Is it reasonable to compare the growth and relative success of the resistance versus the SSPX over the next decade and use them to measure the veracity of your choice?
No.
Can you expand on this?
If the resistance was incredibly successful, found a billion dollar financial backer who made his fortune in survival foods, started up rival mass centres and grew through conversions, then resistance priests and laity would surely suggest that these good fruits were signs of them being a good healthy tree and that they were enjoying to Providence of God for their 'fidelity' and 'courage'.
Why does this reasoning not work in the reverse scenario?
It would not work in the scenario because if you can define what the Resistance is saying as objective Truth, there would be no other answer(other than, It would not matter). I hope you're not a Catholic because it is the largest 'sect' of Christianity.
Truth is independent of, and hold not loyalty to, quantity. Its only the latter often follows it over time. Do you agree or disagree?
-
Presumably, if the resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principle and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless then God has to make it reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery.
Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? What does it do? Runs around. There is still movement to the chicken that is the SSPX. But it is cut off from its head, the Archbishop. It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.
Why would God reward a principled stand (made according to the resistance in the same mind as ABL) to less growth success and the ability to deliver the sacraments and convert souls than ABL and the SSPX enjoyed over the last 40 years?
Its impossible to answer why to all things within human understanding, right? Why would God chose only a handful of people to hold the Truth before the time of Christ, through many millennia? Why not let all peoples of the Earth know about the coming Saviour? That's a definite scenario too. Something that happened. Remember- in your scenario- we are still dealing with hypotheticals. Even then, you still have rationalized whether or not you equate Truth with quantity.
-
Whether or not the NO grew, or didn't, is largely besides the point when considering, objectively, whether or not something is right or wrong, true or false.
Then why does Our Lord instruct us to judge a tree by its fruits and suggest there is a cause and effect relationship that operates in both directions?
-
Presumably, if the resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principle and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless then God has to make it reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery.
Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? What does it do? Runs around. There is still movement to the chicken that is the SSPX. But it is cut off from its head, the Archbishop. It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.
Have you ever seen a headless chicken still running around after seven, ten, fifty years and laying eggs into the bargain?
All headless chickens stop moving after a fairly short period of time. There are no exceptions.
-
We'll know that the resistance is a failure when those who send their children to secular state school and support Israel approve of it.
Don't feed the troll.
-
Truth is independent of, and hold not loyalty to, quantity. Its only the latter often follows it over time. Do you agree or disagree?
If it "often follows", then it is not independent. If it was independent there would be no correlation between Truth and Growth.
I think growth is a lagging indicator of truth. Otherwise one could not judge a tree by its fruits. A good tree could produce just one fruit or no fruits at all and still be "good".
-
But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
There would be no point in having a resistance if it were about believing what ggreg believes, no matter how "successful" it was.
-
Presumably, if the resistance are holding the fort, the SSPX is "dead" because of changing it principle and the Novus Ordo part of the Church fruitless then God has to make it reasonably successful in terms of its growth and reach or access to the sacraments comes down to a zipcode lottery.
Have you ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? What does it do? Runs around. There is still movement to the chicken that is the SSPX. But it is cut off from its head, the Archbishop. It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.
Have you ever seen a headless chicken still running around after seven, ten, fifty years and laying eggs into the bargain?
All headless chickens stop moving after a fairly short period of time. There are no exceptions.
I was trying to use an analogy. But analogies aren't perfect, that's why they're 'analogies'. I actually agree with you. All headless chickens stop running eventually. I'm trying to answer your question as best as I can, but you don't seem to be responding to what I have to actually say. Please, read the rest of what I said, again:
It will run for a few more years like this. And then one of two things will happen. It will have its head reattached. Or it will stop and die. Simple. We are not there yet.
And address the other points, please, that I have made in my other posts.
-
Truth is independent of, and hold not loyalty to, quantity. Its only the latter often follows it over time. Do you agree or disagree?
If it "often follows", then it is not independent.
I disagree. "Often" is not a constant. So it is independant.
If it was independent there would be no correlation between Truth and Growth.
I think growth is a lagging indicator of truth. Otherwise one could not judge a tree by its fruits. A good tree could produce just one fruit or no fruits at all and still be "good".
I agree. I have never denied that there are not good holy people to be found attached to the Novus Ordo Churches. This is where many Traditionalists have come from, of course, myself included. But you are really missing the point.
You are completely focusing on quantity. Answer the question for yourself- independent of everything else- are the main points of the Resistance based on truth YES or NO?
-
No, I don't think they are based on truth.
It's my opinion that some people are minded such that they wish to simplify complex problems so they perceive they are more in control of situations that are difficult to comprehend. I know around a third of the signatories of the British Open Letter to Fr. Morgan and Bishop Fellay, so I have a pretty good idea of the common thread that those people share. I know something about their history, their prudential judgement, their nuttiness. I also know that a significant number of those signatories are people who have signed the letter because someone asked or told them to and they could not even begin to describe what the resistance were resisting.
The wisest and most prudent SSPX members I know are not in the resistance, nor do they support it.
The ringleaders behind the resistance in the UK, like Fishwick and Taylor, are a bunch of ex national front international third position racists who were told to cease and desist with their racist politics back in the late 1980s and early 1990 by Father Edward Black. When Father Black was sent to Australia a few years later they wheedled their way back in.
Father Black was an absolutely excellent priest and a man with very sound judgement who ran both the UK and Australian SSPX very well. He always kept the laity at arms length and avoided extremist positions of every colour. If he supported the resistance I would totally reconsider my opinion because I consider him a wise priest with a great deal of experience and a portfolio of good results.
You see a similar behaviour with conspiracy theorists who almost regardless of what happens in the news find some angle whereby it is part of a conspiracy or a mind control experiment. It becomes habitual to distrust the media to the point where they assume that every school shooting is a fαℓѕє fℓαg mind control experiment.
I've experienced the SSPX in the UK, US, France and Australia since 1978. That is longer than some of the more opinionated posters here have been alive. I've got a pretty good understanding of the historical problems, frictions, leadership style. In my view the "resistance" was an inevitability, if it had not been over a non-realised "deal" it would have been over something else.
I am willing to change my mind if the resistance can lift itself up by the bootstraps and succeed but I am not holding my breath, because the people I know who are leading and running it are not builders, leaders, creators, innovators, inspirers. They are people who, in the most part, are generally good at moaning, pulling down, griping, fearing, worrying, obsessing and plotting.
That is why I am confident that if the SSPX don't do anything overtly modernist and just continue chugging along doing what they have done for the last 35+ years, that the resistance will start resisting itself and falling to pieces. Father Pfeiffer has already accused Bishop Williamson, his only source of confirmations and ordinations of giving "demonic advice", hardly the most prudent thing to do. Like sawing a limb off when you are standing on it.
It does not look remotely possible under Pope Francis that any deal can be done, even if Bishop Fellay is a secret Freemason, so I am not sure what wind can fill the resistance's sails and give it a reason d'être and a common purpose. I don't think Francis wants the SSPX back on any terms.
That's just my opinion of course, just strategising out loud, but I put it out there for the reader's consideration; and bragging rights when I am proven correct by future events. :laugh2:
-
The ringleaders behind the resistance in the UK, like Fishwick and Taylor, are a bunch of ex national front international third position racists who were told to cease and desist with their racist politics back in the late 1980s and early 1990 by Father Edward Black. When Father Black was sent to Australia a few years later they wheedled their way back in.
Ah, no attempt to address the issues which are the whole point: just an attack on the resistance as "racists." Very transparent.
There was a demonic little troll on here not long before that came to throw filth at us: it's not surprising he was in support of you against us.
What a lark it was you said you were staying away. Will we have more trolls like that after you "quit"?
That FE became the way it has become is because people like that and people like you are natural allies, posting with similar agendas. We can be fairly sure that this forum is on the radar of groups like the SPLC and ADL.
Here's an article about the upcoming Fatima Conference:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/08/20/ron-paul-birch-president-to-speak-at-anti-semitic-conference/
Who can really believe you have any interest in the group that has formed in the wake of the SSPX offer to sell out doctrine and Bishop Williamson's expulsion? Given the attitudes you've expressed towards those who hold positions like Bishop Williamson on nearly every issue?
Father Black was an absolutely excellent priest and a man with very sound judgement who ran both the UK and Australian SSPX very well. He always kept the laity at arms length and avoided extremist positions of every colour. If he supported the resistance I would totally reconsider my opinion.
You would have to reconsider your opinions on Church history before you could possibly consider yourself a traditional Catholic. That you would like a priest who doesn't have "extreme positions" is not surprising in light of that fact.
. . . .
I've experienced the SSPX in the UK, US, France and Australia since 1978. That is longer than some of the more opinionated posters here have been alive. I've got a pretty good understanding of the historical problems, frictions, leadership style. In my view the "resistance" was an inevitability, if it had not been over a non-realised "deal" it would have been over something else.
But for more than 20 years you've had serious reservations . . . .
Your interest in mocking and ridiculing the resistance has nothing to do with the doctrinal issues at stake.
You simply brush aside every issue pertaining to doctrine, and are interested in generally maligning the character of those who support the resistance. Which is exactly the tack that a hack for Menzingen would take.
Bishop Williamson was basically told to quit communicating with the faithful publicly or be thrown out. There were many priests who stood up and condemned the imminent deal with Rome that was expected by Bishop Fellay.
That you pretend he didn't expect it, wasn't changing his doctrinal stance, or rather, that you pretend IT DOESN'T MATTER (which I suppose, given by your lack of orthodox Catholic belief, it doesn't) would be hard to believe if we didn't know the bad faith behind it.
The idea that the priests who've joined the resistance did it because they're malcontents is just laughable. They did it because they aren't liberals, they don't travel around the world because they don't believe in their cause.
-
Ggreg, since it's obvious you are hinging this on numbers, just how would you consider the Resistance to be 'succesful?' To outnumber, or at least rival the SSPX? Keep in mind that the SSPX does not now, nor has it ever rivaled the New Church in terms of numbers. Has never even come close.
-
In answer to the question, I'll know I made the wrong decision when the publishing wing of the Resistance (which is basically half a dozen youtube channels) posts a video that highlights the 'good things' a manifest heretic has to say: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/some-positive-points-lumen-fidei-2328
-
:surprised:Priests and laity alike do not give up their secure "jobs," their health insurance, their homes, be ostracised by family and friends, travel around the world at great monetary, physical and emotional expense, or forgo vacations, and other non-sinful pleasures in order to have money for gas and tolls, then drive 200 one-way to hear Mass in a hotel room or living room or garage, receive the Sacraments, and receive teaching that can be trusted to be truly Catholic, unless there is a very good reason--namely, the salvation of souls. Does anyone think the Resistance does it because we're bored? or just want to be be naughty boys and girls?
When you go before God at your particular judgement, to which army would you have rather belonged? The army whose cause was wrong, but won a battle, or the army whose cause was right, but lost a battle? We already know Whose army wins the war!
-
If it grew at the same rate as the SSPX did in it's first 20 years, then I would consider it successful. If I could go to a weekly resistance mass in the capital and second largest city of France, UK, US, Spain, Canada, Mexico, and Australia by 2020 I would consider that successful. If more than 50 percent of SSPXers today could get their children confirmed by a Bishop without waiting more than 2 years and without staying more than 1 night in a hotel and travelling 1000 miles round trip to meet the visiting Bishop, I would consider that successful.
If there was a major crisis in this papacy like Pope Francis allowing birth control and the departing conservatives joined the resistance in greater numbers, pro-rata, than then joined the SSPX I would consider that a clear mark of success.
Those are things that spring to mind.
-
The resistance is not a sect. The resistance are simply people who follow traditional Catholic priests. That they criticize the SSPX doesn't mean they are "break-aways" (except for the priests) because the SSPX is not a sect (although it acts like one)
The resistance priests don't ask anyone to move anywhere. This was a straw man that our resident BS artist was talking about before.
The only measure of success for a Catholic in a period like this is to keep the integral Catholic Faith. And that means trusting in God, and the idea that people who attend resistance masses should care about the opinions of someone (who publicly casts doubt on the fidelity of the Church throughout history) who views it and its probable truthfulness as a matter of whether it's successful as a kind of business venture is ridiculous!
The resistance is successful insofar as it keeps serious trads (unlike the liberals who no longer care) aware of the issues.
Father Pfeiffer is just one priest. There is not complete agreement within the resistance: there doesn't need to be.
All that the resistance (as resistance, and not as simply a group of traditional Catholics) needs to accomplish (besides serving the sacramental needs of the Faithful) is to have the liberals be exposed for what they are so that their efforts to subvert the traditional movement are more effectively counteracted, so that the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre continues on.
-
Ggreg success is every Mass, the Sacraments, every time a soul gets good instruction or example to live right.
-
But all of the resistance priests are SSpX formed. So by that rationale, the SSpX continues to be successful. It says many more masses and provides more sacraments than the resistance.
Who decides what living "right" is? Let's say Father Hewko and Pfeiffer disagree? Who has the mandate?
-
But all of the resistance priests are SSpX formed. So by that rationale, the SSpX continues to be successful. It says many more masses and provides more sacraments than the resistance.
Who decides what living "right" is? Let's say Father Hewko and Pfeiffer disagree? Who has the mandate?
Living a Catholic life....seriously you know what I meant.
-
No I don't. The term "Catholic" is disputed and claimed by various sects of Tradition and the Novus Ordo mainstream too. Hans Kung is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy was too as are Tony and Cherie Blair.
Living a Catholic live is something that people can feel they are doing while doing the diametric opposite of what other Catholics are doing? Entirely subjective and therefore useless as litmus test.
Is Bernard Fellay living a Catholic life? You tell me.
-
No I don't. The term "Catholic" is disputed and claimed by various sects of Tradition and the Novus Ordo mainstream too. Hans Kung is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy was too as are Tony and Cherie Blair.
Living a Catholic live is something that people can feel they are doing while doing the diametric opposite of what other Catholics are doing? Entirely subjective and therefore useless as litmus test.
Is Bernard Fellay living a Catholic life? You tell me.
I'm not playing your silly word games. A Catholic life, I am leaving it at that. The point I was making success is someone being instruction how to live right either through words like in a sermon or example, it's not the Estimated Wait Time for confirmation.
-
All of the priests are NOT SSPX formed. Yes, the main ones are for the logical reason that they are resisting the doctrinal changes in the SSPX. Fr. Ronald Ringrose comes immediately to mind! He is in no way affiliated with SSPX.
-
God calls us to be faithful, not successful.
-
If numerical growth is a "lagging indicator" of truth, then liberalism must be true.
Since it is not, numerical growth is not a lagging indicator of truth, or necessarily any indication at all.
The truth is often persecuted in this world. If the world hateth thee, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
-
No I don't.
You really don't.
The term "Catholic" is disputed and claimed by various sects of Tradition and the Novus Ordo mainstream too. Hans Kung is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy was too as are Tony and Cherie Blair.
The claims of those people only matter if you're an idiot. The Catholic Faith is a body of truths that are eternally true and has always been held by the true followers of Christ. Now those people know they don't hold to what the Church has always held. Just as someone who thinks Constantine altered the Church's teaching of the Gospel's no longer believes in the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Living a Catholic live is something that people can feel they are doing while doing the diametric opposite of what other Catholics are doing? Entirely subjective and therefore useless as litmus test.
Someone who thinks Faith is subjective is a modernist.
Is Bernard Fellay living a Catholic life? You tell me.
Is the Novus Ordo legitimately promulgated or is it a bastard rite?
Bishop Fellay has been telling people what they want to hear.
Would someone following Archbishop Lefebvre and wishing to preserve Tradition do that?
No. Whether he's still a Catholic or not is irrelevant, he has no official authority over any Catholic, certainly not any layperson, so if he departs from what he was consecrated to do he should not be followed.
-
How so, the church has shrunk since the mid 20th century, has it not?
-
No I don't. The term "Catholic" is disputed and claimed by various sects of Tradition and the Novus Ordo mainstream too. Hans Kung is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy was too as are Tony and Cherie Blair.
Living a Catholic live is something that people can feel they are doing while doing the diametric opposite of what other Catholics are doing? Entirely subjective and therefore useless as litmus test.
Is Bernard Fellay living a Catholic life? You tell me.
I'm not playing your silly word games. A Catholic life, I am leaving it at that. The point I was making success is someone being instruction how to live right either through words like in a sermon or example, it's not the Estimated Wait Time for confirmation.
Why would someone who claims to be a trad say that "living a Catholic life" is something completely subjective?
He can't tell what's Catholic and what's not?
-
No I don't. The term "Catholic" is disputed and claimed by various sects of Tradition and the Novus Ordo mainstream too. Hans Kung is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy was too as are Tony and Cherie Blair.
Living a Catholic live is something that people can feel they are doing while doing the diametric opposite of what other Catholics are doing? Entirely subjective and therefore useless as litmus test.
Is Bernard Fellay living a Catholic life? You tell me.
I'm not playing your silly word games. A Catholic life, I am leaving it at that. The point I was making success is someone being instruction how to live right either through words like in a sermon or example, it's not the Estimated Wait Time for confirmation.
Why would someone who claims to be a trad say that "living a Catholic life" is something completely subjective?
He can't tell what's Catholic and what's not?
I know it felt icky just to read it.
-
No I don't. The term "Catholic" is disputed and claimed by various sects of Tradition and the Novus Ordo mainstream too. Hans Kung is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy was too as are Tony and Cherie Blair.
Living a Catholic live is something that people can feel they are doing while doing the diametric opposite of what other Catholics are doing? Entirely subjective and therefore useless as litmus test.
Is Bernard Fellay living a Catholic life? You tell me.
I'm not playing your silly word games. A Catholic life, I am leaving it at that. The point I was making success is someone being instruction how to live right either through words like in a sermon or example, it's not the Estimated Wait Time for confirmation.
Why would someone who claims to be a trad say that "living a Catholic life" is something completely subjective?
He can't tell what's Catholic and what's not?
I know it felt icky just to read it.
This is why he doesn't see a problem with public school, he promotes the same type of filth that the schools do.
-
+Bernie Fellay and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer are both convinced they are living a Traditional Catholic Life. As are Pope Francis, Tony Blair and Pope Michael I.
They can't all be.
-
+Bernie Fellay and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer are both convinced they are living a Traditional Catholic Life. As are Pope Francis, Tony Blair and Pope Michael I.
They can't all be.
Are you saying that because they all feel that they are living a Catholic life, they are in fact living a Catholic life?
-
+Bernie Fellay and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer are both convinced they are living a Traditional Catholic Life. As are Pope Francis, Tony Blair and Pope Michael I.
They can't all be.
Michael is not a Pope.
Tony Blair was head of a pro-abortion party.
Pope Francis is a conciliarist modernist and false ecuмenist.
Bishop Fellay wanted to join with modernists and has blatantly contradicted himself and waffled on his positions.
The resistance priests simply hold fast to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Their being rejected by Bishop Fellay means nothing canonically.
It's not at all hard to figure out for someone here.
It's like the Jєωs being enemies of the Church.
Anyone who understands the New Testament understands that.
But if someone thinks Constantine "leveraged" those Gospels, causing things to be left out, you might not know or care.
-
+Bernie Fellay and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer are both convinced they are living a Traditional Catholic Life. As are Pope Francis, Tony Blair and Pope Michael I.
They can't all be.
I left the NO to keep this type of garbage away from my child's mind. A board that allows this type of filth to continually be posted is not for me. ETA It's potentionally dangerous to others too.
-
+Bernie Fellay and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer are both convinced they are living a Traditional Catholic Life. As are Pope Francis, Tony Blair and Pope Michael I.
They can't all be.
Are you saying that because they all feel that they are living a Catholic life, they are in fact living a Catholic life?
No I am saying that the term Traditional Catholic is difficult to objectively define.
Catholics are supposed to be in submission to the Pope. Bernie Fellay at least gave it a crack by negotiating in good faith. For the resistance Pope Francis is nothing more than a cardboard cutout. For those focusing on "submission to the will of the pontiff" the SSPX looks highly suspect but the resistance could not claim to be Catholic and thus not Traditional Catholic.
-
No I am saying that the term Traditional Catholic is difficult to objectively define.
The Catholic Faith is pretty clear cut.
Catholics are supposed to be in submission to the Pope.
So then you don't approve of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Bernie Fellay at least gave it a crack by negotiating in good faith.
A secret compromise that is a essentially an attempt to circuмvent the longstanding position of the society isn't good faith. Especially when any criticism is threatened with punishment.
For the resistance Pope Francis is nothing more than a cardboard cutout.
It has been announced that John Paul II will be canonized. What is he to you?
-
No I am saying that the term Traditional Catholic is difficult to objectively define.
The Catholic Faith is pretty clear cut.
Catholics are supposed to be in submission to the Pope.
So then you don't approve of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Bernie Fellay at least gave it a crack by negotiating in good faith.
A secret compromise that is a essentially an attempt to circuмvent the longstanding position of the society isn't good faith. Especially when any criticism is threatened with punishment.
For the resistance Pope Francis is nothing more than a cardboard cutout.
It has been announced that John Paul II will be canonized. What is he to you?
(http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1308u.jpg)
"Gentlemen, Gentlemen... can't we just all get along?"
-
I'm pretty tolerant of various flavours of Traditionalists; including the resistance. I judge people by their good will and their fruits. I'm not keen to suggest to people who are attending church that they are not Catholics in this highly confusing time. You appear to be able to make these determinations and condemnations after an exchange of ideas with strangers on the Internet.
I hope for your sake your piercing intuition has improved since that unfortunate choir staircase incident.
I know JP2 should not be canonised for the simple reason that he taught, believed and acted out ideas which St. Pius Xth fought, believed and taught against. It makes no sense to me, and this is just a pure human rationalisation and would be the same if I was not religious, that two vicars of Christ that believed in diametric opposites can both be saints and have lives of heroic virtue which we are suppose to learn from and try to imitate.
So even if I was determined to stay a Catholic and modernism was my only choice, I would still have to insist that Pius Xth was decanonised before I could imitate JP2's life and offer my garden cottage to a paedophile to live in.
-
Greg, you said several times on other fora that the canonization of JPII would be your cue to apostasize. Are you still of that intention?
-
I'm pretty tolerant of various flavours of Traditionalists; including the resistance.
That's a falsehood. You've insulted the resistance repeatedly.
I judge people by their good will and their fruits.
Not true: you judge them by how much money they make and if their positions are "extreme" or not.
I'm not keen to suggest to people who are attending church that they are not Catholics in this highly confusing time.
Just going to church doesn't make one a Catholic. Why would someone believe that it does? I don't assume people in church aren't Catholics, although I seriously doubt most NO Catholics believe what the Church has traditionally taught.
You appear to be able to make these determinations and condemnations after an exchange of ideas with strangers on the Internet.
You yourself said what you believed about the history of the Church. It doesn't take any intuition to figure out what it means.
I hope for your sake your piercing intuition has improved since that unfortunate choir staircase incident.
What a shock you'd bring that up. What is obvious about you is that you are motivated by hatred and disregard the truth: you bring up events in my own life as though you pretend you know what happened: you are the one who jumps to conclusions about people: blaming a young woman for child's death recently. You're projecting.
I know JP2 should not be canonised for the simple reason that he taught, believed and acted out ideas which St. Pius Xth fought, believed and taught against. It makes no sense to me, and this is just a pure human rationalisation and would be the same if I was not religious, that two vicars of Christ that believed in diametric opposites can both be saints and have lives of heroic virtue which we are suppose to learn from and try to imitate.
There are a paucity of details there. Why bring up submission to a liberal modernist Pope if you are a trad who follows Archbishop Lefebvre's positions? It makes little sense. But it does make sense there would be a resistance to those seeking to put Catholics under men like Benedict and Francis.
So even if I was determined to stay a Catholic and modernism was my only choice, I would still have to insist that Pius Xth was decanonised before I could imitate JP2's life and offer my garden cottage to a paedophile to live in.
How could "modernism" be your only choice? Can't you see that makes no sense at all?
To be a "Catholic modernist" is to be everything and nothing.
-
Typical backtracking:
I'm pretty tolerant of various flavours of Traditionalists; including the resistance.
And that my friends is why 'the resistance' will never survive and thrive. It is made up of perfectionists, pedants, prigs and purists who will never be able to reach a consensus on anything. A house divided against itself and all that good stuff.
-
I'm pretty tolerant of various flavours of Traditionalists; including the resistance.
Where is the first hand evidence of Fr. Schmitberger saying what is quoted in the title of this thread? Fr. Pfeiffer is hardly an unbiased witness and basement dwellers are famous for taking quotes out of context to justify their nutty positions.
I am curious to know, what you think it looks like,when a priest goes off the deep end? Because even if an Angel appeared from Heaven and told me Pfeiffer was theologically correct, I would still think practically his resistance was a house of cards when he finds Williamson to be a compromiser. How will Pfeiffer get along with anyone if he finds Williamson to be dishing out demonic advice?
It is interesting that the resistance in the UK is spearheaded by former members of the National Front, and the International Third Position, a politically insignificant party that has had a long history of splits, internal rancour, coups and huge financial problems, lawsuits, embezzlement.
If Bishop Fellay is smart he will let those resistance priests go, rid himself of the loonies and watch them split into fragments, exactly like the nine did and the Sedevacantists have. With the SSPX out of the way, they will only have each other to vent their spleens on. It won't take long for them to being attacking (resisting) each other.
You should listen to a recent Dan Carlin podcasts on the Anabaptists of Munster, just Google it. It parallels the resistance very well and you can see all the same sorts of rancour, attack, calumnies, anger coming out.
-
More "tolerance"
How is this justification any different than the Old Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox church?
If the resistance split into the "pretend resistance" and the "real resistance", which it already shows signs of doing. Who would be standing up for the Faith, "pure and undefiled"?
If someone was hyperfocused on modesty for example in the middle ages, then Puritans or Anabaptists might have seemed more "pure and undefiled", than Catholic priests and Bishops with mistresses and Catholic Royalty with their boobs on display. How does a person judge this objectively?
I'm still not convinced that the resistance are resisting anything other than a figment of their imagination or, more precisely, a lot of old grips and vendettas and human politick between priests. The SSPX did not do a deal with Rome. They rejected it. So what exactly is being resisted?
It does not make any sense to me that God would allow ABL to spearhead Tradition with the SSPX, make it a relative success for 25 years and then allow +Fellay to destroy it, or have it absorbed by the Borg of Rome, to the point where only a TINY fraction of Trads who had made huge efforts to keep their faith could actually attend a "pure and undefiled" mass.
I think the resistance just like resisting stuff because it makes them feel "special".
-
Show me where I have suggested they are not Catholic?
I wouldn't go out of my way to go to a resistance mass, but if it were that or miss mass that week, then I would go along.
Just because someone is a nutter, dim-witted, lacking in wisdom or confused and has made the wrong decision in what are very very difficult circuмstances, I don't judge them to be evil, "ungodly" and non-Catholic.
I can understand why there are so many nutters in Traditionalism, because the world is a nutty place, difficult to make sense of, and for some people getting extreme is the way they build a protective shell around them and cope from day to day.
Others stay long term unemployed and hide in their mother's basement building a world of internet 'friends' around them and rejecting the evil world. I understand it, I really do.
I'm sure to a person who believes in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ love and marriage, transgenderism and mutable truth my stance on those particular issues makes me look like a nutter to them.
The difference is that 50 years ago 99% of men thought like me. There has never been a time when hiding in the basement and living your life out in a cyber reality was normal.
-
Show me where I have suggested they are not Catholic?
That's not the issue. You are clearly not tolerant of them. Bishop Fellay may not say the resistance are not Catholic (although he's going in that direction, calling them sedes, etc) but he certainly does not tolerate them.
I wouldn't go out of my way to go to a resistance mass, but if it were that or miss mass that week, then I would go along.
Just because someone is a nutter, dim-witted, lacking in wisdom or confused and has made the wrong decision in what are very very difficult circuмstances, I don't judge them to be evil, "ungodly" and non-Catholic.
You just vent your hatred on them.
I can understand why there are so many nutters in Traditionalism, because the world is a nutty place, difficult to make sense of, and for some people getting extreme is the way they build a protective shell around them and cope from day to day.
Others stay long term unemployed and hide in their mother's basement building a world of internet 'friends' around them and rejecting the evil world. I understand it, I really do.
And yet you've been exposed as a non-Catholic and bad-willed and in bad faith. You've admitted it. "I'm handing in my membership badge" - why do you hang around here?
That there are evil people like you who tell lies about other people, as you have about me, without any proof, just your "hunch" - evil people who hate the resistance priests and insult them and foolish people who tolerate them is to be expected.
I'm sure to a person who believes in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ love and marriage, transgenderism and mutable truth my stance on those particular issues makes me look like a nutter to them.
You're stance is hardly credible seeing as you hung out with fag enablers for years on an internet forum while siding against the serious Catholics.
The difference is that 50 years ago 99% of men thought like me. There has never been a time when hiding in the basement and living your life out in a cyber reality was normal.
This is not a normal time. There are plenty of people who've faced social rejection and isolation in the past of course. They didn't always have the opportunity to show their intellectual superiority to successful double-talkers and liars.
You've been proven to be a disingenuous liar.
"I'm tolerant of the resistance"
You hate the resistance.
-
Three downrates each simply for quoting another poster twice!
Wow
Looks like duplicate accounts.
Sort of like that raving ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ troll "gugaxamot" that was trolling in favor of the perfidious fake before.
-
I don't think that just because someone presents a contrarian view in order to seek out new answers in a conversation means they are a lying hater.
I mean, presenting contrary opinion is a part of debate. It's something you learn in a debate class in grade school.
-
I don't think that just because someone presents a contrarian view in order to seek out new answers in a conversation means they are a lying hater.
We know you can't read Laramie. "I'm tolerant of the resistance" - he has been waging a campaign of ridicule and insult for days.
I mean, presenting contrary opinion is a part of debate. It's something you learn in a debate class in grade school.
You actually have to be able to engage in the discussion to debate. You're not intelligent enough.
-
No Tele I don't hate them. In fact, one of the people who signed that letter is my best friend of 25 years. He does not go to resistance Masses because there aren't any where he is.
As for handing my blazer badge and membership in, that is conditional on the Vatican canonising JP2 or John XXIII with any normal degree of solemnity. (Doing it to the tune of The Love Boat with lyrics by Elton John, I would not consider a valid canonisation). But yes, at that point, if it comes, which i hope it won't, then my reason and my faith will conflict and I will side with my reason. Obviously at that point I will stop posting to Catholic forums and you can hold me to that.
Here is a proposal. I'm not going anywhere and you don't own the forum. Until they canonise JP2, I like trashing around ideas and testing people's though processes and I've quit Fisheaters because of the fαɢɢօtry and SD because it was taking too much time.
Now, I appreciate you have a great deal of time to waste, but how about you stick to criticising my posts and my ideas and not keep attacking me as a person, because it is getting very repetitive and dull for all the other poor people on here trying to sift comments from personal attacks and I will do the same. As you might have noticed I often ignore or wait for good half a dozen off topic personal attacks from you before mentioning basements, sloth and teenage virgins and only then to give other posters a bit of a laugh after wading through two pages of your rants.
That will save a lot of time for both of us. Something as a father of now six children I possibly value more than you, but even you could spend that time more productively because your personal attacks are not going to make me quit. I am not the quitting type.
I've a plane to catch back to Londinium so you have 24 hours respite to think about it and prepare your preamble terms.
-
No Tele I don't hate them.
I just posted your own description of resistance. Now those posts were brimming with contempt. You are the kind of person to say anything so denying it means little.
In fact, one of the people who signed that letter is my best friend of 25 years. He does not go to resistance Masses because there aren't any where he is.
Sounds like something you made up, probably like a bunch of other things you've said here.
As for handing my blazer badge and membership in, that is conditional on the Vatican canonising JP2 or John XXIII with any normal degree of solemnity. (Doing it to the tune of The Love Boat with lyrics by Elton John, I would not consider a valid canonisation). But yes, at that point, if it comes, which i hope it won't, then my reason and my faith will conflict and I will side with my reason. Obviously at that point I will stop posting to Catholic forums and you can hold me to that.
You're already an apostate if you would quit the Faith over that. You already said you would leave before and didn't. Your word means nothing.
Here is a proposal. I'm not going anywhere and you don't own the forum. Until they canonise JP2, I like trashing around ideas and testing people's though processes and I've quit Fisheaters because of the fαɢɢօtry and SD because it was taking to much time.
The fag troll that came here before to insult me and spread his filth was supporting you, because he recognizes who is on his side. You were there insulting and berating trads, just as you insult the resistance, because you have an agenda.
Now, I appreciate you have a great deal of time to waste, but how about you stick to criticising my posts and my ideas and not keep attacking me as a person, because it is getting very repetitive and dull for all the other poor people on here trying to sift comments from personal attack and I will do the same.
You almost never respond to substantive criticisims but change the subject because you have an aversion to Catholic traditionalism.
Every time someone who publicly casts doubt on the Faith and says he will apostasize given conditions x, y z, is quoted commenting on Catholic issues it should be brought up that this person is not speaking from the perspective of a Catholic.
As you might have noticed I often ignore or wait for good half a dozen off topic personal attacks from you before mentioning basements, sloth and teenage virgins and only then to give posters a bit of a laugh after wading through two pages of your rants.
You ignore what you can't argue with. You retort with insults like the above because that's your agenda here, you insult the resistance just as you insult me.
There hasn't been any substantive discussion of the theology of the resistance from you. Just insults, stupid long boring posts. The typical product of someone who has a LOT of practice loading on the BS.
That will save a lot of time for both of us. Something as a father of now six children I possibly value more than you
Yet you don't value your time on this board very much, which makes one doubt many of the claims you make about yourself.
Why would a fag trolls come out of the woodwork (as happened before today) on behalf of people like you?
, but even you could spend that time more productively because your personal attacks are not going to make me quit. I am not the quitting type.
You already quit the religion and you've already been exposed as a double talking BS artist.
You're definitely a quitter.
I've a plane to catch back to Londinium so you have 24 hours respite to think about it and prepare your preamble terms.
You're going to be wasting a lot of time pretending to be Catholic on here, although you said you wouldn't until the new year. You don't stick to doing what you say your going to do. You should.
-
Ok, well don't say I didn't hold out an olive branch.
I just feel sorry for the other forum members that have to wade through that drivel.
-
Ok, well don't say I didn't hold out an olive branch.
I just feel sorry for the other forum members that have to wade through that drivel.
Drivel?
I make you look like an idiot, (and more than that, a dishonest used car salesman type idiot) and you know it.
You don't get ten downrates for your idiotic posts about the resistance because they are anything other than disingenuous drivel.
-
I thought you told Matthew the other day, when he announced you had the forum high score for down rates that they didn't mean anything?
-
I thought you told Matthew the other day, when he announced you had the forum high score for down rates that they didn't mean anything?
I don't recall saying that. I know Matthew said something like that. Poor memory you have and a tendency to be loose with the facts. I don't need to worry about my rep score. Matthew seems to given recent posts of his.
I say, ten people downrate your post about the resistance (that I quoted above, because it shows your real attitude) because they know exactly where you're coming from and they know what your attitude is. They know you don't even think the Church has been faithful to the Gospels since Constantine. So of course such a person does not have a Catholic view of history and then cannot support Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King.
You're just not a trad. You hold them in contempt and you vent it on them constantly.
I quote your own posts on this thread showing your hostility and I quickly get three downrates on each. Is it because I give too much attention to your drivel? Or because of some duplicate accounts or some FE or SD weirdos like that fag who was trolling here before?
You shouldn't be surprised he comes here to troll on your behalf.
-
Greg, you said several times on other fora that the canonization of JPII would be your cue to apostasize. Are you still of that intention?
Nobody has given me a good reason why not despite many attempts. How can JP2 and Pope St. Pius X both have lives of heroic virtue that we should emulate? They contradict each other in just about every possible way.
How is JP2 any less canonised if the Pope says the words and defines and declares him a saint?
I see a lot of sophisms, wilful blindness and revisionism about whether canonisations are infallible, indeed on SD, JayneK (i believe) suggested that infallibility might not be infallible. Once people are prepared to enter that insane rabbit hole then I seriously question whether they are not brainwashed like cult members. Is infallibility infallible should not even be up for debate.
Practically speaking the canonisation of JP2 or XXIII is the canonisation of the Second Vatican Council. They need a Pope Saint to raise V2 to a defacto protected Dogmatic council. It can never be refuted or rejected without casting huge doubt on infallibility itself. At that point Trads have lost the argument because consistency and infallibility underpins most of their justifications for existing. Airbrushing history is not a solution and would simply serve to convince me that the Church might well have done that several times in the past.
I have no desire to be part of any Church or Creed that has novus Ordo style modernism hall marked into its DNA. It's such a silly ball-less religion that I simply cannot believe it is the truth.
But they have not set a date for the Canonisation yet. Hope dies last, as the Russians say. Many a slip twix cup and lip. But if and when it happens then I am gone. It's my line in the sand.
-
Once people are prepared to enter that insane rabbit hole then I seriously question whether they are not brainwashed like cult members.
It can't be invalid? A Pope can't lose his pontificate?
Let's be honest: you practically think already they are brainwashed cult members, and you probably have for decades.- you say the resistance is based on a "figment of their imagination" because they want to feel "special" - yet you say you're tolerant: of people you think of as brainwashed cult members.
The fact that you claim to make a dubious canonization grounds for abjuring the Catholic Faith, in conjunction with the other things you said in that passage shows your real position on the religion, and it explains why you have such obsessive hostility towards the "nutters" as you call them. It's hostility to the religion and to Tradition itself.
But I doubt you will go away if John Paul II is canonized. I doubt you'll stop going to mass, if you actually do go.
You will probably join up these forums under another name and continue your trolling routine.
-
I don't think that just because someone presents a contrarian view in order to seek out new answers in a conversation means they are a lying hater.
We know you can't read Laramie. "I'm tolerant of the resistance" - he has been waging a campaign of ridicule and insult for days.
I mean, presenting contrary opinion is a part of debate. It's something you learn in a debate class in grade school.
You actually have to be able to engage in the discussion to debate. You're not intelligent enough.
You're an idiot, Tele. This brings me laughter. My revenge is that you cannot change. The wind blows, and you are offended. I can imagine you at your screen tonight, scowling and waiting with bated breath for the next opportunity to scratch at someone like a wretched forgotten woman.
Forums are for conversation. I don't know what you think they are for.
Matthew has already said you have a problem in your participation on this forum.
Myself, I just don't like you as a person.
The fag troll that came here before to insult me and spread his filth was supporting you, because he recognizes who is on his side.
Now, now. Are you talking about me here?
-
gugaxamot.
one of ggreg's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ supporters. (speaking in favor of abortion, using obscene ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ language)
-
Matthew has already said you have a problem in your participation on this forum.
If Matthew wants to ban me because he prefers the presence here of someone who has announced he would apostasize contingent on Francis "canonizing" John Paul II, who says the resistance is resisting a "figment of their imagination" and its members do so to "to feel special" because Matthew thinks being given negative rep by me is a big problem, then I will pray for Matthew, as his reputation message suggests.
-
Hey ggreg, why do you prefer St. Pius X to John Paul? John Paul was friendly with the Jєωs and recognized Israel in 1994. Even before that in 1984 he mentions the "State of Israel" in “Redemptionis Anno.”
In 1904, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, was granted an audience with Pope St. Pius X. His purpose in meeting with the Pope was to gain support for the founding of a Jєωιѕн state in what was then known as Palestine. As Herzl recorded in his diary, the Pope gave an unfavorable response, saying: “We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jєωs from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jєωs have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you."
Sounds like St Pius X was at least 70% against Israel.
-
gugaxamot.
one of ggreg's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ supporters. (speaking in favor of abortion, using obscene ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ language)
I accidentally thumbed down this post.
-
Myself, I just don't like you as a person.
I like anyone who doesn't post error or, if so, welcomes correction.
Telesphorus fits the bill in that regard.
I had a laugh when Novus Weirdo called you "LaramieHerschel."
-
Myself, I just don't like you as a person.
I like anyone who doesn't post error or, if so, welcomes correction.
Telesphorus fits the bill in that regard.
I had a laugh when Novus Weirdo called you "LaramieHerschel."
Laramie doesn't like people who don't pay him enough attention I think.
-
Myself, I just don't like you as a person.
I like anyone who doesn't post error or, if so, welcomes correction.
Telesphorus fits the bill in that regard.
I had a laugh when Novus Weirdo called you "LaramieHerschel."
I'm laughing at the fact that I'm witnessing a block of people who're pleased to be rude to me because I defended Greg.
A little dispiriting, I suppose. I've been here a year and a half longer than Novus Weirdo the Weirdo. But I guess he had nowhere to go once his previous stomping grounds at Ignis Ardens got taken over.
I guess that this'll teach me that seniority means nothing here! :smile:
-
Laramie doesn't like people who don't pay him enough attention I think.
I'm not the one who has over 10k posts.
-
Hey ggreg, why do you prefer St. Pius X to John Paul?.
It's not a question of preferences. Even if I liked John Paul II and disliked Pius Xth there would still be a contradiction in their thoughts, words and deeds.
To remain a Catholic assuming i was rationally thinking it through, I would then somehow have to believe that 100 years ago the Pope was unjust, anti Jєωιѕн and uncharitable and yet infallibly a saint, and that at Vatican II the church was put back on the correct track, it had been derailed from for hundreds of years. This is equally contradicting. It Vatican II was a second Pentecost then the Church before Vatican II defected, to require a second Pentecost.
The whole premise of the Traditional Catholic position is that these are extreme times where the Popes and the hierarchy are in extreme error, bordering on heresy. Any canonisation of a V2 pope puts the kibosh on that justification because it rubber stamps their pontificate, ideas and writings as essentially good and holy.
-
It's not against Catholic teaching that a Pope can lose his office.
-
Ggreg, this is not a business decision, where you might be imprudent or stupid to back "the wrong horse".
This is a matter of RIGHT AND WRONG, of the FAITH and opposing MODERNISM in a complete and thorough manner.
As such, it doesn't matter if we win or lose. But we're expected to "fight the good fight" (ever heard that phrase before?)
God takes plenty of notice of the EFFORT you put in, not just the results.
As a man who is culturally 50% Irish (my Dad's family was completely Irish in their habits, traits, faults, virtues, etc.), I understand well that a man must fight for what is right, even if the odds are against you. Even if you have no hope of winning. You have to try.
Fr. Pfeiffer is right, though -- this struggle is so clear-cut, and the problems in the SSPX are so clear-cut and concrete, that we must struggle against it, even if this or that priest's efforts fail. We HAVE to try.
If Fr. Pfeiffer ultimately fails (due to his own weaknesses, etc.) then God will raise up someone else, because someone has to do it. If not, we're talking about the end of the Catholic Church.
Modernism isn't a game.
The Church can survive with a little bit of Modernism the same way one's purity could survive with a little adult "novelty" store in the corner of one's house. They just don't co-exist.
-
Let's assume that Pope Francis lives another seven years and no deal is struck between the SSPX and Rome. It is now 2020 and the SSPX has grown 20% in that time. whilst the resistance is still limited to a handful of chapels and a diminishing number home-aloners or perhaps disintegrated into a half dozen splinter groups.
Not that I want sow doubt in your mind, ggreg, but... The SSPX growing by anything Luke 20%, if at all, seems far from likely to me. Going on current trends the SSPX will be a good deal smaller and weaker. This year for the first time ever the number of priests in the SSPX shrank, even after the new round of ordinations in June.
-
Let's assume that Pope Francis lives another seven years and no deal is struck between the SSPX and Rome. It is now 2020 and the SSPX has grown 20% in that time. whilst the resistance is still limited to a handful of chapels and a diminishing number home-aloners or perhaps disintegrated into a half dozen splinter groups.
Not that I want sow doubt in your mind, ggreg, but... The SSPX growing by anything Luke 20%, if at all, seems far from likely to me. Going on current trends the SSPX will be a good deal smaller and weaker. This year for the first time ever the number of priests in the SSPX shrank, even after the new round of ordinations in June.
The ordinations itself were poorly attended.
-
Ggreg, this is not a business decision, where you might be imprudent or stupid to back "the wrong horse".
This is a matter of RIGHT AND WRONG, of the FAITH and opposing MODERNISM in a complete and thorough manner.
As such, it doesn't matter if we win or lose. But we're expected to "fight the good fight" (ever heard that phrase before?)
God takes plenty of notice of the EFFORT you put in, not just the results.
As a man who is culturally 50% Irish (my Dad's family was completely Irish in their habits, traits, faults, virtues, etc.), I understand well that a man must fight for what is right, even if the odds are against you. Even if you have no hope of winning. You have to try.
Fr. Pfeiffer is right, though -- this struggle is so clear-cut, and the problems in the SSPX are so clear-cut and concrete, that we must struggle against it, even if this or that priest's efforts fail. We HAVE to try.
If Fr. Pfeiffer ultimately fails (due to his own weaknesses, etc.) then God will raise up someone else, because someone has to do it. If not, we're talking about the end of the Catholic Church.
Modernism isn't a game.
The Church can survive with a little bit of Modernism the same way one's purity could survive with a little adult "novelty" store in the corner of one's house. They just don't co-exist.
Well stated. It reminded me about a guy I went to school with, who a few years ago told a friend of mine he was a "headbanger" and was wasting his time in Catholic activism. He was told not to be wasting his life away.
He told him over the phone it would be better if he spent his time trying to make money and not waste time engaging in various activity. He is also Catholic but making money is more important.
-
Matthew, God has allowed this situation to go on for 50 years and while things have taken a huge dive they have not collapsed. The number of practicing Novus Ordo families who go along to mass, don't use birth control, frequent the sacraments (conservatives) is still far greater in number than all the Traditionalists in the world put together; orders of magnitude greater. Unless you are very blinkered is it hard not to notice that even the Novus Ordo part of the Church STILL has some very pious holy souls in it.
The Church has 'survived' for 50 years. It is not dead yet; is it? You still acknowledge Pope Francis as the Head of the Church right? You have not gone SV? If he is head of the Church in Rome then the Church must be alive or he is head of nothing. He is not head of the Resistance or the SSPX is he; so he must be head of the mainstream Church.
You and I might both be dead before modernism is vanquished from the hiearchy. It might come to pass that the resistance collapses through a series of splits and is no more relevant or influential over the next 30 years than SVism has been over the last 30. A blip in history. The SSPX may continue the fight for another 20 years before finally signing a deal with a more conservative Pope (but still not perfect) and then slowly over time things may recover. Historically this has happened before so you'd be a fool to dismiss it as impossible.
According to Father Pfeiffer's recent video comments the resistance is 2000 people strong worldwide and 1000 more affiliates. The SSPX dwarfs it, and I don't see the SSPX suffering violent collapse, because what they have done they have already done and people have not left. Most SSPX families are going to be prudent and continue doing what they've been doing for the last few decades. Without the resistance causing trouble and division the SSPX might actually do BETTER than before. It's possible. How many conservatives were put off joining the SSPX because of their assocation with Bishop Williamson? We might be about to find out.
If that long play scenario comes to pass, then at what point does Father Pfeiffer's successor (let's call him Fr. Adolf Fishwick) say, "actually we were wrong to resist and it appears that it might be time to travel to Rome and talk to Pope Pius XV now that Cardinal Krah (son of Max) has convinced Pope Pius XV that the worst docuмents of Vatican II should be censured"?
What do you do then? Decide whether Fr. Fishwick is following "demonic advice" and whether to join the resistance of the resistance?
If the struggle is "so clear cut", then why are only 3000 SSPXers with you? Why can't the vast majority of the SSPX including three Bishops see it? Even Williamson HIMSELF is not pot committed and he has no ties. It's not clear cut to him, clearly.
Clear as mud more like.
So you are either the creme de la creme of Catholics with holy souls and a incredible piety and masterful foresight, or, you are just a bunch of Trads self-selected from another bunch of Trads who for various reasons decided to resist. Some, like you, because you felt like you had to "fight the good fight" and some, like Joe there in Cincinnati who for three years wanted to vent his spleen against the SSPX for kicking him out of their Church for his obsession with a Puerto Rican teenager.
If by some turn of fate Joe had married his Puerto Rican temptress and was barbequing every Sunday with his father-in-law, do you think for one minute Joe/Tele would be supporting the resistance? I don't. His 200 page thread in Mar 2011 make it absolutely crystal clear what is driving him?
Finally, the thing that convinces me that the resistance are not "special" or "enlightened" is the questions coming from the audience at Fr. Pfieffer's recent talks. These poor souls are confused about the most basic aspects of validity versus licitness of the mass and asking very basic questions. They know about 10% of what I know about the Catholic Faith. There is absolutely no way on God's green earth that they are intellectually capable of determining in a "clear cut" way what the correct course in a very tricky stickly complex Smörgåsbord of claims and counter claims.
They are making the decision based on emotion.
-
Legitimate conservatives aren't put off by Bishop Williamson because legitimate conservatives don't allow Jєωs to determine the discourse they consider to be morally acceptable.
Legitimate conservative Catholics (who have any degree of knowledge) do not favor Jєωs, send children to public school (if they can avoid it), nor are they pro-Israel.
The fact that ggreg has never once seriously addressed the doctrinal issues that motivate the resistance is telling: that he brags of being more knowledgeable and sophisticated than simple souls who still have the Catholic Faith is very telling about his mindset.
A bastard rite is not a legtimately promulgated rite. Bishop Fellay is smart enough to know that. So what does he believe? The first or the second? Does it depend on what's likely to be more "successful" in his mind?
If there are still Catholics in the NO who seriously understand and believe the teachings of the Church it is in spite of their leadership.
The idea that the trad movement has been ineffectual is what you would expect from an indultarian who reiterated recently his determination to apostasize given the canonization of John Paul II.
The SSPX branding is designed to attract well-off individuals who don't care much for the Catholic Faith but dislike "extremists"
There cannot be spiritual fruits emanating from that.
If this moron ggreg thinks I'd be defending the Bishop Fellay of Krah and company driving out Bishop Williamson, he's nuts.
It is true, I realized the latent hostility towards traditonalism and the shift coming about because of the liberal attitudes that were evident in the priests.
That has worsened rapidly in the past few years.
Father Pfeiffer has explained fairly well the SSPX is not growing significantly, has lost its missionary spirit, no longer establishes new missions, hardly covers more territory than before despite having many more priests, and now is encouraging family size limitation.
-
When did I join the forum:
Feb 28, 2009, 10:12 pm
Within little more than a month of the lifting of the excommunications.
Why? Because it was pro-Williamson and I noticed fisheaters had a real problem. Unfortunately it was something of a dead forum then.
Bishop Williamson is the reason I decided to start attending SSPX.
Unlike people who prefer Jєωs and their sympathizers to authentic trad Catholics, I don't believe in the treachery of mocking, ridiculing, and trying to silence one's brother bishop for the sake of Jєωιѕн approval.
Just as I don't believe in the double talk of saying at one moment a rite is bastard and another it is "legitimately promulgated"
-
ggreg
I agree with Fr. Hewko. The purpose of the Resistance is Doctrinal, not Emotional. Please read:
July 24, 2012
St. Christina, Virgin & Martyr
"CHANGE OF DOCTRINE? ...WHERE?"
Dear N.,
As N. remarked in his letter, the Second Vatican Council's great success for the Revolution was in the ambiguous docuмents.
The same success was accomplished in the Society by ambiguous phrases found in the CNS Interview on May 11, 2012, DICI Interview on June 7, 2012, the General Chapter Statement & Six Conditions of July 14, 2012, the April 15, 2012 D O C T R I N A L Declaration and the June 27, 2013 Declaration.
The change of doctrine is found directly or indirectly in the texts of the above docuмents & interviews. The new doctrines are:
1. The errors of the Council are surmountable, open to discussion and not really from the Council, "but from the general interpretation of the Council."
2. Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism are surmountable and "limited". The new, erudite wording fails to condemn these heresies as the pre-Vatican II popes had done, and treats them as occasions of error rather than condemned errors that DIRECTLY attack Christ the King and the Faith.
3. The New Mass is now declared to be "legitimately promulgated" which is equivalent to calling it a legitimate Mass. (See talk of Fr. De La Rocque on May 18, 2012, proving this). This compromise has lead many other groups to accept and celebrate the New Mass. At best, the new Declaration charges the New Mass as "diminishing" Christ's Reign, it also "curtails" and "obscures" the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, rather than saying that, in fact, it directly ATTACKS and UNDERMINES by omission, these essential qualities of the Mass, which Cardinals Bacci, Oddi and Ottaviani's Study proves. Furthermore, since "how one prays expresses how one believes" ("lex orandi lex credendi"), for the SSPX to acknowledge as legitimately promulgated a way of prayer that fundamentally attacks what Catholics must believe, is to call that which attacks and undermines the Catholic Doctrine a legitimate prayer, pleasing to God!
4. Consequently, the New Rites and New Sacraments are also considered valid and legitimate. Where does this put our conditional Confirmations and Ordinations?
5. The New Code is accepted, with no distinctions. The New Code is penetrated with the errors and heresies of Vatican II, which must also be implicitly approved by accepting the New Code.
6. The new ecclesiology of recognizing the Conciliar Church as ONE with the Catholic Church of all time is now taught. Abp. Lefebvre always recognized the pope is head of TWO churches, as a result of the crisis; the Conciliar Church by his Modernism, and the Catholic Church by his lawful authority. Faithful Catholics are obliged to acknowledge him and resist him, simultaneously. This state of the Pope's right to our disobedience exists until Rome returns to Tradition!
7. The acceptance of Vatican II as "enlightening" and "deepening" Tradition as well as admitting that there are doctrines "not yet conceptually formulated" as part of the "living transmission" of the Faith, constitutes a betrayal and unacceptable compromise of the Faith that every Catholic is bound to resist!
This answers your question: "Change of Doctrine? Where?" Vatican II & its Reforms attack the doctrines on:
- The One True Church
- The Social Reign of O. L. Jesus Christ
- The Eternal Priesthood of O. L. Jesus Christ & the priesthood
- The Union of Church and State
- The true and false notions of Liberty & Human Dignity
- The Monarchical Structure of the Papacy
- Outside of the Catholic Church, No Salvation
- The Sacrifice of the Mass
- The 7 Sacraments and their Institution
- The Faith as a whole! (since Modernism is the "synthesis
of all heresies" and permeates the entire texts of the
Council).
To say "the affirmations of Vatican II...must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition" as Bp. Fellay does, is to admit a blatant CONTRADICTION! Why? "...Because I do NOT believe that the Declarations of the Council on Liberty of Conscience, Liberty of Thought, and Liberty of Religion can be compatible with what the Popes taught in the past! Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the Popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church OR we choose what was said by the Council. BUT WE CANNOT CHOOSE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME SINCE THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY" (Abp. Lefebvre, Press Conference, Sept. 15, 1976; in a special issue of "Itineraires", April 1977, p.299).
8. The lies continue perpetrating that "nothing has changed" while the docrinal compromises, listed above, exist in official docuмents, officially sent to Rome, in an official capacity! Remember, La Barroux, Campos, Good Shepherd Institute, etc., all boasted that "nothing has changed" and they maintained the right to criticize Modernism & Vat. II! All of them have compromised AFTER their agreements with Modernist Rome. The only difference for the SSPX is that the compromise came BEFORE the written agreement!
9. Tactics are the same as all Revolutionaries; two steps forward, one step back. "...But the annoying thing is that the Liberals themselves practiced this system in the text of the schemas: assertion of an error or an ambiguity or a dangerous orientation, then immediately after or before, an assertion in the opposite direction, intended to tranquillize the conservative conciliar fathers" (Abp. Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. 24,p.168).
10. All the above new doctrines are further confirmed by the silencings, punishments, threats, refusals of Holy Communion, punitive transfers, canonical monitions and expulsions for all those who openly oppose the new doctrines and orientation expressed by the Superior General and official docuмents.
Moreover, the fact that the Resistance is not a reaction specified to one location, but all over the world, shows it is a universal problem of the FAITH! The 3 bishops, on April 7, 2012, tried to alarm and warn Bp. Fellay, but they were rebuked and ignored. The fruits of the new doctrines have since appeared, as they had forewarned: division, loss of Faith, confusion and loss of trust in the SSPX authorities.
Even if, by a sudden change of mind, a truly solid, Traditional Catholic Declaration appeared from Menzingen tomorrow, it would still not undo the scandal and compromise of the Faith in the official docuмents expressing the SSPX's new position! As Fr. Girourd remarked, it would take an equally serious General Chapter and Statement publicly denouncing, rejecting and correcting the scandalous compromises and errors against the Faith, found in the official docuмents and interviews since early 2012.
The Society would have to simply reaffirm the clear position and mission of its Founder, as before the "Vatican II-B" in July, 2012, and obviously replace the leadership with non Liberals.
"In practice our attitude should be based on a previous discernment, rendered necessary by these extraordinary circuмstances of a Pope [or Superior General (addition, mine)] won to Liberalism. This discernment is this: when the Pope says something that is consistent with Tradition, we follow him; when he says something that goes contrary to our Faith, then we cannot follow him! The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the Pope, and the hierarchy are AT THE SERVICE OF THE FAITH. It is not they who make the Faith; they must serve it. The Faith is not being created, it is unchangeable, it is transmitted.
"This is why we cannot follow these acts of these Popes that are done with the goal of confirming an action that goes against Tradition: by that very act WE WOULD BE COLLABORATING IN THE AUTODEMOLITION OF THE CHURCH, in the destruction of our Faith!
"...Someone once advised me, 'Sign, sign, that you accept everything; and then you continue as before!' (The May 5, 1988 Protocol). NO! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH HIS FAITH!" (Abp. Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. 31, p.229).
I hope this answers your question. How we must pray to the Immaculate Heart to hasten Her hour!
In Christ the King,
Fr. David Hewko
ggreg, What say you to Fr. Hewko's claims?
-
1. The unjust and illegal exclusion of +Williamson from the General Chapter, the attempt to completely silence and sideline him (to appease the Jєωs and the modern world), and his consequent expulsion.
2. The new orientation of the SSPX, made publicly known. The SSPX is now concerned what Modernist Rome thinks of it, and will do everything it can to be as pleasing as possible to Rome. That is a compromise and a mistake.
Those are the first two obvious ones that come to mind; the reasons most people have. And there are plenty of other reasons. But it hit me yesterday that there is a third reason, which is almost as powerful as the first two.
3. I've never read or heard, even once, the admission from the SSPX media/authorities/pro-Fellay faction that the Resistance supporters could be ANY ONE of these things (nevermind all 5):
1. Good Catholics
2. of good will
3. Long-standing, fervent supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX
4. Well-informed
5. With a healthy, intact Spiritual Life
That is such a violation of the truth, in my opinion, that it makes me question how committed they are to the truth. Their public statements -- which consistently bury the truth, can only be described as propaganda.
The truth is that most Resistance supporters are all those things, and non-Sedevacantist to boot (which is another frequent accusation of the accordistas). From what I've seen, most supporters of the Resistance are 1. Good Catholics 2. of good will 3. Long-standing, fervent supporters of the SSPX 4. Well-informed 5. With a healthy, intact Spiritual Life
Just like after Vatican II, all the well-informed, Good Catholics of good will who were trying to live a holy life and who fervently supported the Church materially and spiritually for decades were vilified when they opposed Vatican II -- the same thing is happening today.
Another point is that the SSPX typically does not address the doctrinal issues but relies on character assassination.
This is the same tack as the "I'm handing in my membership badge" "Catholic" we have trolling here.
-
I don't believe in the treachery of mocking, ridiculing, and trying to silence...
:roll-laugh1:
-
I don't believe in the treachery of mocking, ridiculing, and trying to silence...
:roll-laugh1:
We're talking about Catholics here Laramie. There's quite difference between mocking a liberal anti-traditionalist on this board and Bishop Fellay publicly berating and insulting the man who was consecrated beside him two decades before, causing a loss of confidence and a great deal of chaos, admitting that would be the result, and doing it to gain the favor of Jєωs and conciliarists, in conjunction with a campaign to "brand" the SSPX.
Someone who thinks of the SSPX as a business and that its "truth" somehow depends on its "success" deserves to be mocked, and reviled if he is shameless.
-
1. The unjust and illegal exclusion of +Williamson from the General Chapter, the attempt to completely silence and sideline him (to appease the Jєωs and the modern world), and his consequent expulsion.
2. The new orientation of the SSPX, made publicly known. The SSPX is now concerned what Modernist Rome thinks of it, and will do everything it can to be as pleasing as possible to Rome. That is a compromise and a mistake.
Those are the first two obvious ones that come to mind; the reasons most people have. And there are plenty of other reasons. But it hit me yesterday that there is a third reason, which is almost as powerful as the first two.
3. I've never read or heard, even once, the admission from the SSPX media/authorities/pro-Fellay faction that the Resistance supporters could be ANY ONE of these things (nevermind all 5):
1. Good Catholics
2. of good will
3. Long-standing, fervent supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX
4. Well-informed
5. With a healthy, intact Spiritual Life
That is such a violation of the truth, in my opinion, that it makes me question how committed they are to the truth. Their public statements -- which consistently bury the truth, can only be described as propaganda.
The truth is that most Resistance supporters are all those things, and non-Sedevacantist to boot (which is another frequent accusation of the accordistas). From what I've seen, most supporters of the Resistance are 1. Good Catholics 2. of good will 3. Long-standing, fervent supporters of the SSPX 4. Well-informed 5. With a healthy, intact Spiritual Life
Just like after Vatican II, all the well-informed, Good Catholics of good will who were trying to live a holy life and who fervently supported the Church materially and spiritually for decades were vilified when they opposed Vatican II -- the same thing is happening today.
Another point is that the SSPX typically does not address the doctrinal issues but relies on character assassination.
This is the same tack as the "I'm handing in my membership badge" "Catholic" we have trolling here.
A factor in getting me to step away from the Indult was how it compromises. I am sorry to say it but I regard attending the SSPX as a serious danger to the faith. I won't start calling those, who remain attending *liberals but those serious about the faith must follow the resistance.
*I must admit I did think of standing outside SSPX chapels but I think at this point the facts are there for all to see. Follow the Church of Bishop Fellay or the heritage of the Archbishop.
The danger of remaining in a Society chapel is one might say "Things are not so bad". All Rome wants to do is change the thinking of Traditionalists.
-
I don't believe in the treachery of mocking, ridiculing, and trying to silence...
:roll-laugh1:
We're talking about Catholics here Laramie. There's quite difference between mocking a liberal anti-traditionalist on this board and
...deserves to be mocked, and reviled if he is shameless.
And yet, you just said that mockery and ridicule is treacherous in a previous post!
What a double-standard! What hypocracy! There is definitely someone on this thread who is shameless with their posts.
I could pull up some material from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or even quote Scriptures. But I think it'd be pointless to do so.
Greg is not being shamelessly aggressive. He is posting contrary scenarios and rhetorical questions that deserve to be answered honestly. Doing so would allow for a better, clearer discussion. But so far, you've thrown in insults and it clouds the entire conversation.
Hypothetical scenarios.
Rhetorical questions.
These are tools which are utilized in debates. This is a forum. Debating happens here.
-
"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines" some may say, "but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?" We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men."
. . .
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.htm
The "I'm going to hand in my membership badge" fraud here has been wounded mortally rhetorically speaking.
How could a believing trad take him seriously?
-
Greg is not being shamelessly aggressive.
That's a falsehood laramie.
I bump a post of St. Alphonsus and he goes about attacking my personal life.
Ggreg is here because of people who slandered me, who he supported. He came here to harass me, because he's an anti-Catholic liberal.
Period.
And if you support him it's because you're like a monkey thinking that by crawling on his back more people will pay attention to you.
-
ggreg, What say you to Fr. Hewko's claims?
Nothing, they are just claims. Prove them and I will say something.
Why is Fr. Hewko's assessment of +Fellay being a closet liberal any more true or less of an opinion than my opinion of father Hewko being an reactionary with a poor judgement?
If Bishop Williamson was confident that Stan and Oli could pull off this caper then he would throw his hat in with the resistance, he has nowhere else to lay it after all. Bishop Williamson is no fool, he's intelligent and sharp witted. He is VERY OBJECTIVE in his thought processes and not given to emotion. I don't always agree with him but Williamson never strikes me as a dim-wit. He's a Winchester boy with an expensive private education and that is a bit different to a couple of American farmers' boys.
I dare say he could play Frs. Hewko and Pfeifer at chess at the same time and beat them both in 20 mins. I've listened to hours of both priests and neither strikes me as very intelligent. That is not to say dim people cannot be correct, but it is to say that they don't UNDERSTAND something with an intellectual capacity that I don't possess, unless an angel appeared to them in a dream and told them.
It struck me today that "The Nine" were all American priests too back in 1983, weren't they?
Why is it that Americans always seem to discover these diabolical plots to destroy the SSPX and Tradition?
Maybe, just maybe, it is because Americans are prone to be somewhat nutty-nutbar, insular and reactionary thinkers. You know, invading countries they cannot find on the map. "If you're not with us you're against us". A two party political system (4 parties would confuse people too much).
Maybe, these US priests simply don't fly over to Europe enough and get to know the district Superior. Can either Pfieffer or Hewko speak French and converse with Bishop Bernie in his native tongue? Did Pfieffer learn Tagalog, Mandarin or Urdu in his Asia postings? Williamson is a polyglot.
Why does America have Talk Radio and Alex Jones, but Australia and Britain don't? Why do most conspiracy theories come out of America. Why are UFOs sighted in America more than all the rest of the world put together? Why are French people not seeing black helicopters and "chem-trails"? Seriously, ask yourself. The SSPX is a global organisation but the two crisises in its 40 history come from America. Is that a mere co-incidence?
If Bishop Williamson has reservations and is telling SSPX priests to stay put until the resistance can put their money where their mouth is, then he is doing that out of prudential judgement. I see no other reason for him to keep priests inside an organisation he has been kicked out of otherwise.
ALL of the Resistance priests and laity have assumptions, guesses and predjudices built into their arguments because they were not there during the secret talks. They cannot possibly have a complete picture of what went on. An intelligent Catholic with 30 years of knowledge of Tradition has the same data at his fingertips that they do. They don't have Gnostic understanding and cannot read Fellay's mind or interior disposition.
3000 people globally is not much of a resistance. In fact it is downright pathetic.
Time will tell, but I am not any more convinced by Stan and Oli than I was by Alex Jones warning that the sky was about to fall in every year for the last 10. They strike me as very fallible priests who have shot their bolt too early, overplayed their hand and are now pot-committed.
Businesses pay me for my consultative judgement and that is what I think about the situation.
-
I bump a post of St. Alphonsus and he goes about attacking my personal life.
I offered you a truce yesterday in Delhi, suggested we both stuck to the arguments on the page, and you rejected it.
You whine like a big girl.
-
if you support him it's because you're like a monkey thinking that by crawling on his back more people will pay attention to you.
:applause: Wonderful!
Your hypocracy knows no bounds. Just look at the self-centered thing you just said to me:
"Ggreg is here because of people who slandered me, who he supported. He came here to harass me, because he's an anti-Catholic liberal."
:laugh2:
He came here...just to harass you?
Please start thinking about what you are saying. I want our dialogues to evolve a bit more than this.
Greg started this thread. He began it. You participated in it.
Greg started a thread asking--rhetorically--what would convince people at Cathinfo that the Resistance is wrong.
I don't think he was creating this thread to set up a battle line to challenge people, as you accuse him. Rather, he's probably looking for input.
-
I don't believe in the treachery of mocking, ridiculing, and trying to silence...
:roll-laugh1:
You're in the medical field, what do you reckon? If he is high-functioning autistic, I reckon there is a Nobel Prize studying Joe, because I've never met his like. He's unique in the Trad world. The Tasmanian Tiger of Cincinnati.
He's inert, so maybe I will fund a Noble Prize.
-
I don't believe in the treachery of mocking, ridiculing, and trying to silence...
:roll-laugh1:
You're in the medical field, what do you reckon? If he is high-functioning autistic, I reckon there is a Noble Prize studying Joe, because I've never met his like. He's unique in the Trad world. The Tasmanian Tiger of Cincinnati.
Heh. I'm doin' my best to keep my criticisms restricted to the content of what he says.
However, I will say that I've met some high-strung folks recently who are in a similar situation.
Honestly, if I were to offer some solid advice to Tele, it'd be Prozac and a steady job for starters. That is, if he is not taking these measures already.
But Tele, I'm not sure you're interested in any personal suggestions I have. Otherwise you'd PM me about it.
-
Nothing, they are just claims. Prove them and I will say something.
That is not good faith discussion. There is no discussion of the doctrinal points, just horse manure about Americans supposedly being "nutty"
Someone who claims to be a Catholic yet says he thinks Constantine changed the religion ought to qualify a flaky liberal fake.
business standards and morality in general pitched on a low key, a vicious literature, a materialistic journalism catering to lax thinking and lax living, religion publicly mocked, scoffed, denied or held indifferently; all these things are coldly regarded as a matter of course, a necessary expedience, things to be condoned and applauded, all on the ground that they are the fruit of liberty. But the most virulent effect crops out in the prevailing educational theory. Here Liberalism manifests itself in its most direful and fullest effects, for it denies to religion the very sphere where it has the strongest right and the fullest reason to use its widest and most lasting influence, viz., upon the minds of children.
Secularism, with the instinct of a foe, has here most positively and triumphantly asserted its claim and, under the disguise of strict impartiality and even patriotism, has banished religion from the schoolroom.
That Catholics should not feel the effects of this relaxing atmosphere is scarcely to be expected.
With the air so strongly impregnated with poison, it would be difficult indeed to keep the blood healthy. In not a few instances, they have fallen victims to the plague, and if not always out-and-out corrupted, they become not a little tainted.
Hence we find amongst, if not a large, at least no small number, an easy disposition to compromise or minimize their faith in points of doctrine or practice. THE NATURAL TENDENCY IN HUMAN NATURE TO ESCAPE FRICTION AND AVOID ANTAGONISM IS UNHAPPILY IN MOST INSTANCES A READY FACTOR IN THE DIRECTION OF CONCESSION.
-
I bump a post of St. Alphonsus and he goes about attacking my personal life.
I offered you a truce yesterday in Delhi, suggested we both stuck to the arguments on the page, and you rejected it.
You whine like a big girl.
No, you were the one whining.
Whining about the fact that you're exposed as a non-Catholic who hates Catholic "nutters", cares nothing about doctrine, and admits to being ready to "turn in your membership badge" - but then pretend to be concerned about evangelization and success of traditional Catholic movements.
-
Nothing, they are just claims. Prove them and I will say something.
Why is Fr. Hewko's assessment of +Fellay being a closet liberal any more true or less of an opinion than my opinion of father Hewko being an reactionary with a poor judgement?
If Bishop Williamson was confident that Stan and Oli could pull off this caper then he would throw his hat in with the resistance, he has nowhere else to lay it after all. Bishop Williamson is no fool, he's intelligent and sharp witted. He is VERY OBJECTIVE in his thought processes and not given to emotion. I don't always agree with him but Williamson never strikes me as a dim-wit. He's a Winchester boy with an expensive private education and that is a bit different to a couple of American farmers' boys.
I dare say he could play Frs. Hewko and Pfeifer at chess at the same time and beat them both in 20 mins. I've listened to hours of both priests and neither strikes me as very intelligent. That is not to say dim people cannot be correct, but it is to say that they don't UNDERSTAND something with an intellectual capacity that I don't possess, unless an angel appeared to them in a dream and told them.
It struck me today that "The Nine" were all American priests too back in 1983, weren't they?
Why is it that Americans always seem to discover these diabolical plots to destroy the SSPX and Tradition?
Maybe, just maybe, it is because Americans are prone to be somewhat nutty-nutbar, insular and reactionary thinkers. You know, invading countries they cannot find on the map. "If you're not with us you're against us". A two party political system (4 parties would confuse people too much).
Maybe, these US priests simply don't fly over to Europe enough and get to know the district Superior. Can either Pfieffer or Hewko speak French and converse with Bishop Bernie in his native tongue? Did Pfieffer learn Tagalog, Mandarin or Urdu in his Asia postings? Williamson is a polyglot.
Why does America have Talk Radio and Alex Jones, but Australia and Britain don't? Why do most conspiracy theories come out of America. Why are UFOs sighted in America more than all the rest of the world put together? Why are French people not seeing black helicopters and "chem-trails"? Seriously, ask yourself. The SSPX is a global organisation but the two crisises in its 40 history come from America. Is that a mere co-incidence?
If Bishop Williamson has reservations and is telling SSPX priests to stay put until the resistance can put their money where their mouth is, then he is doing that out of prudential judgement. I see no other reason for him to keep priests inside an organisation he has been kicked out of otherwise.
ALL of the Resistance priests and laity have assumptions, guesses and predjudices built into their arguments because they were not there during the secret talks. They cannot possibly have a complete picture of what went on. An intelligent Catholic with 30 years of knowledge of Tradition has the same data at his fingertips that they do. They don't have Gnostic understanding and cannot read Fellay's mind or interior disposition.
3000 people globally is not much of a resistance. In fact it is downright pathetic.
Time will tell, but I am not any more convinced by Stan and Oli than I was by Alex Jones warning that the sky was about to fall in every year for the last 10. They strike me as very fallible priests who have shot their bolt too early, overplayed their hand and are now pot-committed.
Businesses pay me for my consultative judgement and that is what I think about the situation.
:applause:
-
Applauding a non-responsive post. The substance? Irrelevant, he won't even consider it.
If Bishop Williamson was confident that Stan and Oli could pull off this caper then he would throw his hat in with the resistance, he has nowhere else to lay it after all. Bishop Williamson is no fool, he's intelligent and sharp witted. He is VERY OBJECTIVE in his thought processes and not given to emotion. I don't always agree with him but Williamson never strikes me as a dim-wit. He's a Winchester boy with an expensive private education and that is a bit different to a couple of American farmers' boys.
This is all BS. Suggesting Bishop Williamson doesn't support Father Pfeiffer, Hewko, and Chazal.
They meet together and hold conferences together.
What we have here is dishonesty on display.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer made it clear in his talk that Bishop Williamson would only ordain candidates he considered fit. He also accused Bishop Williamson of giving "demonic advice" to priests at 43:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5PyWN1Slg...
Spin it how you want but unless Fr. Pfeiffer went to the "Tele school of rapid insults over minor differences", it suggests to me a certain friction exists.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer made it clear in his talk that Bishop Williamson would only ordain candidates he considered fit. He also accused Bishop Williamson of giving "demonic advice" to priests at 43:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5PyWN1Slg...
Spin it how you want but unless Fr. Pfeiffer went to the "Tele school of rapid insults over minor differences", it suggests to me a certain friction exists.
Sure there are disagreements.
but you just represented Bishop Williamson as not supporting the resistance.
he would throw his hat in with the resistance, he has nowhere else to lay it after all.
To say that is to have disregard for the truth.
There he is saying mass on the Pfeiffer family farm (I was there):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/vByBl1Vb2qc[/youtube]
-
Applauding a non-responsive post. The substance? Irrelevant, he won't even consider it.
Why should I, until people at least attempt to answer my question about what would convince them the resistance had got it wrong?
-
Why should I, until people at least attempt to answer my question about what would convince them the resistance had got it wrong?
I already did answer it by saying that when it would gain the approval of people such as yourself, the salt would have lost its savor.
-
There were large families from all over the country, from nearby and from hundreds of miles away.
-
...until people at least attempt to answer my question about what would convince them the resistance had got it wrong?
I would consider the resistance as having gotten it wrong if we just have a big mess of people who are uptight, bitter, and snapish who are completely out of touch with everyone around them. If such people are the result, and we see broken families with rebellious children, diminishing parishes that were once thought to be the new hope--if we see that, then I'll be convinced that the current form of the resistance is wrong.
(I had no one in mind in writing that, so take it for what it says.)
However--conversely--if the folks of the Catholic resistance become liberalized, lazy, and compromised, I'll have been convinced there, too, that the resistance failed.
. . . .
So far, though, I think the Catholic Resistance is doing well.
But then, my definition of the Catholic Resistance my be different from the official definition of this thing.
Anyone have a definition?
-
Trouble is it is hard to objectify that. You might see broken families and trouble and other Americans will swear blind all is well where they are.
That is why I focus on numbers. New mass centres and chapels opening up and growth are an indicator of health. Stagnation or shrinkage means no breeding or abandonment.
When the leaves fall of the trees nobody questions whether it is Fall or Spring.
-
Hard to objectify? Yeah, I know. But that's my personal answer to your question. I'm a "read the tea leaves" kind of a guy, anyway.
-
It's a shame that GGREG goes on a tirade about Americans but won't answer the question. What are Fr. Hewko, Chazel, Pffeifer and even Bishop Williamson saying that is not true when they point out the doctrinal errors coming from the NeW SSPX?
Unlike the first brake away group, this group is composed of Americans, Enlglishmen, Mexicans, Italians, Canadians, Brazilians, even a German convent to name a few. This is a far cry from the seven Americans of the 1980's.
Sophmoric attacks on the messenger, but little to prove the message wrong.
-
Sophmoric attacks on the messenger, but little to prove the message wrong.
No, there is no attempt to address any doctrinal issue, just talk about conspiracy nuts, reactionary thinking, etc.
Insults, ridicule and lies about resistance priests.
-
They are not leading it though. It is being lead by two Americans.
-
They are not leading it though. It is being lead by two Americans.
There is not a hierarchical structure.
It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about or you are trying to spread misinformation.
-
What is it then? An autonomous collective? How will it make decisions and reach consensus?
I thought real Trads loved hierarchies, leaders, dictators?
Until you disagree, then you throw toys.
-
What is it then? An autonomous collective? How will it make decisions and reach consensus?
They consult with each other. Each priest has his own mission and his own faithful. They work together and cooperate. It's not difficult. They don't think of the religion as a business.
I thought real Trads loved hierarchies, leaders, dictators?
Bishop Fellay is not anyone's ordinary.
Until you disagree, then you throw toys.
Uh-huh. So Bishop Williamson being kicked out of the SSPX is just a matter of "throwing toys"?
So now, what's with the false statements about the resistance?
Is it that you make things up out of ignorance or there is deliberate malice behind it?
Try to be honest.
-
So basically it will last until the next bump in the road, Assisi 5, Barney the Dinosaur 2 etc. They will get on Skype one will conclude X and another Y and then denounce each other.
Anyone who has been around Trads as many years as I have has seen this film play out time, after time, after time.
Heck hang around this forum, or any of the other four, for a day and it is clear as day what is going to happen. These priests are cut from exactly the same cloth as us. Principle is always going to trump prudence.
Consensus :facepalm: ?
No chance.
I have been advising companies for years consensus never works. We are not Japs and even they largely pretend to do it.
-
There are basically two kinds of trads that attend SSPX.
Those who want to be Catholics and follow Tradition along the lines Archbishop Lefebvre set out and those who want to be modern, more integrated with the sensibilities of the wider society, politically correct, bourgeois, Jєω-friendly, etc.
Will the Resistance have a lot of trouble with certain priests wanting to be modern?
Not for quite some time I would think. They didn't get thrown out of the SSPX to become liberals.
There is nothing to disagree about when the issue is simply teaching what was passed down to them and watching their flocks.
There is no real reason for the SSPX to be more than priests teaching the Catholic Faith - that it wants to be a brand or a business is the major problem.
People who think like that tend to have little consideration for doctrinal integrity and tend to be closet liberals, doubters, etc.
-
+Bernie Fellay and Fr. Joe Pfeiffer are both convinced they are living a Traditional Catholic Life. As are Pope Francis, Tony Blair and Pope Michael I.
They can't all be.
Not only are they each NOT living a traditional Catholic life, they each are not even convinced that they are. This is a very misleading statement. Tony Blair is a member of the illuminati-- the organization which has worked mightily to destroy Christian society. His so-called "conversion" to novus ordinarianism was poitical grandstanding. Pope Francis hates tradition. For him, tradition started in 1965, with the docuмents of the Vatican Council. He has absolutey no intention of following tradition.
Bernie Fellay (sic) cannot possibly believe he's living a traditional life. He has surrounded himself with a core of liberal "yes men" who have rejected the stands taken by the Archbishop, and have worked on every continent to merge the SSPX into the Novus Ordo. He has given an oath and statement of his beliefs to Benedict XVI which mirrors the leftist Vatican Council, and overturns everything the SSPX stood for for 40 years.He pretends he is traditional to keep the naive priests hooked, and to keep the cash coming in from the traditional families.
It's amazing a traditionalist would fall for such erroneous notions.
The growth of any organization MAY have nothing at all to do with it's unity with Jesus Christ and His Church.Job's orchards for sure were not growing and expanding during that time that history records Job being the most faithful to Almighty God.
Certainly, Almighty God can reward in any way He wishes. Large numbers of adherents may simply indicate a large number of bamboozled and fooled people. The Moslems are growing in every country. Evangelicals are building larger and larger churches and temples. The Mormons' numbers keep rising.Those following the Dali Lama are filling auditoriums and venues with thousands and thousands of wild eyed admirers. But all of these people are in false churches-- just as false as the novus ordo, and just as false as the traditional chapels run by the SSPX are fast becoming.
To even think that the "fruit" of which Christ speaks is the quantity of faithful is seriously misguided. Our Lord only talked about those 'circuмcised in their hearts and souls', not those dressed up in outward appearance, but inside
ravenous wolves. Almighty God wants quality, not quantity. And that's likely how He'll measure the fruit of the tree: " How many good apples have you given Me?"
-
You know, it doesn't matter how much truth you tell this guy. He's not listening. If he is a Catholic, he doesn't know his faith. Why is he being allowed to harass the members of this forum?
-
The war for the Catholic faith will be won or lost on the field of doctrine. Again GGREG where are the doctrinal errors made by these resistors? (+Williamson, Fr.s Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazel, Gourard, Dom Thomas Aquinas, etc)?
This my friend, is the only point that matters.
-
You know, it doesn't matter how much truth you tell this guy. He's not listening. If he is a Catholic, he doesn't know his faith. Why is he being allowed to harass the members of this forum?
Having read some of this thread (I haven't waded through the whole thing - life's too short!) I must say I am inclined to agree. What is ggreg's real purpose here? This is really becoming a waste of time.
-
.
You know, it doesn't matter how much truth you tell this guy. He's not listening. If he is a Catholic, he doesn't know his faith. Why is he being allowed to harass the members of this forum?
Having read some of this thread (I haven't waded through the whole thing - life's too short!) I must say I am inclined to agree. What is ggreg's real purpose here? This is really becoming a waste of time.
ditto
-
What is it then? An autonomous collective? How will it make decisions and reach consensus?
They consult with each other. Each priest has his own mission and his own faithful. They work together and cooperate. It's not difficult.
Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
Too many kooks spoil the broth.
Consensus? Really?
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
You've just collected together all the most awkward, rebellious, antsy, prudish, scrupulous people into the resistance camp and you're going to run it by consensus ???
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
What is it then? An autonomous collective? How will it make decisions and reach consensus?
They consult with each other. Each priest has his own mission and his own faithful. They work together and cooperate. It's not difficult.
Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
Too many kooks spoil the broth.
Consensus? Really?
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
Well the first thing is the Faith.
You know, the uninterrupted Tradition of the Church that is the Gospel that Christ gave to us. (not altered by Constantine)
It is that doctrinal teaching that is the purpose of Traditional Catholicism and everything else is subordinated to that.
Those who don't care about that but care about purely human institutions, think of traditional Catholicism as simply being a bunch of "flavors" or groups that should measure their "truth" by how far they expand: those people definitely spoil the broth.
And that's their intention.
The priests in the resistance don't seem to have the problem of thinking or acting that way. They are just interested in keeping what has been passed to them.
So yeah, we expect you to continually to lie about and mock the resistance here until Matthew comes to his senses.
-
The Resistance Rap
Too many chiefs
With too many beefs
Bitchin their griefs
About other's disbeliefs
Too many kooks
Handing out rebukes
Dressing up in tweed and
Wishing they were dukes.
They are the resistance
They can't stand co-existence
So are living at subsistence
Suggest you keep your distance
Until they break up
From the persistence of insistence
-
The Resistance Rap
Too many chiefs
With too many beefs
Bitchin their griefs
About other's disbeliefs
Too many kooks
Handing out rebukes
Dressing up in tweed and
Wishing they were dukes.
They are the resistance
They can't stand co-existence
So are living at subsistence
Suggest you keep your distance
Until they break up
From the persistence of insistence
What's the matter with you?? :fryingpan:
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt- but you have lost it. Time to take that sabbatical you mentioned a few weeks ago, and stay away from here for a while. (Edit, insert: Some) People in the resistance may be disingenuous, but you have proven you are not better. How tragic.
-
What would convince you that The Resistance was wrong to take
I don't think at all in terms of numbers or future success when I think of the Resistance. I just think in terms of defense of the Faith. My reaction when Frs. Pfeiffer & Chazal etc. started to speak out last year was "finally." I also think of the verse, "To whom He said: I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out. "
-
What would convince you that The Resistance was wrong to take
I don't think at all in terms of numbers or future success when I think of the Resistance. I just think in terms of defense of the Faith. My reaction when Frs. Pfeiffer & Chazal etc. started to speak out last year was "finally." I also think of the verse, "To whom He said: I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out. "
What faith? It's a subjective and imperfect judgement that the SSPX have compromised, or even if they have they were wrong to make the overtures they did. ABL could not see into the future, nor did he have infallible judgement.
At some point Catholics have to be fully under the authority of Rome. There will never be a perfect time. If Fellay was wrong to negotiate then so was ABL.
What is your solution? Stick it out until the Chastisement? If so then why not be honest and call yourself SVs?
-
The Resistance Rap
Too many chiefs
With too many beefs
Bitchin their griefs
About other's disbeliefs
Too many kooks
Handing out rebukes
Dressing up in tweed and
Wishing they were dukes.
They are the resistance
They can't stand co-existence
So are living at subsistence
Suggest you keep your distance
Until they break up
From the persistence of insistence
What's the matter with you?? :fryingpan:
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt- but you have lost it. Time to take that sabbatical you mentioned a few weeks ago, and stay away from here for a while. (Edit, insert: Some) People in the resistance may be disingenuous, but you have proven you are not better. How tragic.
I've lost it?
How come Bishop Williamson can write poems but not me?
How's this for disingeneous? This morning two clients and one friend wrote to me, one a Jєω, the other a black guy and the other a non-Jєω with a Jєωιѕн sounding name who actually called me on my mobile at 1pm. I have known all of them for years. They were all amused about the comments on this forum, as well as SD and Fisheaters that some forum member has dug out and sent to them as links; and probably two dozen other clients for all I know. URLs to posts with strong opinions, language etc. They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
Someone with an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands; I imagine. Those are the sorts of people who care about the "faith", goodness and truth, righteousness and charity. Classy!
Anyway, whoever it was, they should continue to do it, because the black dude, David, is flying to London late-Sep and is taking me to lunch to offer me a contract to help develop his sales. The anonymous e-mail from this 'disingenious fellow' simply prompted him to action and made him reach out to me.
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
-
What's the matter with you?? :fryingpan:
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt- but you have lost it. Time to take that sabbatical you mentioned a few weeks ago, and stay away from here for a while. (Edit, insert: Some) People in the resistance may be disingenuous, but you have proven you are not better. How tragic.
Benefit= good thing
Doubt= bad thing.
Never give a benefit to a doubt.
-
What's the matter with you?? :fryingpan:
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt- but you have lost it. Time to take that sabbatical you mentioned a few weeks ago, and stay away from here for a while. (Edit, insert: Some) People in the resistance may be disingenuous, but you have proven you are not better. How tragic. [/quote]
S2srea,
Why are you wasting your precious time? Some people don't want
truth , they want to waste your time.
-
Time is one thing some members here appear to have plenty of.
-
At some point Catholics have to be fully under the authority of Rome.
At the point that Rome converts.
There will never be a perfect time.
It's not a matter of a perfect time: it's a matter of holding the Catholic Faith.
Since you don't hold the Catholic Faith, then of course the issue of putting oneself under modernists and stating the New Mass is legitimately promulgated, that Vatican II is reconcilable with Tradition, don't matter.
If Fellay was wrong to negotiate then so was ABL.
Archbishop Lefebvre certainly accepted he was mistaken and that he said of Ratzinger "... —ah, the Cardinal is an artful dodger!"
What is your solution? Stick it out until the Chastisement? If so then why not be honest and call yourself SVs?
Well, they aren't sedevacantists, it's dishonest to say that they are when they clearly denounce sedevacantism. Although Bishop Castro de Meyer has been called by some with good reason a sedevacantist, and he participated in the consecration of the Bishops.
If the New Mass and Vatican II do not matter then what has the SSPX been doing for 40 years?
And yet you pretend, dishonestly, not to see that Bishop Fellay offered to sell out on those matters.
You also, pretend dishonestly to be someone interested in the Catholic Faith.
-
How's this for disingeneous? This morning two clients and one friend wrote to me, one a Jєω, the other a black guy and the other a non-Jєω with a Jєωιѕн sounding name who actually called me on my mobile at 1pm. I have known all of them for years. They were all amused about the comments on this forum, as well as SD and Fisheaters that some forum member has dug out and sent to them as links; and probably two dozen other clients for all I know. URLs to posts with strong opinions, language etc. They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
Someone with an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands; I imagine. Those are the sorts of people who care about the "faith", goodness and truth, righteousness and charity. Classy!
Anyway, whoever it was, they should continue to do it, because the black dude, David, is flying to London late-Sep and is taking me to lunch to offer me a contract to help develop his sales. The anonymous e-mail from this 'disingenious fellow' simply prompted him to action and made him reach out to me.
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
LOL, well it wasn't me.
It's not surprising you will give money to a Jєωιѕн charity as an apostate - or is that just another little lie you told?
You're a dirty malicious person ggreg, you ought to ask yourself if it's worth it to be that way.
-
At the point that Rome converts.
Who judges them to be converted? And how? Consensus, trial, popular vote, ducking stool?
Archbishop Lefebvre certainly accepted he was mistaken and that he said of Ratzinger "... —ah, the Cardinal is an artful dodger!"
Why did ABL not resign then for his mistake? If Fellay announced that he was mistaken about the perceive wrongs he has done you, would the resistance re-join the SSPX with Fellay as superior?
-
How's this for disingeneous? This morning two clients and one friend wrote to me, one a Jєω, the other a black guy and the other a non-Jєω with a Jєωιѕн sounding name who actually called me on my mobile at 1pm. I have known all of them for years. They were all amused about the comments on this forum, as well as SD and Fisheaters that some forum member has dug out and sent to them as links; and probably two dozen other clients for all I know. URLs to posts with strong opinions, language etc. They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
Someone with an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands; I imagine. Those are the sorts of people who care about the "faith", goodness and truth, righteousness and charity. Classy!
Anyway, whoever it was, they should continue to do it, because the black dude, David, is flying to London late-Sep and is taking me to lunch to offer me a contract to help develop his sales. The anonymous e-mail from this 'disingenious fellow' simply prompted him to action and made him reach out to me.
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
LOL, well it wasn't me.
It's not surprising you will give money to a Jєωιѕн charity as an apostate - or is that just another little lie you told?
You're a dirty malicious person ggreg, you ought to ask yourself if it's worth it to be that way.
Its amazing when you think about it, that in 35 years of attending Trad churches I've never been kicked out by the priest. Still that goes for most of us.
-
At the point that Rome converts.
Who judges them to be converted? And how? Consensus, trial, popular vote, ducking stool?
Certainly not an apostate such as yourself.
The Catholic Faith is an objective matter, not a subjective matter as you said before.
Archbishop Lefebvre certainly accepted he was mistaken and that he said of Ratzinger "... —ah, the Cardinal is an artful dodger!"[/b]
Why did ABL not resign then for his mistake?
Well he wouldn't have been allowed to resign as he was the heart and soul of the SSPX not an ambitious upstart like +Fellay.
He didn't resign because he changed course 180 degrees. Bishop Fellay hasn't changed course, he's simply purging the people he doesn't like in anticipation of the next step.
If Fellay announced that he was mistaken about the perceive wrongs he has done you, would the resistance re-join the SSPX with Fellay as superior?
If Fellay was truly converted and repentant I don't think he would want to remain as SG, but if there was restitution of wrongs done then it would be something to consider.
-
Its amazing when you think about it, that in 35 years of attending Trad churches I've never been kicked out by the priest. Still that goes for most of us.
Weasels (such as yourself) tend to get into places where they don't belong and aren't wanted.
-
The Resistance is nothing other than a continuation of the Traditional movement itself.
-
The Resistance is nothing other than a continuation of the Traditional movement itself.
Fr. Moderator and Pope Michael are equally convinced of the above. That is my issue. If numbers are irrelvant then both of them have a case to make.
-
Fr. Moderator and Pope Michael are equally convinced of the above.
They were consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre like Bishop Williamson, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre or by the four SSPX bishops?
Or like Father Faure, almost selected as one of the bishops?
Why would these members of the SSPX who grew up under Lefebvre not want to compromise on Vatican II, the New Mass, and going under Rome without Rome converting?
They're just holding fast to what they believed before? Hard to comprehend for someone who says he's willing to chuck it all if x happens (which implicitly means there is no longer belief)
That is my issue. If numbers are irrelvant then both of them have a case to make.
Michael is not Pope and numbers are irrelevant to that.
-
How's this for disingeneous? This morning two clients and one friend wrote to me, one a Jєω, the other a black guy and the other a non-Jєω with a Jєωιѕн sounding name who actually called me on my mobile at 1pm. I have known all of them for years. They were all amused about the comments on this forum, as well as SD and Fisheaters that some forum member has dug out and sent to them as links; and probably two dozen other clients for all I know. URLs to posts with strong opinions, language etc. They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
Someone with an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands; I imagine. Those are the sorts of people who care about the "faith", goodness and truth, righteousness and charity. Classy!
Anyway, whoever it was, they should continue to do it, because the black dude, David, is flying to London late-Sep and is taking me to lunch to offer me a contract to help develop his sales. The anonymous e-mail from this 'disingenious fellow' simply prompted him to action and made him reach out to me.
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
LOL, well it wasn't me.
You might well 'laugh out loud' Tele, since you don't have a livelihood to damage the anonymous forum stalker can't have any effect on you.
-
You might well 'laugh out loud' Tele, since you don't have a livelihood to damage the anonymous forum stalker can't have any effect on you.
My opportunities are undercut by the omnipresence of malicious liberals such as yourself who take an instant disliking to me the moment I express a frank opinion that offends their dirty PC values, who spread falsehoods and commit detraction without any shame. I'm not afraid to stand by what I say.
Now, if someone who doesn't like you wants to publicize your opinions and you're upset then it's ironic and humorous, and what you deserve.
-
The Resistance Rap
Too many chiefs
With too many beefs
Bitchin their griefs
About other's disbeliefs
Too many kooks
Handing out rebukes
Dressing up in tweed and
Wishing they were dukes.
They are the resistance
They can't stand co-existence
So are living at subsistence
Suggest you keep your distance
Until they break up
From the persistence of insistence
What's the matter with you?? :fryingpan:
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt- but you have lost it. Time to take that sabbatical you mentioned a few weeks ago, and stay away from here for a while. (Edit, insert: Some) People in the resistance may be disingenuous, but you have proven you are not better. How tragic.
Why have you tried to give him the benefit of the doubt? I've made it known that he's not anti-Jєωιѕн many times. That's all you need to know about him.
-
This morning two clients and one friend wrote to me, one a Jєω, the other a black guy
Why not negro? You say you prefer that.
-
I support the priests of the resistance as evident by financial donation to them, spiritual prayers, attending Fr. Hewko's Mass a couple days ago, etc. but for me at the end of the day they are in the same boat as the "rest" of the neo-SSPX. Recognize and resist and not submission to the Roman Pontiff. I don't see how anyone can say Casual Frank is the pope.
-
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
Why not donate all of it? In your wife's name of course.
-
I support the priests of the resistance as evident by financial donation to them, spiritual prayers, attending Fr. Hewko's Mass a couple days ago, etc. but for me at the end of the day they are in the same boat as the "rest" of the neo-SSPX. Recognize and resist and not submission to the Roman Pontiff. I don't see how anyone can say Casual Frank is the pope.
You should be more tolerant because according to the neotrads they are "practical sedevacantists."
-
for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jєωs, [15] Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
Rabbi Dwek was also involved in a tax fraud scheme in which Jєωs would receive a kickback of 90% of their charitable contributions. Again, this behavior is not from an isolated bad apple, but occurs at the highest level of these communities.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/08/ultra-orthodox-Jєωιѕн-ethics-gaming-the-system/
-
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
Why not donate all of it? In your wife's name of course.
You spend your money and I will spend mine.
-
I don't understand how your Linkedin account was hacked. I've never had any problems. Wouldn't someone need to know your email address?
-
Whoever did that is very, very sick. And also guilty of a grievous sin.
-
I don't understand how your Linkedin account was hacked. I've never had any problems. Wouldn't someone need to know your email address?
He didn't claim it was hacked.
They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
"reverse engineered" - someone looked at his contacts names and guessed the email addresses.
Not the sort of thing that interests me.
However,
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an "i'" As a French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal—a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
Are a man's public posts are guaranteed anonymous authorship because he doesn't use his exactly his name?
-
I don't understand how your Linkedin account was hacked. I've never had any problems. Wouldn't someone need to know your email address?
He didn't claim it was hacked.
They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
"reverse engineered" - someone looked at his contacts names and guessed the email addresses.
Not the sort of thing that interests me.
However,
It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an "i'" As a French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.
The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal—a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.
Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.
Are a man's public posts are guaranteed anonymous authorship because he doesn't use his exactly his name?
Someone would still need either his IRL name or email address to find his list of contacts. That's not usually public.
-
No, they wouldn't. Cyber trail. Lots of different ways to find out.
In any event, this is all a big waste of time. I wish ggreg would quit condescending the Resistance. There isn't a single error he can point to, which is why he's focused on resorting to name calling and ridiculing their numbers and pulling the old canard about 'no deal, what's the big deal?' But regardless, whoever tried to harm his business and defame him should be ashamed and needs to head to the confessional.
-
I had a similar thing happen to me, done by an unscrupulous Trad who probably went to Communion the following Sunday.
I say "similar" because this particular "trad" didn't bother posting links to anything I said or did. He would have been at-a-loss for such material.
Nevertheless, it's the thought that counts. The man in question would have been smugly satisfied if I had ended up unemployed and homeless. Oh, and my wife and several little children as well.
Starving, homeless, and on the streets. That's what he ardently desired for me, my wife, and 3 small children under 5. This was back in 2010.
Real sweet guy. Salt of the earth. I don't know why protestants aren't converting left and right with such a touching example of true Charity.
:rolleyes:
-
Whoever did that is very, very sick. And also guilty of a grievous sin.
I should have been paying attention. Didn't really want to spend my 1000th post on this thread. Oh well!
-
No, they wouldn't. Cyber trail. Lots of different ways to find out.
In any event, this is all a big waste of time. I wish ggreg would quit condescending the Resistance. There isn't a single error he can point to, which is why he's focused on resorting to name calling and ridiculing their numbers and pulling the old canard about 'no deal, what's the big deal?' But regardless, whoever tried to harm his business and defame him should be ashamed and needs to head to the confessional.
I agree, on both counts.
The malicious busybody needs to get to the confessional, and I mean BEFORE he goes to Communion, unless he wants to commit a sacrilege. Yes, I'm saying it's a mortal sin.
Also about GGreg. To GGreg: give it up, man. If there is evil, give testimony of how our DOCTRINE is different from your average Trad. We're the one's standing still here.
The SSPX always said the Novus Ordo is a bastard rite. Now the Resistance says that, but the SSPX has changed its position. Who's the one guilty of changing?
The SSPX isn't automatically in-the-right because it holds all the buildings. That's BS.
But if you can't come up with anything solid, besides the usual scare tactics "This can't go on forever man!", "We're going to end up sede!", "How are we different from Pope Michael followers", "What if we're just too proud!", etc. then just give it up. Agree to disagree.
-
If I get a contract out of it - I'll be donating 20% to a Jєωιѕн charity. Nah, make that 25% I am feeling generous.
Well, that's your prerogative. Just be mindful that said Jєωιѕн charity will probably ask you, "Why only twenty-five percent?" then shrug and make you an honorary Jєω with two thousand years persecution retroactive.
Meanwhile, poor Thai masseuses on YouTube channels go hungry for another day.
-
How's this for disingeneous? This morning two clients and one friend wrote to me, one a Jєω, the other a black guy and the other a non-Jєω with a Jєωιѕн sounding name who actually called me on my mobile at 1pm. I have known all of them for years. They were all amused about the comments on this forum, as well as SD and Fisheaters that some forum member has dug out and sent to them as links; and probably two dozen other clients for all I know. URLs to posts with strong opinions, language etc. They have reverse engineered from my LinkedIn account and then guessed at the person's e-mails. Frank.Choen@, fcohen@, etc.
Someone with an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands; I imagine. Those are the sorts of people who care about the "faith", goodness and truth, righteousness and charity. Classy!
Well. That's horrible. :shocked:
What an unChristian act.
I guess all moral principal just goes out the window when someone dares to question aspects of the current Traditional Catholic microcosm.
-
I guess all moral principal just goes out the window when someone dares to question aspects of the current Traditional Catholic microcosm.
Just to repeat, it wasn't me.
But I will say this:
All these people showing sympathy for ggreg seem to have a lot less consideration for the people he regularly mocks and ridicules. (the resistance in general)
If ggreg doesn't like having to stand by his own words, that's his tough luck.
-
All these people showing sympathy for ggreg...
Who? So far, I've been the only one defending him. And I just want to state...and this is important...that I've been trying to tackle unfair character attacks, not the content of the discussion or the disagreements.
If people want to disagree with him, I've tried to stay out of it and just let normal debate flow.
But geeze, Tele. You include insults in every post. You probably couldn't talk about the sky being blue without making some sort of snide direct or indirect remark about either him or I.
Now, if one were to come into the middle of this thread, they would clearly see antagonism coming from both Greg as well as his opponents. But sheesh...it is as if rhetorical questions and the very idea of questioning the Resistance were seen as some sort of an insult.
Question. Seriously. Do you find someone questioning the Resistance as an insult in and of themselves?
Meh. I know Greg can stand up for himself. I want to be done with this thread. There's no getting through to anybody. Debate has tools, but I don't think that has been understood in the last few fiery threads.
-
But geeze, Tele. You include insults in every post. You probably couldn't talk about the sky being blue without making some sort of snide direct or indirect remark about either him or I.
I talk about substance in every post and what this character says he believes and its implications and his modus operandi. He retorts with personal insults.
Now, if one were to come into the middle of this thread, they would clearly see antagonism coming from both Greg as well as his opponents. But sheesh...it is as if rhetorical questions and the very idea of questioning the Resistance were seen as some sort of an insult.
WRONG. It's not questioning the idea of the resistance that's the problem, and you're an idiot if you think that's it. It's the perfidious attacks on Catholics that are a form of anti-Catholicism from someone who publicly speaks of planning to abandon the Faith.
Question. Seriously. Do you find someone questioning the Resistance as an insult in and of themselves?
Of course not. You don't believe ggreg is just "questioning" the Resistance. So either you're not too bright or that's a bad faith question.
-
You win, Tele.
Cathinfo is Tele Territory.
I won't spread my liberal Fisheater Novus Ordo gαy-friendly Jєωιѕн filth here anymore.
Tell Novus Weirdo.
-
ggreg needs to go back to fishkill. That's my only thought here.
-
ggreg needs to go back to fishkill. That's my only thought here.
It's a very good thought.
-
ggreg seems to prefer this forum to SD. He hasn't posted there in a while.
So he must not mind the criticism.
-
Question. Seriously. Do you find someone questioning the Resistance as an insult in and of themselves?
The answer to that question is no. What we find insulting is the questioning that is laced with arrogance, boastfulness, and a foundation based on subterfuge. Perhaps ggreg should spend some time looking at other threads that address his same questions and see how those are conducted. Yeah, there's some words that go back and forth but you will not see anything that resembles what ggreg belches out. When ggreg refers to "cold a**holes" repeatedly, when ggreg poses questions laced with duplicity or disinformation, when ggreg posts videos of immodestly dressed naive teenagers... then yes, he's gonna get hit by Tele, by me, by Tiffany, by anyone on the forum who adheres to a stricter standard than he does.
You may want to note that on the bottom of the page that this site supports the Resistance. If you want to continue with your current approach, then it would probably be more welcome at I(diot)Ardens; they have no moderator so it's a free-for-all. They would take you and ggreg under their oily and crooked wing.
-
You may want to note that on the bottom of the page that this site supports the Resistance. If you want to continue with your current approach, then it would probably be more welcome at I(diot)Ardens; they have no moderator so it's a free-for-all. They would take you and ggreg under their oily and crooked wing.
Very well. The floor is yours. Believe whatever you want to believe. Why trouble myself when I can see when I'm not welcome.
Couldn't bow out without sayin' "bye" to Weirdo.
Carry on with your good fight.
:sign-surrender:
-
Somebody owes me $1
(http://thelaymansanswerstoeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/2TradingPlaces-300x171.jpg)
-
I guess all moral principal just goes out the window when someone dares to question aspects of the current Traditional Catholic microcosm.
Just to repeat, it wasn't me.
But I will say this:
All these people showing sympathy for ggreg seem to have a lot less consideration for the people he regularly mocks and ridicules. (the resistance in general)
If ggreg doesn't like having to stand by his own words, that's his tough luck.
That is twice you have denied it now and nobody has accused you.
Odd, however, that less than twenty four hours before around the same time the emails were being sent, you also published my surname on this forum and then edited it, or perhaps that was Matthew. Could be just a coincidence I guess.
Here is a tip, don't keep denying stuff and insisting on your innocence. You did exactly that with the teenage pestering case and most people came to the conclusion that you were a creep.
-
That is twice you have denied it now and nobody has accused you.
Making an insinuation there?
Odd, however, that less than twenty four hours before around the same time the emails were being sent, you also published my surname on this forum and then edited it, or perhaps that was Matthew. Could be just a coincidence I guess.
It was probably someone who follows the forum and doesn't like you. There's nothing odd about it at all. There are plenty of people who follow this forum who dislike you.
Just as there are freaks who join up and use obscene language about me. Your user account just happened to be absent at that time, as in other cases when trolls have joined this forum.
Here is a tip, don't keep denying stuff and insisting on your innocence. You did exactly that with the teenage pestering case and most people came to the conclusion that you were a creep.
No, you I protested my innocence and dishonest people then insisted the contrary was the case without evidence out of malice. Don't throw stones in a glass house sissy.
Live by PC, die by PC.