Removal of EF "vs" SSPX subforum
#21
I know. Its an amazing place though. Just keep your wits. U will enjou yourself allot in mexico if u keep your wits.
Sip
I can't stress that enough. And no wee tiquela bottles or pinata loL
We were married in central mexico and though the mexicans in the north can hold their booz the ones from the central states including the F.D. Can't.
Truth be told I had a far better time of it then me wife
Sip
She still has some issues over it
LoL
Reply
#22
(01-30-2010, 04:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Vox and I have decided to end the EF "vs" SSPX subforum.  It has been moved to the archives and is now read only.

Henceforth, that type of discussion is off limits at the forum.  The reason is due to the recent trend of posts combined with the alleged actions of SSPX chapel-goers in Guadalajara Mexico desecrating an FSSP church.  Initial posting here: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...284.0.html

There is enough gasoline on the trad fire, we will not support the pouring of any more.  People interested in this type of discussion are invited to find other fora who will allow it.

The blog link is a bunch of garbage.

Just a typical smear campaign - to me it is just a bad rerun of the false slanderous garbage that created divisions and helped confuse many folks +40 years ago........worked then, seems to have worked here as well.

That's a real shame. 
Reply
#23
People who want more information and discussion about the Mexico story can get some at Fr. Z's blog: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/dust-up-b...adalajara/
Reply
#24
(01-30-2010, 08:59 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-30-2010, 04:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Vox and I have decided to end the EF "vs" SSPX subforum.  It has been moved to the archives and is now read only.

Henceforth, that type of discussion is off limits at the forum.  The reason is due to the recent trend of posts combined with the alleged actions of SSPX chapel-goers in Guadalajara Mexico desecrating an FSSP church.  Initial posting here: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...284.0.html

There is enough gasoline on the trad fire, we will not support the pouring of any more.  People interested in this type of discussion are invited to find other fora who will allow it.

The blog link is a bunch of garbage.

Just a typical smear campaign - to me it is just a bad rerun of the false slanderous garbage that created divisions and helped confuse many folks +40 years ago........worked then, seems to have worked here as well.

That's a real shame. 

So the photo of the paint on the Church was photoshopped and the Mexicans writing in who say they were there, naming names and signing their own names, are all liars?  If you didn't see them, reclick because they were added to the blog later.

:tinfoilhat:

If it happened, whitewashing it or marginalizing it won't fix the problems that led to it.  A church was desecrated.  That's very serious.  With the photo evidence, I am removing "alleged" from my original post.  It is now a disgusting fact.
Reply
#25
And these SSPX'ers are fighthing for what exactly?  The "Church of all times" ??  Give me a break. 
Reply
#26
(01-30-2010, 10:24 PM)salome Wrote: And these SSPX'ers are fighthing for what exactly?  The "Church of all times" ??  Give me a break. 

Salome, please be careful. And you know what I mean by that in a uniquely specific way about you...

If not, PM me, and I will clarify.
Reply
#27
Thought I'd use this thread to apologize for my "laughing" remark on the original thread Quis posted. I didn't intend to make light of the events reported; it just struck me as amusing that the thread was moved from the Catholic News subforum (where I thought it belonged) to the SSPX vs. EF one: a little too literal!

I'm not laughing now.
Reply
#28
Put it this way........say a church was spray painted and a school of fisheaters were [allegedly] responsible, are you guilty?

It might even be true that some SSPX priest helped perpetrate the crime - so what. The SSPX then obviously has it's own criminals - too bad the sheep followed him. They and him will have to answer, but the SSPX is the real vehicle to defame.

At least consider that it's all about smearing the SSPX.

First off, the whole idea of SSPX laity spray painting anything - especially a church - is completely absurd and only the unknowing would even entertain the possibility of the allegations brought on -  by who?

Were it true, seems to me that such a bold action would have the "soldiers" who did the damage come forth proudly and courageously to confess their crime no?

Like I said, just a bad rerun whose plot has repeatedly been more or less successfully played over and over again since the revolution...............and no doubt will continue to play till it stops working. 
Reply
#29
It's a blog!  There aren't any other sources for this info other than that one blog.  Fr. Z's blog just quotes the first blog.  It's stupid.  I could start a blog and post a story...doesn't make it true.  Until we get another reliable source to corroborate this story, we have to take it with a grain of salt.  Otherwise, we look mighty gullible.
Reply
#30
(01-30-2010, 10:34 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Put it this way........say a church was spray painted and a school of fisheaters were [allegedly] responsible, are you guilty?

It might even be true that some SSPX priest helped perpetrate the crime - so what. The SSPX then obviously has it's own criminals - too bad the sheep followed him. They and him will have to answer, but the SSPX is the real vehicle to defame.

At least consider that it's all about smearing the SSPX.

First off, the whole idea of SSPX laity spray painting anything - especially a church - is completely absurd and only the unknowing would even entertain the possibility of the allegations brought on -  by who?

Were it true, seems to me that such a bold action would have the "soldiers" who did the damage come forth proudly and courageously to confess their crime no?

Like I said, just a bad rerun whose plot has repeatedly been more or less successfully played over and over again since the revolution...............and no doubt will continue to play till it stops working. 

So you still think that all this is false and made up? :tinfoilhat:

To answer your objections, the blog refers to an "SSPX group" not "The SSPX".  Further, apparently a priest was there, and priests are representative of the group.

To answer you question, if some people went to spray paint a school and identified themselves as "Fisheaters" and I was with them, yes, it would be accurate.

If I was not with them, it would be relatively accurate, but I would be sure to say "they are no longer fisheaters".  So, I am hopeful the district superior will take some disciplinary action. 

By the 1983 code, it seems to me, they may be at least in violation of the following canons:

Can. 1375 Those who impede the freedom of ministry, of election, or of ecclesiastical power or the legitimate use of sacred goods or other ecclesiastical goods or who greatly intimidate an elector, one elected, or one who exercises ecclesiastical power or ministry can be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1376 A person who profanes a movable or immovable sacred object is to be punished with a just penalty.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)