Removal of EF "vs" SSPX subforum
#31
(01-30-2010, 10:39 PM)Underdog Wrote: 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.

Did you go back to the blog recently?  They have a picture of the desecrated church and people purporting to have been there say it is true and giving their names. 

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/201...-fssp.html

Yes, the picture could be photoshopped, and yes, they could be FSSP shills, but I really doubt it.  I'm usually really careful of what I buy into, but unless there is a huge conspiracy to smear the SSPX down there, it looks pretty real to me.

Do you have any reason to doubt it except that it only appears on a single blog?
Reply
#32
(01-30-2010, 10:39 PM)Underdog Wrote: 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.

Thank you.

I won't be surprised to see more on this from main stream media............far as I'm concerned, the only difference in todays rerun is that what used to take weeks or months, now takes minutes thanks to the internet.

Reply
#33
(01-30-2010, 10:45 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-30-2010, 10:39 PM)Underdog Wrote: 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.

Thank you.

I won't be surprised to see more on this from main stream media............far as I'm concerned, the only difference in todays rerun is that what used to take weeks or months, now takes minutes thanks to the internet.

So the picture is fake?
Reply
#34
(01-30-2010, 10:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Yes, as you said: apparently a priest was there - - - well I say a priest was not there. Either that or I say the priest was not a true SSPX priest.........so now what?

(01-30-2010, 10:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Ah yes, I recall with some vivid recollections the altar burning parties - yes parties - back in the 70s. I also remember helping other faithful folks take tabernacles, statues, relics, vestments, candelabras,  etc etc that were salvageable out of dumpsters so independent priests could put together makeshift chapels in banquet halls, basements etc to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in.

The above canons seemed to have surfaced after all that I guess.   
Reply
#35
The pic doesn't have to be fake.  It's the outside of the friggin church.  For goodness' sake, for all we know, a bunch of fruit loopy prots or delinquent teenagers did this.  And yeah, a "news" story on only one blog on the entire internet makes me suspect that it isn't true.  And since the maxim is "innocent until proven guilty" I'm holding out for more reliable proof.
Reply
#36
(01-30-2010, 10:48 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So the picture is fake?

No, for all we know, it's not fake, for all we know, the blogger is responsible.
Reply
#37
OK, well everyone is certainly entitled to their opinon.  But I'm thinking denial at this point, at least about the basic facts that some people from an SSPX chapel went to an FSSP church and desecrated it because they thought there was ecumenical nonsense going on, is just that - denial.

Protestants painting a Catholic church in objection to ecumenism?  Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.  One can clearly see the spanish word for "ecumenism" in the picture.

As I said, I'll correct my original post if something changes, but for now, I tend to believe the account.
Reply
#38
(01-30-2010, 10:58 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-30-2010, 10:48 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So the picture is fake?

No, for all we know, it's not fake, for all we know, the blogger is responsible.

Touche.  :laughing:
Reply
#39
(01-30-2010, 11:02 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: OK, well everyone is certainly entitled to their opinon.  But I'm thinking denial at this point, at least about the basic facts that some people from an SSPX chapel went to an FSSP church and desecrated it because they thought there was ecumenical nonsense going on, is just that - denial.

Protestants painting a Catholic church in objection to ecumenism?  Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.  One can clearly see the spanish word for "ecumenism" in the picture.

As I said, I'll correct my original post if something changes, but for now, I tend to believe the account.

The graffiti is proof?  Spray paint scribble on the outside of a building in a third-world inner city is proof?  C'mon...surely you want more "proof" than that?


I'm done here (just here here...this one thread)...that's just my $.02. 
Reply
#40
(01-30-2010, 11:02 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: OK, well everyone is certainly entitled to their opinon.  But I'm thinking denial at this point, at least about the basic facts that some people from an SSPX chapel went to an FSSP church and desecrated it because they thought there was ecumenical nonsense going on, is just that - denial.

Protestants painting a Catholic church in objection to ecumenism?  Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.  One can clearly see the spanish word for "ecumenism" in the picture.

As I said, I'll correct my original post if something changes, but for now, I tend to believe the account.

I know the SSPX had nothing to do with it. If it was a rogue group of ignorant sheep led by a wolf - then that's what it was.  I don't believe it was even that.

The SSPX has had 40 years of dealing with ecumenical nonsense - -they separated themselves from that BS 40 years ago when it was worse because it was new......IF they were ever going to pull such an ignorant stunt, they would have done it a very long time ago I assure you.

Just another feeble attempt to scandalize, aimed at the unknowing. I lost count at the number of feeble attempts, must be well over ten million by now.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)