SSPX says no to Rome
#41
(07-16-2012, 01:30 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 01:27 AM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: You and Dying Flutchman sound like you're headed for Hell. Shape up and become Catholic before it's too late.

How are they headed for Hell? Are they members of a false religion? Have they committed a public mortal sin? The cornfield is available for you to make your case.
Explain yourself fellow.
Reply
#42
(07-16-2012, 02:05 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 01:30 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 01:27 AM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: You and Dying Flutchman sound like you're headed for Hell. Shape up and become Catholic before it's too late.

How are they headed for Hell? Are they members of a false religion? Have they committed a public mortal sin? The cornfield is available for you to make your case.
Explain yourself fellow.

When a Catholic's rhetoric eerily resembles the most vicious of Reformation polemic ("Roman church of Satan?") is when explanation is truly needed ... fellow.
Reply
#43
I criticized Flutchman's use of "Roman Church of Satan," and I do so again. He was wrong for saying that. The Roman Church is indefectible. See my sig line.

Now, let's cut to the chase. I suspect that the charge of John Lane as "sounding" like he's "headed towards Hell" is simply becuase he is a sedevacantist.

Quite simply, I am tired of sedevacantists being bashed and treated as non-Catholics, by some, on this forum. I really am tired of it. There's no room for round table discourse on this, but pure attacks. Does anyone see John using Traditio like attacks and rhetoric against Benedict XVI?

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that those who don't think JPII was pope are treated like anathematized scum quite amusing, considering the many, many ecumenical actions of John Paul II, which were unthinkable before Vatican II.
Reply
#44
(07-16-2012, 02:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I criticized Flutchman's use of "Roman Church of Satan," and I do so again. He was wrong for saying that. The Roman Church is indefectible. See my sig line.

Now, let's cut to the chase. I suspect that the charge of John Lane as "sounding" like he's "headed towards Hell" is simply becuase he is a sedevacantist.

Quite simply, I am tired of sedevacantists being bashed and treated as non-Catholics, by some, on this forum. I really am tired of it. There's no room for round table discourse on this, but pure attacks. Does anyone see John using Traditio like attacks and rhetoric against Benedict XVI?

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that those who don't think JPII was pope are treated like anathematized scum quite amusing, considering the many, many ecumenical actions of John Paul II, which were unthinkable before Vatican II.

THIS on all above accounts.
Reply
#45
(07-16-2012, 02:44 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 02:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I criticized Flutchman's use of "Roman Church of Satan," and I do so again. He was wrong for saying that. The Roman Church is indefectible. See my sig line.

Now, let's cut to the chase. I suspect that the charge of John Lane as "sounding" like he's "headed towards Hell" is simply becuase he is a sedevacantist.

Quite simply, I am tired of sedevacantists being bashed and treated as non-Catholics, by some, on this forum. I really am tired of it. There's no room for round table discourse on this, but pure attacks. Does anyone see John using Traditio like attacks and rhetoric against Benedict XVI?

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that those who don't think JPII was pope are treated like anathematized scum quite amusing, considering the many, many ecumenical actions of John Paul II, which were unthinkable before Vatican II.

THIS on all above accounts.

@GottmitunsAlex

Oh? So you're more offended when somebody slaps a sede around a bit, as opposed to somebody referring to the Church as the "Roman Church of Satan"? Explain yourself, fellow.
Reply
#46
The guy who made the "Roman Church of Satan" comment did not mean so in the same way Luther did. This is how I see it. He vented his frustration at all the nonsense that has been going on in Rome since 1965.

I'll let him explain and defend himself, but this is how I see it.
Reply
#47
(07-16-2012, 02:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I criticized Flutchman's use of "Roman Church of Satan," and I do so again. He was wrong for saying that. The Roman Church is indefectible. See my sig line.

Now, let's cut to the chase. I suspect that the charge of John Lane as "sounding" like he's "headed towards Hell" is simply becuase he is a sedevacantist.

Quite simply, I am tired of sedevacantists being bashed and treated as non-Catholics, by some, on this forum. I really am tired of it. There's no room for round table discourse on this, but pure attacks. Does anyone see John using Traditio like attacks and rhetoric against Benedict XVI?

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that those who don't think JPII was pope are treated like anathematized scum quite amusing, considering the many, many ecumenical actions of John Paul II, which were unthinkable before Vatican II.

Meh ... Sedes do a wonderful job at painting themselves as lunatics more than anyone else and I see no campaign at maligning them here or anywhere. They're small potatoes, to be honest. Though I agree that charity is the operative message here, but judging from some of the negative reactions at the prospect of an SSPX agreement with Rome, the tone around here has changed ... really changed and for the worse. Traditional Catholics on here, like myself and others, who don't see (1) the Church as becoming the whore of Babylon, church of satan, seat of the antichrist, etc. ... and (2) who don't see the future of the Church as being some nebulous, self-righteous, loose confederacy of self-proclaimed guardians of tradition and armchair theologians, are running short on patience for that kind of horseshit.

While I agree Adeodatus' post may have been out of line, it's only a rash reaction to the general tomfoolery running amok here on FE with all of its presumptions, logical fallacies, bad philosophy, stunted theology and general immaturity.
Reply
#48
FE is turning out to mirror the wild west! We should all want to be in full communion with Rome. What will happen once new ordinations are deemed invalid? Will people jump ship and run to Eastern churches for *valid* ordinations? I can see it now...WE ARE THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ARE IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE ANCIENT EASTERN CHURCHES, JUST AS IT WAS BEFORE THE ROMAN DEVIL WENT INTO SCHISM.
Reply
#49
(07-16-2012, 03:00 AM)Joshua Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 02:44 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-16-2012, 02:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I criticized Flutchman's use of "Roman Church of Satan," and I do so again. He was wrong for saying that. The Roman Church is indefectible. See my sig line.

Now, let's cut to the chase. I suspect that the charge of John Lane as "sounding" like he's "headed towards Hell" is simply becuase he is a sedevacantist.

Quite simply, I am tired of sedevacantists being bashed and treated as non-Catholics, by some, on this forum. I really am tired of it. There's no room for round table discourse on this, but pure attacks. Does anyone see John using Traditio like attacks and rhetoric against Benedict XVI?

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that those who don't think JPII was pope are treated like anathematized scum quite amusing, considering the many, many ecumenical actions of John Paul II, which were unthinkable before Vatican II.

THIS on all above accounts.

@GottmitunsAlex

Oh? So you're more offended when somebody slaps a sede around a bit, as opposed to somebody referring to the Church as the "Roman Church of Satan"? Explain yourself, fellow.
Pope Paul VI said the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.
Believe me, I've had my run ins with Sedes. In this case, Neither John Lane or Flutschman have promoted SV.
In fact, they are more in line with Catholic doctrine than many here. Really.
Example:
I read how many people here were crudely referring to anatomical parts of Our Blessed Virgin Mary.
John Lane and a few others, were appalled, as I was, on how some here streamlined through the topic as if it were OK.
Kinda like the ends justify the means.  The mere questioning of the possibility of a different interpretation of that dogma or any, for that matter, is repugnant.


The actual words of Adeodatus01 were: "You and Dying Flutchman sound like you're headed for Hell. Shape up and become Catholic before it's too late."
I don't understand why. That is all. And still we get no answers from him. Only from you.  I know you are his buddy and all, but, if hes man enough to say something like that, then he is man enough to explain it. Jawohl.


Reply
#50
I find it amusing that as soon as a Sede is criticized we have half a dozen people jumping on that person for being uncharitable or my favorite term...."unfair".  I can't count how many wasted posts I've seen where all someone says is, "thats not fair he's not in the cornfield to defend himself." My view is that if a Sede is posting something that's controversial enough for someone else to call them out on it, than they either needs to rethink what they're posting or risk being banned. Its pretty cowardly to post something controversial and then slink away while you watch your "buddies" defend you.  Can we please stop coddling them like I do my 2 year old when she trips?

The lines in the sand are clearly being drawn.  I know there is no theological definition for "leaning-sede" but I've sure seen a hell of a lot of "Traditionalists" heading in that direction recently.  

God help us all.  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)