I don’t understand what you are saying here. Eponymous Flower literally called Francis the Pope of Dialectical Materialism. Is Eponymous Flower trying to sew confusion in the Church? Is he a Converso? I don’t know Eponymous Flower is a Converso but if he is trying to sew confusion in the church he is going about it the wrong way. That Francis is a Communist and that he seems to want to destroy the Church are both true things that Catholic Believers ought to know and saying those things will not sew confusion among Believers but will tend to reduce confusion.
EP is condemning Mother for truly saying Francis is attacking the Church (which she should do!). However EP truly said that Francis is preaching Communism (which he should do!). Does EP believe that he himself is sewing confusion? EP does seem to be confused, and in a state of radical self-contradiction. How would you account for this?
“Anonymous” above is I. I did not mean to hide my Christian name.
btw by “(which he shoul do!)” I meant “which Eponymous Flower should say”, that he is right to so accuse Francis of preaching Communism. I did not mean Francis should preach Communism!
Steve: Whether or not Francis is pope seems to be a separate issue from Rosalind's desire to sow division. The second issue has been a constant with her. The Williamson affair was used by Conversos to maintain division in the Church in order to keep open the channels of dialog with the Jews. In this case, the legitimacy of Benedict was not questioned. Under John Paul II, there were too many episodes to enumerate. Now, with Francis, she feels it necessary to question his validity and turn lovers of the Latin Mass against him as he drives them into the arms of the SSPX. After EMJ all but drove a stake thru the heart of Gary Voris, Rosalind came to his side and did shows with him which allowed him to limp along until the McCarrick scandal broke and the show found its bearings. Again, it was Realpolitik maintaining a balance of power that would please Kissinger.
Saying “The Pope is attacking the Church” is not exactly the same as “The Pope is preaching communism” but isn’t the difference essentially just that the second is more specific than the first? That is, wouldn’t you say that the Pope’s preaching communism is a particular WAY to attack the Church?
When someone says that someone who is known to be a Baptized Catholic “is not Catholic” he is not saying that the baptism did not happen or was invalid, he is saying that the person no longer believes as a Catholic.
I that it is clear that when an educated Catholic believes and preaches Communism he know longer believes as a Catholic “isn’t Catholic” loosely speaking. I don’t think calling out that person tends to sew confusion among believers.
If I simultaneously thought that calling out the same educated Catholic for other very similar ways he shows he no longer believes as a Catholic DOES tend to sew confusion among believers, that would surely be inconsistent on my part. That astounding and incomprehensible degree of inconsistency on my part would surely deserve to be described as a radical state of self contradiction.
That is why I am confused. EF writes an essay criticizing the Pope (deservedly) and then says that a video that criticizes the pope (again deservedly) in essentially the same way is an attempt to sew confusion. Is it the medium that makes the difference, written blog essay vs video blog?
They are both saying the same thing, right or wrong (I think it is right, the truth), so why does one criticize the other? Is it a matter of “when I say it it’s good but when you say it it’s wrong?”
I did not notice that Mother Rosalind in that video said Francis is not the Pope. I wonder if EF intended to post a different of “Mother” Rosalind’s videos. I don’t know anything about her so I couldn’t tell you if she is really a nun or not. By the way “Converso” literally means convert in Spanish, but in English it means something different and is pejorative.
I don’t know if I adequately explained why I am confused by what seems to be a very strong, self contradictory inconsistency. If I haven’t maybe we should leave it at that; I am confused and am unable to explain to you what I am confused by. It seems to me that anyone would be confused but it is all clear to some people at least.
Saying “The Pope is attacking the Church” is not exactly the same as “The Pope is preaching communism” but isn’t the difference essentially just that the second is more specific than the first? That is, wouldn’t you say that the Pope’s preaching communism is a particular WAY to attack the Church?
When someone says that someone who is known to be a Baptized Catholic “is not Catholic” he is not saying that the baptism did not happen or was invalid, he is saying that the person no longer believes as a Catholic.
I that it is clear that when an educated Catholic believes and preaches Communism he know longer believes as a Catholic “isn’t Catholic” loosely speaking. I don’t think calling out that person tends to sew confusion among believers.
If I simultaneously thought that calling out the same educated Catholic for other very similar ways he shows he no longer believes as a Catholic DOES tend to sew confusion among believers, that would surely be inconsistent on my part. That astounding and incomprehensible degree of inconsistency on my part would surely deserve to be described as a radical state of self contradiction.
That is why I am confused. EF writes an essay criticizing the Pope (deservedly) and then says that a video that criticizes the pope (again deservedly) in essentially the same way is an attempt to sew confusion. Is it the medium that makes the difference, written blog essay vs video blog?
They are both saying the same thing, right or wrong (I think it is right, the truth), so why does one criticize the other? Is it a matter of “when I say it it’s good but when you say it it’s wrong?”
I did not notice that Mother Rosalind in that video said Francis is not the Pope. I wonder if EF intended to post a different of “Mother” Rosalind’s videos. I don’t know anything about her so I couldn’t tell you if she is really a nun or not. By the way “Converso” literally means convert in Spanish, but in English it means something different and is pejorative.
I don’t know if I adequately explained why I am confused by what seems to be a very strong, self contradictory inconsistency. If I haven’t maybe we should leave it at that; I am confused and am unable to explain to you what I am confused by. It seems to me that anyone would be confused but it is all clear to some people at least.
Actual popes must be actually Catholic. If there’s anything BeelzeBergoglio has made clear, it’s that he hates actual Catholicism. Therefore he can’t possibly be an actual pope. One cannot be the head of a body of which one is not a member.
It’s time to get really real and accept this reality.
I know Mother from back a ways. She is a good woman and Catholic. I don't think it reflects well on Catholics to castigate other Catholics who mean well, whether we agree with them or not.
"it’s that he hates actual Catholicism." No J. Alfonso, the Pope doesn't hate 'actual' Catholics; he simply has no time for shallow, prancing faux ponces like you.
I don't know. Mother seems to believe in EENS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6u65ni7WkQ
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand what you are saying here. Eponymous Flower literally called Francis the Pope of Dialectical Materialism. Is Eponymous Flower trying to sew confusion in the Church? Is he a Converso? I don’t know Eponymous Flower is a Converso but if he is trying to sew confusion in the church he is going about it the wrong way. That Francis is a Communist and that he seems to want to destroy the Church are both true things that Catholic Believers ought to know and saying those things will not sew confusion among Believers but will tend to reduce confusion.
ReplyDeleteEP is condemning Mother for truly saying Francis is attacking the Church (which she should do!). However EP truly said that Francis is preaching Communism (which he should do!). Does EP believe that he himself is sewing confusion? EP does seem to be confused, and in a state of radical self-contradiction. How would you account for this?
“Anonymous” above is I. I did not mean to hide my Christian name.
ReplyDeletebtw by “(which he shoul do!)” I meant “which Eponymous Flower should say”, that he is right to so accuse Francis of preaching Communism. I did not mean Francis should preach Communism!
Steve:
ReplyDeleteWhether or not Francis is pope seems to be a separate issue from Rosalind's desire to sow division. The second issue has been a constant with her. The Williamson affair was used by Conversos to maintain division in the Church in order to keep open the channels of dialog with the Jews. In this case, the legitimacy of Benedict was not questioned. Under John Paul II, there were too many episodes to enumerate.
Now, with Francis, she feels it necessary to question his validity and turn lovers of the Latin Mass against him as he drives them into the arms of the SSPX. After EMJ all but drove a stake thru the heart of Gary Voris, Rosalind came to his side and did shows with him which allowed him to limp along until the McCarrick scandal broke and the show found its bearings. Again, it was Realpolitik maintaining a balance of power that would please Kissinger.
BTW, is she a real nun?
Saying “The Pope is attacking the Church” is not exactly the same as “The Pope is preaching communism” but isn’t the difference essentially just that the second is more specific than the first? That is, wouldn’t you say that the Pope’s preaching communism is a particular WAY to attack the Church?
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says that someone who is known to be a Baptized Catholic “is not Catholic” he is not saying that the baptism did not happen or was invalid, he is saying that the person no longer believes as a Catholic.
I that it is clear that when an educated Catholic believes and preaches Communism he know longer believes as a Catholic “isn’t Catholic” loosely speaking. I don’t think calling out that person tends to sew confusion among believers.
If I simultaneously thought that calling out the same educated Catholic for other very similar ways he shows he no longer believes as a Catholic DOES tend to sew confusion among believers, that would surely be inconsistent on my part. That astounding and incomprehensible degree of inconsistency on my part would surely deserve to be described as a radical state of self contradiction.
That is why I am confused. EF writes an essay criticizing the Pope (deservedly) and then says that a video that criticizes the pope (again deservedly) in essentially the same way is an attempt to sew confusion. Is it the medium that makes the difference, written blog essay vs video blog?
They are both saying the same thing, right or wrong (I think it is right, the truth), so why does one criticize the other? Is it a matter of “when I say it it’s good but when you say it it’s wrong?”
I did not notice that Mother Rosalind in that video said Francis is not the Pope. I wonder if EF intended to post a different of “Mother” Rosalind’s videos. I don’t know anything about her so I couldn’t tell you if she is really a nun or not. By the way “Converso” literally means convert in Spanish, but in English it means something different and is pejorative.
I don’t know if I adequately explained why I am confused by what seems to be a very strong, self contradictory inconsistency. If I haven’t maybe we should leave it at that; I am confused and am unable to explain to you what I am confused by. It seems to me that anyone would be confused but it is all clear to some people at least.
Thank you.
Saying “The Pope is attacking the Church” is not exactly the same as “The Pope is preaching communism” but isn’t the difference essentially just that the second is more specific than the first? That is, wouldn’t you say that the Pope’s preaching communism is a particular WAY to attack the Church?
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says that someone who is known to be a Baptized Catholic “is not Catholic” he is not saying that the baptism did not happen or was invalid, he is saying that the person no longer believes as a Catholic.
I that it is clear that when an educated Catholic believes and preaches Communism he know longer believes as a Catholic “isn’t Catholic” loosely speaking. I don’t think calling out that person tends to sew confusion among believers.
If I simultaneously thought that calling out the same educated Catholic for other very similar ways he shows he no longer believes as a Catholic DOES tend to sew confusion among believers, that would surely be inconsistent on my part. That astounding and incomprehensible degree of inconsistency on my part would surely deserve to be described as a radical state of self contradiction.
That is why I am confused. EF writes an essay criticizing the Pope (deservedly) and then says that a video that criticizes the pope (again deservedly) in essentially the same way is an attempt to sew confusion. Is it the medium that makes the difference, written blog essay vs video blog?
They are both saying the same thing, right or wrong (I think it is right, the truth), so why does one criticize the other? Is it a matter of “when I say it it’s good but when you say it it’s wrong?”
I did not notice that Mother Rosalind in that video said Francis is not the Pope. I wonder if EF intended to post a different of “Mother” Rosalind’s videos. I don’t know anything about her so I couldn’t tell you if she is really a nun or not. By the way “Converso” literally means convert in Spanish, but in English it means something different and is pejorative.
I don’t know if I adequately explained why I am confused by what seems to be a very strong, self contradictory inconsistency. If I haven’t maybe we should leave it at that; I am confused and am unable to explain to you what I am confused by. It seems to me that anyone would be confused but it is all clear to some people at least.
Thank you.
You forgot to mention sspx, Mother Miriam
ReplyDeleteActual popes must be actually Catholic. If there’s anything BeelzeBergoglio has made clear, it’s that he hates actual Catholicism. Therefore he can’t possibly be an actual pope. One cannot be the head of a body of which one is not a member.
ReplyDeleteIt’s time to get really real and accept this reality.
I know Mother from back a ways. She is a good woman and Catholic. I don't think it reflects well on Catholics to castigate other Catholics who mean well, whether we agree with them or not.
ReplyDelete"sow division"= tell the truth.
ReplyDelete"Raul"...ROFLMAO Just when I think you can't get any gayer feybriel, you go and up yourself....in EVERY meaning of the phrase.
Yeehaaaw's got the wrong necessary Nemesis. Nothing's new here.
ReplyDeletelegion.
ReplyDeleteAt least she’s not calling him Bergoglio.
ReplyDelete"it’s that he hates actual Catholicism." No J. Alfonso, the Pope doesn't hate 'actual' Catholics; he simply has no time for shallow, prancing faux ponces like you.
ReplyDelete