Replies

As I said, to my way of thinking, considering him insane is charitable. It would mean he would escape culpability for his heresies and hatreds. BTW, I thought the same way about Lefevbre. We all know the schism has an extremist position on EENS. Lefevbrfe died EENS. He died excomunicated. It is MUCH more charitable to think lefevbre was insane and not culpable than to think lefevbre was sane and culpable and, therefore, according to the schism's doctrine of EENS, in Hell.

Just because Fellay is insane (psychopathologically delusional) does not mean you would be able to indentify the insanity. (Have you ever worked with an individual with a fixed delusion?) Many individuals who are quite mad fool a lot of people.

The sspx and its supporters throw around "calumny" to try and silence opponents of schism. They never identify as calumniators those, like lefevbre, who said Pope John Paul was an AntiChrist, intent on destroying tradition etc etc.

Fellay has described as evil the Msss apporoved by the Catholic Church. Trent anathematised anyone who engages in such action. Trent also condemned Bishops who invade and minsiter in the Jurisdiction of legitimate Bishops. Does that stop the 'trad" Fellay? Nope. Presumably, Fellay was learnt these things a long time ago. I think "insanity" the only logical defense for him. It is either that or he is anathema. Which position is more charitable?

Fellay teaches an Ecumenical Council is heretical. That is rank heresy. Is it more charitable to call him a heretic or to think him insane and incapable of making sound judgements?

Fellay teaches all Jews are condemned. Is it more charitable to think he is mentally competent when he teaches such an abominable and hateful antisemitic heresy or is it more charitable to think him insane and not culpable?

I think you have reasoned your way into a dilemma by adopting the sole defensive tactic of the schism supporter, which is to accuse the opponent of the schism of being a big blue meanine who is committing a mortal sin.

Isn't it funny how the defenders of the schism can hold their tongues for 30 years while their leaders enage in all manner of heresies, hatreds, calumnies, campaigns, distortions, inanities, and lies directly targeted at the Holy Father, the Second Vatican Council, and the Normative Mass and the SOLE target of the label "calumny" is used against a Faithful Catholic who effectively counters their lies and heresies.

Save it, brother. It ain't a tactic which will work on me. I KNOW the schism. I KNOW its heresies. I KNOW its defensive tactics. I KNOW its lies. I KNOW its antisemitic hatred. I KNOW schism is evil. I KNOW the schism has a double standard. I KNOW the schism engages in actions it condemns others for.

Take care of your own, soul, brother. The Baltimore Catechism warns (#367) you must take care of your own life and not endanger it. You are endangering it in the schism.

#374 and 375 of the Baltimore Catechism refers to the sspx's theft of what rightfully belongs to the church. You support this theft. That makes YOU guilty.

Please read #379. Y'all, obviously, do not evcn know the definition of calumny. That aside, your silence about the sins of the schism makes YOU guilty of the sin of co-operation in their evil.

NOTHING I have said about fellay is a calumny. It is just the OPPOSITE. I have posted what he teaches you folks. I have come-up with an idea which ABSOLVES him (potentially) of the evil he promotes.

If y'all knew what you were talking about you'd praise me

CALUMNY

(Latin: calvor, to use artifice, deception)

Any deception of another, especially in judicial matters, commonly used to mean unjust damaging of another's character by imputing to him something of which he is not guilty. It is an act which varies in sinfulness according to the gravity of the fault or crime imputed and the damage done. It calls for retraction and for reparation of the damage done, provided this had been foreseen. In canon law, the oath taken to attest that the litigation on both sides is in good faith is called juramentum calumnire (oath disclaiming calumny).

* ONCE MORE SO THAT MAYBE Y'ALL WILL LEARN IT I am profferring an idea which ABSOLVES Fellay. I am NOT accusing him of being GUILTY as one is NOT responsible for one's DELUSIONS

If ya'll can't get something this easy correct, maybe y'all think twice before judging the Pope, the Council, and the Mass as heretical and, by your support of the schism, co-operating in that evil.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

*I didn't treat fellay that way. For over a score of years fellay/sspx has treated the Pope that way. Yall never called him/them on it

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

THat is not me in relation to fellay. That IS fellay/sspx in realtion to the Pope. Y'all never called him/them on it.

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

*That is not me in relation to fellay. That is fellay/sspx in relation to the pope. Ya'll never called him/them on it. - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

*That is not me in relation to fellay, That is fellay in relation to the Pope/Church. Y'all never called him/them on it

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

* I offer an absolving explanation for fellay. He/thee NEVER try and absolve the Pope.

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

*That is exactly what I have been doing in re. fellay and lefevbre. Fellay and the sspx NEVER do that in re the Pope, the Council, the Mass. Ya''never even see this reality.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

* Considering lefevbre/fellay/schism suporters as delusional is the sole way I can put a, marginally, positive spin on their actions.

2480 Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages.

* Brothers and sisters, see to your own serious sins and faults supporting the heresies, lies, hatreds, and abominatios produced by the schism you succor and praise.