tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2380521225011511408..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Hubris meets nemesis? (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43861522651392652762018-09-11T01:47:31.493-07:002018-09-11T01:47:31.493-07:00>You are a very unpleasant correspondent.
You ...>You are a very unpleasant correspondent.<br /><br />You falsely accused Paul VI of being a homosexual based on the bogus testimony of a French Pederast who also accused Pius XII. What? Do you think if you called my own saintly Italian Mother a puttana to my own face I wouldn't verbally knock you on your arse? Here you are making specious and slanderous charges against a Blessed Pope who by definition is my spiritual Father.<br /><br />You made a foe for life.<br /><br />>You posed an objection ("double think") and I answered it. You didn't attempt to refute my answer, you just added more abuse and sarcasm. <br /><br />It's blithering nonsense. I don't have to put in any effort answering Radtrad stupidity. The Atheist stupidity is tedious enough.<br /><br />>As I've said before to you, try and remember that others are reading, and they'll form their own judgements.<br /><br />I don't see anybody rushing to confirm your goofy charges against Paul VI. Not even the resident Sedes. <br /><br />Here is something for them to judge. You accused Paul VI of being a homosexual based on charges made by an Atheist Pederast who wrote for scandal sheets<br /><br />You are using the present scandal regarding Pope Francis to make specious slanders against the innocent. <br /><br />It's goofy. If you can't see that I cannot help you.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37888047788828811912018-09-10T21:58:45.217-07:002018-09-10T21:58:45.217-07:00@Son of Ya'Kov
You are a very unpleasant corr...@Son of Ya'Kov<br /><br />You are a very unpleasant correspondent.<br /><br />You posed an objection ("double think") and I answered it. You didn't attempt to refute my answer, you just added more abuse and sarcasm. <br /><br />As I've said before to you, try and remember that others are reading, and they'll form their own judgements.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2924630938983583982018-09-10T19:00:45.301-07:002018-09-10T19:00:45.301-07:00Dude you boy Peyrefitte who accused Paul VI of bei...Dude you boy Peyrefitte who accused Paul VI of being gay also accused Pius XII of being gay. Why is he "truthful" in regards to the former but not the later? Or do you also believe Pius XII was a Puff too?<br /><br />If you are waiting for me to defend the silence of Pope Francis you will wait till crack of doom. But I won't hold my breath waiting for you to explain to me why I should believe some French atheist pederast who has made reckless charges against two Pope in good standing?<br /><br />Here is the thing. Just because Pope Francis might be guilty of something does not make it open season on slandering Popes at will you silly fruitcake!<br /><br />You cry like a snowflake over being "abused" but you abused the memory of Blessed Paul VI and gave credence to someone who slandered Pius XII of happy memory as well.<br /><br />You are a base slanderer and the more you cry about it the more guilty you look. Much like the people whom Vigano has accused.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81257492157828679302018-09-08T22:59:30.325-07:002018-09-08T22:59:30.325-07:00"So Pope Paul VI publically denies he is gay ..."So Pope Paul VI publically denies he is gay instead of being silent and that "proves" he is guilty where as Pope Francis silent and refusal to deny does the opposite?"<br /><br />Paul VI didn't answer ANY criticisms, even those couched in the most abject language, beseeching mercy, by venerable old priests who were being brutally forced to abandon the mass of their ordination and instead adopt the new Protestant, man-centred, hippie liturgy of 1969.<br /><br />But he answered this one, and fast, and announced a day of reparation for it. Remarkable.<br /><br />Bergoglio is hyper-sensitive to criticism and responds accordingly, answering various allegations, as Dr. Feser has highlighted. Yet he won't answer this one. Remarkable.<br /><br />Instead of abusing people like me, why not try and keep in mind that others are reading, forming their own judgements, and (especially since this is a philosophy blog) won't be influenced by that kind of gaslighting? <br /><br />Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18898645365741390322018-09-07T09:40:59.822-07:002018-09-07T09:40:59.822-07:00>It was widely rumoured at the time, then a Fre...>It was widely rumoured at the time, then a French (if memory serves) journal published the allegation, and Montini, astonishingly, publicly denied it! Ignoring it, especially since it was only one obscure journal, would have been the advice of the Curia and anybody with good sense. Answering it only gave it gravity.<br />So yes, I think it's true. But I don't think it's proved, just judging on the balance of probabilities.<br /><br />So Pope Paul VI publically denies he is gay instead of being silent and that "proves" he is guilty where as Pope Francis silent and refusal to deny does the opposite?<br /><br />Only a Radtrad would employ that level of double think.<br /><br />BTW I looked up the fellow who accused Paul VI in 1975. Roger Peyrefitte was his name. He had also accused Pius XII of being secretly gay. He liked teenage boys and openly harrassed them on the street. He was a gay right advocate. He wrote for scandal sheets and only made his charge the day after Paul VI upheld the Church's teaching on birth control, homosexuality and self abuse etc.<br /><br />I love how you pass over all that & try to change the subject to claiming he was a secret Communist.<br /><br />You sir are an extremist. You could get a neat job with some of Pope Francis' extremist defenders. You share their mentality.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22085997180724310492018-09-07T07:57:23.062-07:002018-09-07T07:57:23.062-07:00He buddy I have been on this blog for years. You ...He buddy I have been on this blog for years. You show up out of the blue hawking your "Paul VI" was a secret homosexual conspiracy theories and you sound no different the Sedes, anti-Catholic Protestants and Atheist sharks who are circling the wounded church.<br /><br /><br />> psycho-analysis of people he doesn't find congenial.<br /><br />You believe Paul VI was a secret homosexual.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36948649490159306122018-09-06T18:23:25.434-07:002018-09-06T18:23:25.434-07:00Dr. Feser, you personally approve each of these co...Dr. Feser, you personally approve each of these comments, correct?<br /><br />I fail to see what value Son of Ya'Kov is adding to these discussions. His posts appear to be either unsolicited advice to Francis and Benedict, unfounded predictions about contingent events, or psycho-analysis of people he doesn't find congenial.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38649890447833728482018-09-06T12:45:02.517-07:002018-09-06T12:45:02.517-07:00Aquinian, I wish there were a "like" fea...Aquinian, I wish there were a "like" feature on these comments, because I would give you an enthusiastic thumbs-up on your "go-to-the-root-of-it" analysis above. Very insightful reasoning, and articulately expressed. Thank you.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03205804416257099203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16421874401166647482018-09-06T12:20:05.285-07:002018-09-06T12:20:05.285-07:00Sophia's Favorite, I agree with you except for...Sophia's Favorite, I agree with you except for one thing, and it is HUGE. No matter how much evil may be in the Church, the answer can NEVER be to skip Mass! That is a mortal sin against the third commandment. One reason it's mortal sin is that you cut yourself off from JESUS, who is present in every Mass, no matter how wicked the priest (to say otherwise is to fall into the Donatist heresy).<br /><br />We mustn't let our disgust for the evildoers in the Church draw us away from the One who is all-good, all-just, all-pure, and without whom we cannot be saved!Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03205804416257099203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17701327446025889832018-09-06T12:02:49.880-07:002018-09-06T12:02:49.880-07:00Here is another article with additional details on...Here is another article with additional details on this topic. This is hugely important if accurate, since it would mean an invalid resignation on the part of Benedict, meaning he would even now still be Pope.<br />www.returntofatima.org/2015/09/was-pope-benedict-swifted/Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03205804416257099203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15304561757234626742018-09-06T08:02:56.388-07:002018-09-06T08:02:56.388-07:00I heard a rumor Pius IX was a secret Puppy murdere...I heard a rumor Pius IX was a secret Puppy murderer. That and one buck will get you a cup of coffee in my town.<br /><br />Disordered & irrational extremists like youself have cried wolf since the 60's and now you look surprised when a wolf finally shows up and people don't believe you.<br /><br />Here is the thing. There is always a wolf. Even if there was no Vatican II there would still be a wolf. Alexander VI and Sergus III didn't need a Vatican II to bonk their mistresses at the Vatican.<br /><br />It's like idiots who claim Galileo was a great scientist. No he wasn't. He was no Copernicus and he was likely a plagiarist. He didn't offer proof (that came centuries later) he just guessed correctly.<br /><br />Now jog on you have bored me.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61138879469798419452018-09-06T07:56:35.115-07:002018-09-06T07:56:35.115-07:00You are just spouting tedious SSPX propaganda. Yo...You are just spouting tedious SSPX propaganda. You people are vultures and parasites. You don't care about the current crisis or abuse you just what too promote your anti-Vatican II High Church Protestant nonsense.<br /><br />Get in line Bozo behind the Sedes, Prots and Atheists who have shown up here to do the same. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77401655297739414202018-09-06T00:13:18.851-07:002018-09-06T00:13:18.851-07:00"You believe Pope St Paul VI was a secret hom..."You believe Pope St Paul VI was a secret homosexual."<br /><br />It was widely rumoured at the time, then a French (if memory serves) journal published the allegation, and Montini, astonishingly, publicly denied it! Ignoring it, especially since it was only one obscure journal, would have been the advice of the Curia and anybody with good sense. Answering it only gave it gravity.<br /><br />So yes, I think it's true. But I don't think it's proved, just judging on the balance of probabilities. Of course it helps to know that Montini was working with the Communists behind Pacelli's back, and that his father was a leftie, and that he decided in youth that he would imitate Vittorio Alfieri, the notorious freethinker... (See Peter Hebblethwaite's hagiographical biog of Paul VI).Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53199530678098485072018-09-05T23:43:32.260-07:002018-09-05T23:43:32.260-07:00I think I'm comfortable leaving the reader to ...I think I'm comfortable leaving the reader to decide which of our posts carries the greatest weight.<br /><br />Thanks for your time.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63801091227924436252018-09-05T22:38:43.463-07:002018-09-05T22:38:43.463-07:00You believe Pope St Paul VI was a secret homosexua...You believe Pope St Paul VI was a secret homosexual. That is as looney as Pope Francis' choice to be silent. <br /><br />Yeh that is mad.<br /><br />The orthodox haven't developed their theology in a 1000 years and they haven't changed their liturgy either. They suffer the same problems of liberalism, irrationality, post modernist crap etc......<br /><br />Changing the externals will not change Catholics. Only Grace can do that. <br /><br />>Francis is so like John XXIII it's like a family descent.<br /><br />That is St John XXIII to you sir. <br /><br />They are nothing alike. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91998224824417867162018-09-05T22:31:28.961-07:002018-09-05T22:31:28.961-07:00>I say to modern Catholics, don’t be martyrs fo...>I say to modern Catholics, don’t be martyrs for John XXIII and his (very likely homosexual) successor, Paul VI. <br /><br />Conspiracy theory nutter. Worst then some of the people accusing Vigano.<br /><br />You should be taken as seriously as the Sede weirdos & I don't take them seriously.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30347204189994557702018-09-05T22:29:28.576-07:002018-09-05T22:29:28.576-07:00According to the Grand Jury sex abuse in the Churc...According to the Grand Jury sex abuse in the Church went all the way back to WWII. Explain to me how that is the fault of Vatican II? Vatican II took place during the 60's not 40's.<br /><br />Anyway your response is tedious. <br /><br />Relying on the bare facts is rational. It requires some empiricism. Dr. Feser's latest Post provides the key. Release the relevant documents. Evidence not ideology or theology or philosophy. Thought those are important over all they are not important here in terms of verification. <br /><br />>Why am I surprised that a bloke using a Hebrew name is contradicting himself and sowing confusion, all in a dogmatic tone?<br /><br />Where have I claimed X and Not X being true at the same time and in the same sense? What have I said that is a contradiction? I do believe passionately in Aristotle's first principles. Do you?<br /><br />Well?<br /><br />>“The ecclesiological implications are frightening, so they bury their heads in the sand. And that's why it's boring. There's nothing more boring than a discussion, supposedly serious, that will not attack causes.”<br /><br />Lovely let's first establish Francis' guilt or innocence with facts (& they are out there) then you can bore me to death with your weird simplistic belief "this is all Vatican II's " fault. <br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16469129828177818712018-09-03T23:56:48.500-07:002018-09-03T23:56:48.500-07:00You mean the guy who spouts his theoretical positi...You mean the guy who spouts his theoretical position and then adds, "This we must rely on bare verifiable facts."? LOL!<br /><br />Why am I surprised that a bloke using a Hebrew name is contradicting himself and sowing confusion, all in a dogmatic tone?Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26242944948788128992018-09-03T21:11:45.880-07:002018-09-03T21:11:45.880-07:00"But it does require communion with them and ..."But it does require communion with them and submission to them."<br /><br />James, let's be real. I am a traditional Catholic, which means in brief that I hold fast to the old mass and sacraments, and decline to be bullied into accepting the synthetic novelties created in the late 'sixties in the context of massive heterodoxy and chaos in the Church. It is no part of this to attack anybody else, it is merely maintaining clear rights. (Irony of ironies, after decades of being told we were "disobedient" for failing to go along with the revolution, suddenly in 2007 we were told that the old mas had never legally been forbidden.) Especially it must be emphasised that contrary to the bullying lies of the past fifty years, none of this is the traditional Catholics' fault. NONE. We are without offence, except the "offence" of failing to be bullied. <br /><br />So, I hope that your comment is not meant to be some kind of reversal of the situation, as though we were risking schism or some other offence, when actually we've done nothing. We've not moved, we're not the agressors, we have remained where we were. If there's schism, it's on the other side. The one who changes everything is responsible for the consequences, not the intended victims.<br /><br />I see many comments online about how bitter traditionalists are. I don't see it myself, I find them just exemplary Catholics, going about saving their souls. The few who spend time online are faced with this incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of the Modernists and their enablers, and this hypocrisy and dishonesty is now so long-standing that it has become a venerable tradition in Novus Ordo Land. Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22360734018748573362018-09-03T13:56:07.714-07:002018-09-03T13:56:07.714-07:00Son of Ya'Kov has already sufficiently answere...Son of Ya'Kov has already sufficiently answered what you say.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48523374490296231412018-09-03T08:33:51.000-07:002018-09-03T08:33:51.000-07:00If PF were to be *pressured into abdicating*, his ...If PF were to be *pressured into abdicating*, his abdication would be unfree & invalid, and any election of an intended successor would be invalid. That is what Scott Eric Alt was arguing, surely rightly. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02432033696871518417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1159484646728032132018-09-03T08:21:55.279-07:002018-09-03T08:21:55.279-07:00“The ecclesiological implications are frightening,...“The ecclesiological implications are frightening, so they bury their heads in the sand. And that's why it's boring. There's nothing more boring than a discussion, supposedly serious, that will not attack causes.”<br /><br />That is exactly why the causes of this mess *have to* be faced. Prolonging the cowardice and evasion is no solution. If JP2 and J23 and P6 have to be de-canonised or de-beatified, that is fine by me. If dogmas have to be unsaid, so be it: I would rather the CC were hideously embarrassed by having to be unsparingly truthful and honest, than that the sewage from the Papacy should continue to corrupt and poison the Church. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02432033696871518417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28210011247002203622018-09-03T08:06:11.593-07:002018-09-03T08:06:11.593-07:00“I say to modern Catholics, don’t be martyrs for J...“I say to modern Catholics, don’t be martyrs for John XXIII and his (very likely homosexual) successor, Paul VI. They fomented a revolution, and you shouldn’t feel that loyalty to the Church requires loyalty to them.”<br /><br />But it does require communion with them and submission to them. One cannot be a Catholic otherwise. Even if they are unmitigated scumbags. If a man is the legitimate reigning Pope, communion with him and submission to him is essential if one is Catholic. There is no getting around this. No matter how much it may hurt. If McCarrick were elected Pope tomorrow, he would be as genuinely the Successor of Peter & Vicar of Christ as any of the Popes. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02432033696871518417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88415253167257478212018-09-03T00:53:58.649-07:002018-09-03T00:53:58.649-07:00>"Oko told LifeSiteNews that part of the p...>"Oko told LifeSiteNews that part of the problem is that up to 50 percent of American bishops have homosexual inclinations.”<br /><br />How the hell would he even *know* that? Did they all have a meeting where they raised their hands or has the gadar finally been perfected?iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18643711798568347332018-09-03T00:47:32.913-07:002018-09-03T00:47:32.913-07:00>Love can never be sinful.
Aye, for love is wil...>Love can never be sinful.<br />Aye, for love is willing the good of another. But not everything done with a beloved is love. Let's say for instance that, in jealousy for her love, I strangeled my wife to death. I may have my whole life done everything to look after her good, but in this act obviously I have departed from my love for her. So too with many other acts.iwpoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17751879308012191778noreply@blogger.com