Archbishop Viganò: Church of Council Realises Masonic Plan, Prepares Advent of Antichrist
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò doesn't believe that the Vatican published the third secret of Fatima completely in 2000. Viganò told DiesIrae that those who saw the secret before its publication, said …More
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò doesn't believe that the Vatican published the third secret of Fatima completely in 2000.
Viganò told DiesIrae that those who saw the secret before its publication, said that it is about the Church’s apostasy which doesn't appear in the official version.
He blames the Cardinals Sodano and Bertone for this, and strangely passes over the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger participated in the publication and even wrote the secret’s official interpretation.
Viganò warns of attacks on the priesthood like the introduction of deaconesses, abolishing celibacy, and blurring the difference between the ministerial and the baptismal priesthood.
His guess: Francis will not officially allow female deacons but tolerate them quietly if German or Dutch dioceses go ahead. He stresses that Communion in the hand was introduced this way. After that, "Conservatives" could claim that “the Pope hasn't allowed anything new.”
For Viganò the Council’s Lumen Gentium committed a “doctrinal …More
Viganò told DiesIrae that those who saw the secret before its publication, said that it is about the Church’s apostasy which doesn't appear in the official version.
He blames the Cardinals Sodano and Bertone for this, and strangely passes over the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger participated in the publication and even wrote the secret’s official interpretation.
Viganò warns of attacks on the priesthood like the introduction of deaconesses, abolishing celibacy, and blurring the difference between the ministerial and the baptismal priesthood.
His guess: Francis will not officially allow female deacons but tolerate them quietly if German or Dutch dioceses go ahead. He stresses that Communion in the hand was introduced this way. After that, "Conservatives" could claim that “the Pope hasn't allowed anything new.”
For Viganò the Council’s Lumen Gentium committed a “doctrinal …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
What is interesting to note is that in a recent talk by Father Ripperger -- a renowned Exorcist -- he explained that prior to 1963, it was quite the norm that exorcisms would effect deliverance of the soul from diabolic possession in 2-3 days-- 7 days at most.
But that beginning in 1963 "overnight...like someone threw a switch", this was no longer the case, and that it began to take at least 10 …More
What is interesting to note is that in a recent talk by Father Ripperger -- a renowned Exorcist -- he explained that prior to 1963, it was quite the norm that exorcisms would effect deliverance of the soul from diabolic possession in 2-3 days-- 7 days at most.
But that beginning in 1963 "overnight...like someone threw a switch", this was no longer the case, and that it began to take at least 10 months to 2 years of concerted priestly effort to effect deliverance.
Father Ripperger then goes on to say that now it is virtually impossible to effect deliverance of a soul from diabolic possession.
Father Ripperger also explained that this adverse impact on the efficacy of exorcisms is directly related to the state of the Church.
NOTE: the problem began right at the onset of Vatican II -- overnight -- and has only gotten worse and worse to the point of suppressing the efficacy of exorcisms altogether.
Essentially, the potency of the Church's power to exorcise demons has now been reduced to virtual powerlessness against the demonic...because "one cannot cast out demons by Beelzebub" as Our Lord taught us.
I think this proves Archibishop Vigano's points and observations completely.
But that beginning in 1963 "overnight...like someone threw a switch", this was no longer the case, and that it began to take at least 10 months to 2 years of concerted priestly effort to effect deliverance.
Father Ripperger then goes on to say that now it is virtually impossible to effect deliverance of a soul from diabolic possession.
Father Ripperger also explained that this adverse impact on the efficacy of exorcisms is directly related to the state of the Church.
NOTE: the problem began right at the onset of Vatican II -- overnight -- and has only gotten worse and worse to the point of suppressing the efficacy of exorcisms altogether.
Essentially, the potency of the Church's power to exorcise demons has now been reduced to virtual powerlessness against the demonic...because "one cannot cast out demons by Beelzebub" as Our Lord taught us.
I think this proves Archibishop Vigano's points and observations completely.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
" it was quite the norm that exorcisms would effect deliverance of the soul from diabolic possession in 2-3 days-- 7 days at most." Fr. Ripperger's claim is contradicted by the history of the Loudun Possessions in 1634 and the failed exorcism of Thomas Wu in 1949... and the Thomas Hunkeler case in 1949 just to name a few. And a solid wall of "bold" isn't going to change history or the embarrassing …More
" it was quite the norm that exorcisms would effect deliverance of the soul from diabolic possession in 2-3 days-- 7 days at most." Fr. Ripperger's claim is contradicted by the history of the Loudun Possessions in 1634 and the failed exorcism of Thomas Wu in 1949... and the Thomas Hunkeler case in 1949 just to name a few. And a solid wall of "bold" isn't going to change history or the embarrassing fact Abp Vigano doesn't know the difference between the Catholic Chuch and "The Church Of Christ". :D
OPERATIVE PHRASE: "...quite the NORM..."
Citing exceptions can hardly disprove Father Ripperger's experienced and informed assertions as a highly experienced and knowledgeable Exorcist who has firsthand information we do not about the decidedly esoteric sphere of demonic activity and the number of the possessed and how their deliverances fared at various times in history.
"The exception proves …More
OPERATIVE PHRASE: "...quite the NORM..."
Citing exceptions can hardly disprove Father Ripperger's experienced and informed assertions as a highly experienced and knowledgeable Exorcist who has firsthand information we do not about the decidedly esoteric sphere of demonic activity and the number of the possessed and how their deliverances fared at various times in history.
"The exception proves the rule...." as they say.
You can take it up further with Father Ripperger if you disagree with his representations. I am sure he could provide additional substantiation and that -- as a matter of moral virtue (which he also teaches on extensively and with great effect) -- he would hardly say such things without reason or basis in strict historical fact.
In fact, Father Ripperger's reputation for being exceptionally virtuous, informed and well-trained as a Priest and Exorcist is widely known and impeccable.
He founded an Order of Exorcists, no less, and there are very few knowledgeable Catholics who would have the temerity to contradict him in his area of sarcerdotal expertise.
I am only sharing the benefit of Father Ripperger's informative lecture on this topic as it relates to Archbishop Vigano's observations and concerns, which seem to dovetail perfectly with Father Ripperger's own similar observations -- also made in the same lecture from which I cited the above facts.
God bless!
Citing exceptions can hardly disprove Father Ripperger's experienced and informed assertions as a highly experienced and knowledgeable Exorcist who has firsthand information we do not about the decidedly esoteric sphere of demonic activity and the number of the possessed and how their deliverances fared at various times in history.
"The exception proves the rule...." as they say.
You can take it up further with Father Ripperger if you disagree with his representations. I am sure he could provide additional substantiation and that -- as a matter of moral virtue (which he also teaches on extensively and with great effect) -- he would hardly say such things without reason or basis in strict historical fact.
In fact, Father Ripperger's reputation for being exceptionally virtuous, informed and well-trained as a Priest and Exorcist is widely known and impeccable.
He founded an Order of Exorcists, no less, and there are very few knowledgeable Catholics who would have the temerity to contradict him in his area of sarcerdotal expertise.
I am only sharing the benefit of Father Ripperger's informative lecture on this topic as it relates to Archbishop Vigano's observations and concerns, which seem to dovetail perfectly with Father Ripperger's own similar observations -- also made in the same lecture from which I cited the above facts.
God bless!
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I think you better review how "rules" work. Exceptions disprove they're rules at all.
The rest is a very nicely worded fallacious appeal to authority.
"You can take it up further with Father Ripperger if you disagree with his representations."
I don't need to since there is ample documented evidence of exoricisms that directly contradict his claims.
" I am sure he could provide additional …More
I think you better review how "rules" work. Exceptions disprove they're rules at all.
The rest is a very nicely worded fallacious appeal to authority.
"You can take it up further with Father Ripperger if you disagree with his representations."
I don't need to since there is ample documented evidence of exoricisms that directly contradict his claims.
" I am sure he could provide additional substantiation and that"
Additional??? In point of fact, he hasn't provided ANY substantiation for his claims at all.
" he would hardly say such things without reason or basis in strict historical fact."
Speculation on your part.
"Father Ripperger's reputation for being exceptionally virtuous, informed and well-trained as a Priest and Exorcist is widely known and impeccable."
His reputation has no bearing on the fact history disproves his claim.
"there are very few knowledgeable Catholics who would have the temerity to contradict him in his area of sarcerdotal expertise."
Further speculation on your part since I'm certain you haven't taken a poll of knowledgebale Catholics.
"I am only sharing the benefit of Father Ripperger's informative lecture on this topic as it relates to Archbishop Vigano's observations and concerns"
That's nice. I'm only pointing out that Archbishop Vigano doesn't know what he's talking about and your contrived use of Fr. Ripperger's claims in an attempt to bolster them fails on two points: first, they're irrelevant and second they're inaccurate.
Cheers!
The rest is a very nicely worded fallacious appeal to authority.
"You can take it up further with Father Ripperger if you disagree with his representations."
I don't need to since there is ample documented evidence of exoricisms that directly contradict his claims.
" I am sure he could provide additional substantiation and that"
Additional??? In point of fact, he hasn't provided ANY substantiation for his claims at all.
" he would hardly say such things without reason or basis in strict historical fact."
Speculation on your part.
"Father Ripperger's reputation for being exceptionally virtuous, informed and well-trained as a Priest and Exorcist is widely known and impeccable."
His reputation has no bearing on the fact history disproves his claim.
"there are very few knowledgeable Catholics who would have the temerity to contradict him in his area of sarcerdotal expertise."
Further speculation on your part since I'm certain you haven't taken a poll of knowledgebale Catholics.
"I am only sharing the benefit of Father Ripperger's informative lecture on this topic as it relates to Archbishop Vigano's observations and concerns"
That's nice. I'm only pointing out that Archbishop Vigano doesn't know what he's talking about and your contrived use of Fr. Ripperger's claims in an attempt to bolster them fails on two points: first, they're irrelevant and second they're inaccurate.
Cheers!
@Ultraviolet It's very sad to see someone like yourself with absolutely no expertise trying desperately to denigrate Father Ripperger's testimony to bolster your objections as a layperson without any background in this matter; moreover, a Priest who not only has vast expertise in this matter as an Exorcist, but as one who has founded an entire Order of Exorcists.
I'll stay with my sources and accept …More
@Ultraviolet It's very sad to see someone like yourself with absolutely no expertise trying desperately to denigrate Father Ripperger's testimony to bolster your objections as a layperson without any background in this matter; moreover, a Priest who not only has vast expertise in this matter as an Exorcist, but as one who has founded an entire Order of Exorcists.
I'll stay with my sources and accept Father's representations based upon his exceptional reputation for Priestly excellence and knowledge in this area, regardless of your Mount Vesuvius-like eruption of absolutely factless, feigned expertise and vastly unsubstantiated counter-testimony.
And given Father's testimony that demonic activity rose to the point of rendering exorcists more and more powerless beginning exactly and abruptly with the opening of Vatican II, it is indeed very rational to see a direct correlation with Archbishop Vigano's observations (and he is not alone) about what happened at Vatican II.
I don't rely on my own pretended knowledge when I can have recourse to experts in the field -- both Archbishop Vigano and Father Ripperger certainly qualify as such.
I'll stay with my sources and accept Father's representations based upon his exceptional reputation for Priestly excellence and knowledge in this area, regardless of your Mount Vesuvius-like eruption of absolutely factless, feigned expertise and vastly unsubstantiated counter-testimony.
And given Father's testimony that demonic activity rose to the point of rendering exorcists more and more powerless beginning exactly and abruptly with the opening of Vatican II, it is indeed very rational to see a direct correlation with Archbishop Vigano's observations (and he is not alone) about what happened at Vatican II.
I don't rely on my own pretended knowledge when I can have recourse to experts in the field -- both Archbishop Vigano and Father Ripperger certainly qualify as such.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
It's very sad to see someone like yourself resorting to such a blatant Red-Herring fallacy @Ave Crux . This post is not about Fr. Ripperger and never was. It's about Archbishop Vigano.
You're trying to use Fr. Ripperger's unsupported claims as some sort of "proof" to bolster Archbishop Vigano's equally unsupported claims and, of course to cover his obvious gaffe. :D
TL;DR Nice try but, so …More
It's very sad to see someone like yourself resorting to such a blatant Red-Herring fallacy @Ave Crux . This post is not about Fr. Ripperger and never was. It's about Archbishop Vigano.
You're trying to use Fr. Ripperger's unsupported claims as some sort of "proof" to bolster Archbishop Vigano's equally unsupported claims and, of course to cover his obvious gaffe. :D
TL;DR Nice try but, so sorry, you simply must do better.
As for Fr. Ripperger, arguing his claims are correct because he's an expert is a textbook example of a fallacious appeal to authority. Experts aren't automatically right because they're experts.
"to bolster your objections as a layperson without any background in this matter"
What a courteously phrased Genetic Fallacy. ;-) Please explain how my background alters the historical counter-examples already supplied or the examples presented later on? Good luck with that, since my background is irrelevant..
Facts are facts, regardless of the background of the person supplying them. Fr. Rippgerger made a claim, a claim absent so much as a shred of support for it (beyond your fawning adulation of the man), his claim has since been disproven with mutliple examples.
"I'll stay with my sources and accept Father's representations based upon his exceptional reputation..."
Your sources? :D So far you haven't supplied any. The only sources presented thus far have all been mine. Heck, you didn't even think to supply a source for your quotation. :P
"regardless of your Mount Vesuvius-like eruption of absolutely factless, feigned expertise and vastly unsubstantiated counter-testimony."
Since that's how you choose to describe historically documented failed exorcisms before Vatican Council II, facts have no place in your fantasy-based world-view... quite the opposite. They're a direct threat to the personality cult you've built around Fr. Ripperger and, of course, Archbishop Vigano.
In light of that, I can understand why you lash out with increasingly shrill rhetoric absent any supporting information of your own. Strange how what you choose to call "absolutely factless" invariably has a blue hotlink to a factual source and what you like to describe as "vastly unsubstantiated" generally has a long list of references appended to the bottom.
The only thing that's "absolutely factless" is your claim to the contrary.
"Feigned expertise". Nice Non Sequitur Fallacy.
Presenting a factually based rebuttal does not presuppose any implied expertise in the field. I'm not an expert. That's why I document my claims. You, on the other hand, clearly have no need to do so for any of your drivel. Your actions speak louder than your accusations, muchacho :D
"And given Father's testimony that demonic activity rose to the point of rendering exorcists more and more powerless beginning exactly and abruptly with the opening of Vatican II..."
...which has already been disproven, with absolutely ZERO counter-example from either him or you. There were seventeen failed exorcisms at Loudun alone. :P Thomas Hunkeler took a lot more than "7 days at most".
So did the exorcism of Anna Ecklund in 1912. .
The exorcisms of "Roland Doe",(Robbie Manheim) in the late 1940s were an absolute disaster on so many levels they surpass Fr. Ripperger's most pessimistic claims about exorcisms after Vatican Council II.
But don't let mere evidence stand in the way of you repeating Fr. Ripperger's still-unsubstanitatied opinions and, of course, continuing to trumpet his credentials again to fill the void.
Fr. Ripperger doesn't become correct after you repeat his credentials a certain number of times. Incidentally, that's yet another charming fallacy called Argumentum Ad Nauseam
"I don't rely on my own pretended knowledge when I can have recourse to experts in the field --"
Your expert's claim has already been repeatedly disproven and additional counter-examples were supplied tonight. :D
Thus far, all you've supplied is well... nothing save some unsourced quotes from Fr. Ripperger with lots and lots of bolding, followed by a laundry list of errors in reasoning and the whole sorry mess delivered in an increasingly strident manner.
Me? All I've got are hot-link after hotlink to documented exorcisms, every one of which disproves Fr. Ripperger's claim.
...accompanited by a whole bunch of hotlinks to the fallacies you've made while trying to defend your position.
While on the subject of documentation, while you obviously aren't aware of this, the case of Thomas Wu (and its tragic aftermath for the exorcist) was thoroughly discussed in Fr. Malachi Martin's "Hostage To The Devil." which remains one of the best treatments of the Wu case in print.
You might also want to take a look at all the "References" sections of those wiki articles.
That's the difference between us. You've got your starry-eyed belief in Fr. Ripperger's expertise, and an obvious predisposition to ignore all information contradicting him.
All I have is extensive documentation backing my sources which all contradict Fr. Ripperger. Guess which one of us is more credible from an academic standpoint? ;-)
" experts in the field -- both Archbishop Vigano and Father Ripperger certainly qualify as such."
Please explain why your first "expert in the field" doesn't know the difference between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ.
That is where we started, after all. :D
You're trying to use Fr. Ripperger's unsupported claims as some sort of "proof" to bolster Archbishop Vigano's equally unsupported claims and, of course to cover his obvious gaffe. :D
TL;DR Nice try but, so sorry, you simply must do better.
As for Fr. Ripperger, arguing his claims are correct because he's an expert is a textbook example of a fallacious appeal to authority. Experts aren't automatically right because they're experts.
"to bolster your objections as a layperson without any background in this matter"
What a courteously phrased Genetic Fallacy. ;-) Please explain how my background alters the historical counter-examples already supplied or the examples presented later on? Good luck with that, since my background is irrelevant..
Facts are facts, regardless of the background of the person supplying them. Fr. Rippgerger made a claim, a claim absent so much as a shred of support for it (beyond your fawning adulation of the man), his claim has since been disproven with mutliple examples.
"I'll stay with my sources and accept Father's representations based upon his exceptional reputation..."
Your sources? :D So far you haven't supplied any. The only sources presented thus far have all been mine. Heck, you didn't even think to supply a source for your quotation. :P
"regardless of your Mount Vesuvius-like eruption of absolutely factless, feigned expertise and vastly unsubstantiated counter-testimony."
Since that's how you choose to describe historically documented failed exorcisms before Vatican Council II, facts have no place in your fantasy-based world-view... quite the opposite. They're a direct threat to the personality cult you've built around Fr. Ripperger and, of course, Archbishop Vigano.
In light of that, I can understand why you lash out with increasingly shrill rhetoric absent any supporting information of your own. Strange how what you choose to call "absolutely factless" invariably has a blue hotlink to a factual source and what you like to describe as "vastly unsubstantiated" generally has a long list of references appended to the bottom.
The only thing that's "absolutely factless" is your claim to the contrary.
"Feigned expertise". Nice Non Sequitur Fallacy.
Presenting a factually based rebuttal does not presuppose any implied expertise in the field. I'm not an expert. That's why I document my claims. You, on the other hand, clearly have no need to do so for any of your drivel. Your actions speak louder than your accusations, muchacho :D
"And given Father's testimony that demonic activity rose to the point of rendering exorcists more and more powerless beginning exactly and abruptly with the opening of Vatican II..."
...which has already been disproven, with absolutely ZERO counter-example from either him or you. There were seventeen failed exorcisms at Loudun alone. :P Thomas Hunkeler took a lot more than "7 days at most".
So did the exorcism of Anna Ecklund in 1912. .
The exorcisms of "Roland Doe",(Robbie Manheim) in the late 1940s were an absolute disaster on so many levels they surpass Fr. Ripperger's most pessimistic claims about exorcisms after Vatican Council II.
But don't let mere evidence stand in the way of you repeating Fr. Ripperger's still-unsubstanitatied opinions and, of course, continuing to trumpet his credentials again to fill the void.
Fr. Ripperger doesn't become correct after you repeat his credentials a certain number of times. Incidentally, that's yet another charming fallacy called Argumentum Ad Nauseam
"I don't rely on my own pretended knowledge when I can have recourse to experts in the field --"
Your expert's claim has already been repeatedly disproven and additional counter-examples were supplied tonight. :D
Thus far, all you've supplied is well... nothing save some unsourced quotes from Fr. Ripperger with lots and lots of bolding, followed by a laundry list of errors in reasoning and the whole sorry mess delivered in an increasingly strident manner.
Me? All I've got are hot-link after hotlink to documented exorcisms, every one of which disproves Fr. Ripperger's claim.
...accompanited by a whole bunch of hotlinks to the fallacies you've made while trying to defend your position.
While on the subject of documentation, while you obviously aren't aware of this, the case of Thomas Wu (and its tragic aftermath for the exorcist) was thoroughly discussed in Fr. Malachi Martin's "Hostage To The Devil." which remains one of the best treatments of the Wu case in print.
You might also want to take a look at all the "References" sections of those wiki articles.
That's the difference between us. You've got your starry-eyed belief in Fr. Ripperger's expertise, and an obvious predisposition to ignore all information contradicting him.
All I have is extensive documentation backing my sources which all contradict Fr. Ripperger. Guess which one of us is more credible from an academic standpoint? ;-)
" experts in the field -- both Archbishop Vigano and Father Ripperger certainly qualify as such."
Please explain why your first "expert in the field" doesn't know the difference between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ.
That is where we started, after all. :D
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
...and like I said, your counter-argument is one fallacy piled upon another, some of which you're still repeating. A "nationally recognized exorcist" is neither infallible nor automatically correct by virtue of his recognition.
That's still a fallacious appeal to authority combined with a "band wagon" fallacy. Just because a lot of people "recognize" someone doesn't mean they're correct. Fr. …More
...and like I said, your counter-argument is one fallacy piled upon another, some of which you're still repeating. A "nationally recognized exorcist" is neither infallible nor automatically correct by virtue of his recognition.
That's still a fallacious appeal to authority combined with a "band wagon" fallacy. Just because a lot of people "recognize" someone doesn't mean they're correct. Fr. James Martin is a "nationally recognized" Catholic priest. By your reasoning, his views are correct because he's "nationally recognized". :P
Requoting Reppinger for the umpteenth time doesn't make him right. Another Argumentum Ad Nauseam.
"I think you have a disorder of some kind that compels you to attempt to shred people apart for simply having a different perspective..."
Ad Hominem Fallacy and rank hypocrisy on your part. I didn't "shred" you for having a different perspective. I pointed out Archbishop Vigano's lack of support and his ignorance and left it at that.. But that wasn't good enough for you, was it? Oh noes! Somebody dared to challenge one of Ave Crux's idols. Can't have that! Let's drag in Fr. Ripperger!
What? UV dared question Ripperger The All-Knowing as well?!? Well! let's get personal and attack UV's "background". That'll teach 'em.
...and there's the irony. People like you are always the worst culprits of the faults you see in others. You're just oblivious to yourself the way you are to everything else that doesn't fit with your own delusions.
So skip the arm-chair psychiatry.... because my world-view is based on fact, sound reasoning, and you can't cope with either of them.
"nearly 900 words!, no less...."
Errors invariably are easier to make than they are to correct.
It's a hallmark of debates when someone can't attack the evidence, they invariably lash out at everything else...
...just like you're doing now.
You'd rather discuss how long a reply is, or my background or my mental state or anything except why your so-called "expert in the field" doesn't have a shred of support for anything he said and there's ton of evidence showing he's flat-out wrong.
...and let's not forget your other "expert" who doesn't know the difference between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
"all of which I could not possibly take the trouble to read..."
But you "took the trouble" to run a word-count, didn't you? . ;-)
You fan-boys are a joke, every last stinking one of you.
"Why? Because my highly creditable sources are Father Ripperger and Archbishop Vigano, two men whose integrity, reputations, intelligence and vast expanse of knowledge I trust implicitly...not "Ultraviolet""
Still making the same Fallacious Appeal to Authority for your "experts" and still using a Genetic Fallacy to ignore my sources.
You don't have to trust "Ultraviolet". Why don't you trust Fr. Malachi Martin? Why don't you trust the many Catholic priests who documented those failed exorcisms?
I can readily understand why you don't. Facts have no place in your world, even ones coming from clergy who are themselves "highly creditable sources" with "integrity, reputations, intelligence and vast expanse(s) of knowledge".
"I also have been deeply embedded in the fight against Modernism since 1975...I know virtually every "legacy" pioneer in the fight personally, and even have a well-known Catholic apologist in the family, that's how close we are to this battle...."
It takes a special kind of narcissism to use yourself as an authoritative source. ...and then you have the nerve to start diagnosing mental disorders. :P
Just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you're been doing it right That's another fallacy called an Appeal To Tradition.
Seriously, if people like you are on the front lines, now I can understand why the modernists have been winning for the last forty years.
That's still a fallacious appeal to authority combined with a "band wagon" fallacy. Just because a lot of people "recognize" someone doesn't mean they're correct. Fr. James Martin is a "nationally recognized" Catholic priest. By your reasoning, his views are correct because he's "nationally recognized". :P
Requoting Reppinger for the umpteenth time doesn't make him right. Another Argumentum Ad Nauseam.
"I think you have a disorder of some kind that compels you to attempt to shred people apart for simply having a different perspective..."
Ad Hominem Fallacy and rank hypocrisy on your part. I didn't "shred" you for having a different perspective. I pointed out Archbishop Vigano's lack of support and his ignorance and left it at that.. But that wasn't good enough for you, was it? Oh noes! Somebody dared to challenge one of Ave Crux's idols. Can't have that! Let's drag in Fr. Ripperger!
What? UV dared question Ripperger The All-Knowing as well?!? Well! let's get personal and attack UV's "background". That'll teach 'em.
...and there's the irony. People like you are always the worst culprits of the faults you see in others. You're just oblivious to yourself the way you are to everything else that doesn't fit with your own delusions.
So skip the arm-chair psychiatry.... because my world-view is based on fact, sound reasoning, and you can't cope with either of them.
"nearly 900 words!, no less...."
Errors invariably are easier to make than they are to correct.
It's a hallmark of debates when someone can't attack the evidence, they invariably lash out at everything else...
...just like you're doing now.
You'd rather discuss how long a reply is, or my background or my mental state or anything except why your so-called "expert in the field" doesn't have a shred of support for anything he said and there's ton of evidence showing he's flat-out wrong.
...and let's not forget your other "expert" who doesn't know the difference between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
"all of which I could not possibly take the trouble to read..."
But you "took the trouble" to run a word-count, didn't you? . ;-)
You fan-boys are a joke, every last stinking one of you.
"Why? Because my highly creditable sources are Father Ripperger and Archbishop Vigano, two men whose integrity, reputations, intelligence and vast expanse of knowledge I trust implicitly...not "Ultraviolet""
Still making the same Fallacious Appeal to Authority for your "experts" and still using a Genetic Fallacy to ignore my sources.
You don't have to trust "Ultraviolet". Why don't you trust Fr. Malachi Martin? Why don't you trust the many Catholic priests who documented those failed exorcisms?
I can readily understand why you don't. Facts have no place in your world, even ones coming from clergy who are themselves "highly creditable sources" with "integrity, reputations, intelligence and vast expanse(s) of knowledge".
"I also have been deeply embedded in the fight against Modernism since 1975...I know virtually every "legacy" pioneer in the fight personally, and even have a well-known Catholic apologist in the family, that's how close we are to this battle...."
It takes a special kind of narcissism to use yourself as an authoritative source. ...and then you have the nerve to start diagnosing mental disorders. :P
Just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you're been doing it right That's another fallacy called an Appeal To Tradition.
Seriously, if people like you are on the front lines, now I can understand why the modernists have been winning for the last forty years.
4 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Just keep running that Fallacious Appeal to Authority, bro. :P
Go ask your "well-known Catholic apologist in the family" why doing that brands you a moron in any intelligent discussion, regardless of the subject.
Now you can run another word-count on my reply, pretend you didn't read it, use some moar bold, and repeat how "wonderful and exceptional etc. etc." Fr. Ripperger is. Make sure you …More
Just keep running that Fallacious Appeal to Authority, bro. :P
Go ask your "well-known Catholic apologist in the family" why doing that brands you a moron in any intelligent discussion, regardless of the subject.
Now you can run another word-count on my reply, pretend you didn't read it, use some moar bold, and repeat how "wonderful and exceptional etc. etc." Fr. Ripperger is. Make sure you keep ignoring all the documented evidence that shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Repeat after me, Ave Crux...
Go ask your "well-known Catholic apologist in the family" why doing that brands you a moron in any intelligent discussion, regardless of the subject.
Now you can run another word-count on my reply, pretend you didn't read it, use some moar bold, and repeat how "wonderful and exceptional etc. etc." Fr. Ripperger is. Make sure you keep ignoring all the documented evidence that shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Repeat after me, Ave Crux...
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"As I said, I have not read any of your screeds because they appear to be enraged ravings ....."
...which you wouldn't be able to determine unless you read them. Just caught you in a lie, bucko. :D
You're still repeating your same old fallacious appeal to authority. Fr. Ripperger is right because he's so wonderful and exceptional and outstanding and... and... and...
Like, I'm supposed to listen …More
"As I said, I have not read any of your screeds because they appear to be enraged ravings ....."
...which you wouldn't be able to determine unless you read them. Just caught you in a lie, bucko. :D
You're still repeating your same old fallacious appeal to authority. Fr. Ripperger is right because he's so wonderful and exceptional and outstanding and... and... and...
Like, I'm supposed to listen to "Ultraviolet"...
No, you should "listen" to the authors of the articles, particularly when they're referencing Catholic materials and testimony from priests as well.
"whom every single Traditionalist I know..."
Hey, a new fallacy! Anecdotal Evidence!
"That's like trying to outsmart my physics professor..."
Implying your physics professor is never wrong. You're back to the same fallacious appeal to authority. Nice combo with the Ad Nauseam fallacy of repetiton!
"Is that even remotely rational.....?"
Yeah, it is, actually. Your physics professor isn't always right because he's a physics professor. Facts don't become right or wrong because of who presents them.
"that He did not give particular gifts and vocations to certain souls to lead other souls..."
God did not give the gift of omniscience to either Archbishop Vigano or Fr. Ripperger. :P
"in matters He confides to Priests and Exorcists...?"
Too bad the cases I cited were, in fact covered by "Priests and Exorcists". :D
"Protestants reject recognized authority..."
...the way you're rejecting the recognized authority of the authors I cited, even when they're Catholic priests and exoricsts.
By your failed reasoning, Fr. James Martin SJ is always right because he's a.) a Catholic priest and b.) a "recognized authority" on homosexuality. . :P
"your obsession with trying to destroy anyone who disagrees with you."
...said the person who's been accusing me of mental disorders and posting fallacies non-stop ever since I caught Archbishop Vigano making a foolish mistake. :D
Go ahead, Ave. Give me another word-count. :D
...which you wouldn't be able to determine unless you read them. Just caught you in a lie, bucko. :D
You're still repeating your same old fallacious appeal to authority. Fr. Ripperger is right because he's so wonderful and exceptional and outstanding and... and... and...
Like, I'm supposed to listen to "Ultraviolet"...
No, you should "listen" to the authors of the articles, particularly when they're referencing Catholic materials and testimony from priests as well.
"whom every single Traditionalist I know..."
Hey, a new fallacy! Anecdotal Evidence!
"That's like trying to outsmart my physics professor..."
Implying your physics professor is never wrong. You're back to the same fallacious appeal to authority. Nice combo with the Ad Nauseam fallacy of repetiton!
"Is that even remotely rational.....?"
Yeah, it is, actually. Your physics professor isn't always right because he's a physics professor. Facts don't become right or wrong because of who presents them.
"that He did not give particular gifts and vocations to certain souls to lead other souls..."
God did not give the gift of omniscience to either Archbishop Vigano or Fr. Ripperger. :P
"in matters He confides to Priests and Exorcists...?"
Too bad the cases I cited were, in fact covered by "Priests and Exorcists". :D
"Protestants reject recognized authority..."
...the way you're rejecting the recognized authority of the authors I cited, even when they're Catholic priests and exoricsts.
By your failed reasoning, Fr. James Martin SJ is always right because he's a.) a Catholic priest and b.) a "recognized authority" on homosexuality. . :P
"your obsession with trying to destroy anyone who disagrees with you."
...said the person who's been accusing me of mental disorders and posting fallacies non-stop ever since I caught Archbishop Vigano making a foolish mistake. :D
Go ahead, Ave. Give me another word-count. :D
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Actually, you accused yourself of lying. . If you're not reading my replies like you claim, how would you even know I caught you in a contradiction? Gotcha! :D
..and you couldn't form a judgement about what I've been writing unless you read it. :D
"Did you ever hear of seeing some words "above the fold" (in this case before the "More...") or simply glancing at one or two phrases that jump off …More
Actually, you accused yourself of lying. . If you're not reading my replies like you claim, how would you even know I caught you in a contradiction? Gotcha! :D
..and you couldn't form a judgement about what I've been writing unless you read it. :D
"Did you ever hear of seeing some words "above the fold" (in this case before the "More...") or simply glancing at one or two phrases that jump off the screen,"
LOLOL. You're changing your story now that you've been caught in a lie. Your last three replies were very clear, weren't they?
Let's re-cap: "all of which I could not possibly take the trouble to read..." and... "(which I will not read this time either)" and... "I have not read any of your screeds because..."
Except now you admit you've been "seeing some words..." :P and "simply glancing at one or two phrases". :P You're a charlatan and you just got caught in a lie and I'm loving every minute of watching squirming around in the hole you dug for yourself. :D
"because the person writing to you is acting like an out of control madman...? 900 words....600 words...full of rage and rancor."
You couldn't form that opinion, or any other, unless you read the comments you kept telling me you wouldn't and didn't read. Gotcha again! :D
Rage and rancor... you have a gift for hyperbole surpassed only by your willingess to lie.
So now it's my word count again. It's funny since you're already over 1,220 words yourself. Like I said, People like you are always the worst culprits of the faults you see in others. You're just oblivious to yourself the way you are to everything else that doesn't fit with your own delusions.
I DIDN'T EVEN READ ONE SENTENCE....WHAT I SAW WAS ENOUGH...
Cool story, Bro. Needs moar caps-lock. Bold it next time, too. :P
"I honestly couldn't have stomached reading them without feeling ill."
Psychiatry defines that as a pschosomatic disorder. In your case brought on by nothing more than reading someone else's opinion.
"Please get some help...."
Take your own advice. Maybe then you won't get an upset tummy... you poor thing. :D
..and you couldn't form a judgement about what I've been writing unless you read it. :D
"Did you ever hear of seeing some words "above the fold" (in this case before the "More...") or simply glancing at one or two phrases that jump off the screen,"
LOLOL. You're changing your story now that you've been caught in a lie. Your last three replies were very clear, weren't they?
Let's re-cap: "all of which I could not possibly take the trouble to read..." and... "(which I will not read this time either)" and... "I have not read any of your screeds because..."
Except now you admit you've been "seeing some words..." :P and "simply glancing at one or two phrases". :P You're a charlatan and you just got caught in a lie and I'm loving every minute of watching squirming around in the hole you dug for yourself. :D
"because the person writing to you is acting like an out of control madman...? 900 words....600 words...full of rage and rancor."
You couldn't form that opinion, or any other, unless you read the comments you kept telling me you wouldn't and didn't read. Gotcha again! :D
Rage and rancor... you have a gift for hyperbole surpassed only by your willingess to lie.
So now it's my word count again. It's funny since you're already over 1,220 words yourself. Like I said, People like you are always the worst culprits of the faults you see in others. You're just oblivious to yourself the way you are to everything else that doesn't fit with your own delusions.
I DIDN'T EVEN READ ONE SENTENCE....WHAT I SAW WAS ENOUGH...
Cool story, Bro. Needs moar caps-lock. Bold it next time, too. :P
"I honestly couldn't have stomached reading them without feeling ill."
Psychiatry defines that as a pschosomatic disorder. In your case brought on by nothing more than reading someone else's opinion.
"Please get some help...."
Take your own advice. Maybe then you won't get an upset tummy... you poor thing. :D
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
You can't make a judgement about my "sanity" based on my replies unless you took the time to read them Which you repeatedly claimed you "have not" and "will not". Try again. :D
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
So Abp. Vigano's "proof" about Fatima consists of his own loudly stated opinion and hearsay. That's nice. Then he really strikes out.
"Viganó observers that, after the Council, the Church of Christ was replaced by a “modernist and masonic” neo-Church that “sees itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order, and as a defender of a Universal Religion”.
Maybe that's true for "The Church Of …More
So Abp. Vigano's "proof" about Fatima consists of his own loudly stated opinion and hearsay. That's nice. Then he really strikes out.
"Viganó observers that, after the Council, the Church of Christ was replaced by a “modernist and masonic” neo-Church that “sees itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order, and as a defender of a Universal Religion”.
Maybe that's true for "The Church Of Christ" but they're not the Catholic Church.
"The church of Jesus Christ is non-denominational. It is neither Catholic, Jewish nor Protestant. It was not founded in 'protest' of any institution, and it is not the product of the 'Restoration' or 'Reformation.' It is the product of the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8:11ff) grown in the hearts of men." V. E. Howard, What Is the church of Christ? 4th Edition (Revised), 1971, page 29
Attaboy, Slugger. :D
"Viganó observers that, after the Council, the Church of Christ was replaced by a “modernist and masonic” neo-Church that “sees itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order, and as a defender of a Universal Religion”.
Maybe that's true for "The Church Of Christ" but they're not the Catholic Church.
"The church of Jesus Christ is non-denominational. It is neither Catholic, Jewish nor Protestant. It was not founded in 'protest' of any institution, and it is not the product of the 'Restoration' or 'Reformation.' It is the product of the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8:11ff) grown in the hearts of men." V. E. Howard, What Is the church of Christ? 4th Edition (Revised), 1971, page 29
Attaboy, Slugger. :D
Fatima is simple and the Vatican in true to form complicated it. Read the 1st and 2nd Secret. Did you easily understand both secrets? The true third secret will read exactly like the first two. It is imperative that Heaven delivered a secret that doesn’t require interpretation. The subject has something to do with Dogma. The vision is open to interpretation. Study here biblicalcatholic.com/……More
Fatima is simple and the Vatican in true to form complicated it. Read the 1st and 2nd Secret. Did you easily understand both secrets? The true third secret will read exactly like the first two. It is imperative that Heaven delivered a secret that doesn’t require interpretation. The subject has something to do with Dogma. The vision is open to interpretation. Study here biblicalcatholic.com/…oryOfFatima-byJohnDeMarchi.pdf