I could add this:

Get out of the kitchen.

I think the opening post is good advice!  I find I'm much better off when I try to accept people the way they are and don't try too hard to change them.  I especially do not want to nag someone.  It's like the tell them once and let it go rule.  

 

 :dancing-banana:Many people act outrageously when they think they are anonymous.

Don't engage in personal attacks. If you want to make a criticism, criticize the post, but not the poster.  Keep it civil and edifying!

Give it up, Hirsch. You're probably the most notorious poster on this forum when it comes to attacking others. Or was it someone else who stated that sedevacantists hate the Church and consider her a whore? For you to come to this thread and type your sanctimonious BS is nearly beyond belief - until one realizes it's you who's typing it.

Quote from: Charlemagne

Give it up, Hirsch. You're probably the most notorious poster on this forum when it comes to attacking others. Or was it someone else who stated that sedevacantists hate the Church and consider her a whore? For you to come to this thread and type your sanctimonious BS is nearly beyond belief - until one realizes it's you who's typing it.

In my time on Catholic forums, I've "attacked" three people that come to mind:

-Scipio
-DrBombay
-maybe Tele

I called someone else an ass, but I can't remember who it was.  

In any event, unlike you and others, I have the ability to separate ideas from people, and talk about the idea.  

I maintain that sedevacantism is schismatic.  I am talking about an idea.  Do you respond to the idea?  No.  You attack the man stating the idea.

Here's your initial reaction to the idea that sedevacantism is schismatic:

Quote from: Charlemagne

...you espouse a twisted, schizophrenic theology, Laramie - and you further prove that anyone with a keyboard and internet connection can have a blog.

And here's an example of your lack of charity in response to an idea (that people leaving the Church is an emotional reaction):

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

I think a lot of people leaving the Church has been an emotional reaction.

Why Matthew continues to tolerate this garbage from you is beyond me.

Uncharitable posts such as yours are rather abundant.  And all of this uncharitable un-Christian online behavior has been a great demonstration to people on the outside of Cathinfo looking in.  Who would want to talk to such people?

I'm not going to go through every single post that I've entered on the subject, but I've most definitely argued for sedevacantism and against sedeplenism on many occasions. To wit:

1. You say Francis is the Pope, yes? Then you have no right at all to question any of the things you listed. The NOM was promulgated (sophistries against its proper promulgation notwithstanding) by a putative Pope, Paul VI. On the very first page of the CCC is a quote from another putative Pope, JPII, in which he calls it, "A sure norm for teaching the Faith," heresies and all. Your manmade (New American) Bible? First published in 1970 with the approval of Paul VI. The 1983 Code of Canon Law? Approved by JPII, of course. Since you've joined CI, nearly all you've done is attack sedevacantism. My question to you is, who is your Pope?


2. It's actually much more difficult for a sedeplenist to defend "recognize and resist" than it is for a sedevacantist to defend his beliefs. It's very easy, on the other hand, to label as schismatics those who believe Francis never even held the office. Many sedeplenists recognize Francis as Pope and then proceed to scrutinize - or simply ignore - every word he says. Pope St. Pius X said of such people, "Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public docuмents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."

3. I'm a sedevacantist but I find dogmatic anything, whether it be sedeplenist, resister, or sedevacantist, to be unrealistic and uncharitable. People such as the Dimonds, although they are Catholics, sicken me because they have no charity toward fellow sincere Catholics. I believe there are many still in the NO structure who are good Catholics but live in a type of intraecclesial invincible ignorance. Did I just invent a term? Anyway, God is infinite mercy, so I don't believe it's a matter of being "right" but a matter of one's desire to seek the truth sincerely during the Modernist Crisis and please God. After all, NOT ONE OF US knows with certainty what the truth is, despite dogmatists' claims to the contrary.

-----------------

I don't have the time (borrowing your favorite excuse) to sit here and go through every single post. But to insinuate that all I do is insult you is ridiculous. If you feel insulted by me or anyone else on this forum, it's only because you invite it with your antagonistic posts. Sorry, but people here generally don't like you. Why is that? All one has to do is look at your reputation score. I don't put much stock in such things, but in this case it's very telling. As for charity, I wonder what you'd say to St. Jerome, who certainly didn't confuse the term with "being nice." No one could hurl a good insult like he could.

I'm a proponent of online anonymity (because I don't trust the state, mostly), but regardless, I can assure you that real life identities do not seem to help, or even real-life face-to-face meetings.

I just complimented Bowler, SJB, and several others on the latest BOD thread because I really do believe that if those men and their families were in each others' company discussing the exact same topic matter, they would get on famously. I've seen far worse real-life discourse, both "online" and "face-to-face", and I find it very discouraging. Some people take things way too personally (and thus the use of smilies!).

I discovered Fr. Kramer has a few accounts, and I'm not sure they're all 'him". Regardless, people I KNOW to be decent have responded to the accounts they believe are him (and one, apparently, is him) calling him all manner of evil, with their real identities. Part of me thinks, "let 'em cook" (because if it's on their heart, God knows it; they're done for anyway). But the other part thinks, they're fueling a fire, and may be the blind leading the blind.

Examples (real life ids cut out, of course, as are expletives):

Father Kramer, you are certainly the only priest I know to refer to laity's questions as idiocy. [Bergoglio] is vague in that he doesn't specify which of the numerous (at least five) covenants in the Old Testament he is referring to. Therefore I don't see how this can be without a doubt formal heresy and obviously neither does a single cardinal or bishop in the Catholic Church. ... Clearly you have demonstrated by resorting to calling a sincere seeker's question idiocy, that you lack charity.

His posts before that certainly "lacked charity," but to say that he's never met a priest that referred to the laity's questions as 'idiocy' tells me this son of Satan is a liar and need to be blocked. Moving on:

nasty sedevacantist on here! >> watch your language , moron, if the opposite of 'sedevacantist' is to be a devil worshiper like your popes are who perform BLACK masses in vatican and ritualized rape of children (witnessed by Malachi Martin and other priests )- i would chose the first one than to turn into reptilian like yourself a Jєω AND PEDOPHILE Bobby Lawitzke!

I don't even know what she's saying. I've blocked so many that the conversations are hopelessly non-sensical. But these are supposed to be Catholics. Sure, Fr. K has MDMs, Dimonds, Dimond-like-but-not types, offended SSPX members, enraged NOs, enraged NO priests, enraged Irish, ...enraged real people.

So to me, CI is sort of a place of peace.   (Again, the mild comments above are those of Catholics.   And carefully curated. Much, much worse has been said.)