It should be pointed out that both Matthew and Raoul have fallen for the Rampolla mythology that determines Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Raphael as buffoons.

Raoul has actually accused Pius X as an anti-pope by his allegation that the Pope knew of the 'secret occult mason in the OTO' and did nothoing about it.

Raoul also apparently believes the phony piece of paper that allegedly ex- communicates Fr Feeney.

Now there are some crank opinions.

Caminus said:

One more thing, there is no requirement to view this crisis in a particular way.  On the contrary, many opinions are allowed.  What is not allowed is overt transgression of the duties of our state towards one another and the imputation of subjective guilt for the crime of "heresy" for merely following the traditional magisterium of the Church.

The Magisterium of the Church has been butchered by pirates wearing cassocks.  If a pirate ship took over a Navy ship, and the pirates then slipped into the Navy uniforms, in order to sail the seas freely and without being detected, would they really be the Navy?

Your Magisterium is a scurvy sea-dog in a Navy uniform.  My Magisterium is the Navy.  This is the root of the problem.  You are touting your Magisterium, and I am touting mine.  Yours has dogmas; and mine has dogmas.  But they are not the same.

I do not call those who go against me heretics, because ( 1 ) I'm well aware of how confusing the times are and what the devil has done to addle our minds, ( 2 ) I held many of the same errors they did not very long ago,( 3 ) You attract more flies with honey than vinegar and ( 4 ) I am not as sure as CM about how God judges those who, as you say, are only trying to follow what they think is the Church.  But in 2010, if you think this creature of Ratzinger is the Church, your excuses are wearing pretty thin.  

Take note -- I don't often call them heretics, despite what you disingenuously say.  But that doesn't mean I don't think that they temporarily are, objectively.  What this means for their eternal salvation is a mystery that goes way beyond me -- whether or not I will be saved is a mystery that goes well beyond me -- but I cannot pretend they are all objectively Catholics, in the way that being Catholic has always been known, believing a certain way.  

We are no longer in the Middle Ages.  For centuries, heretics have co-existed with the orthodox in the Church, without incurring censure specifically.  Since the Renaissance, very rarely is anyone punished by name.  That doesn't mean heresies ceased to exist.  Savonarola claimed that unbaptized babies would go to a heavenly paradise, a blatant Pelagian heresy.  But was he censured for this?  Nope.   Just for disobedience.

I'd say the vast majority of American Catholics have always been heretics, believing what they choose to believe, and celebrating the separation of Church and state.  They followed Cardinal Gibbons, and ignored Leo XIII.  Cardinal Gibbons himself, an open, defiant heretic, was rebuked by Rome, but then ignored the rebuke and STILL was not excommunicated.  You see, Rome has been infiltrated for a long time, and without real power to stop heresy.  Pius X essentially was all bark and no bite; he told the truth, but did not have means to enforce it.

Today, heresies have almost swallowed the entire planet.  Some of them are held innocently, some are not.  I was perfectly willing to be charitable and patient as I shared what I have learned, but to mentally accept an untruth, that those who are objectively heretics are definitely and beyond doubt Catholic?  It cannot be done without sin.
Therefore, like CM, I have put the ball into Matthew's court.

roscoe said:

While i agree with Raoul re the v2 anti-popes, he is basically doing what fkp was doing as the Church is apparently corrupt going back to the Rennaissance.

Don't you mean I'm doing what crashnet is doing?  If you want to calumniate me, you might as well do it with gusto.

The Church has always had good and bad members.  This is not the same as being "corrupt."  The Magisterium is indefectible and can never be corrupted, and that is how we define the Church.  

It's just like Paul said, the mystery of iniquity was at work even in his time, and that's why you had so many heretical movements right from the beginning.  It's only natural that the Church, the devil's great enemy, would be under attack from its inception.

If he were really just a crank, why would it bother you so much that he thinks the faithful have been reduced to a handful?  You aren't offended by roscoe's crank opinions -- you encourage them.  

It is probable that you are disturbed by the suggestion that you are not Catholic.  But if you are disturbed by something, chances are, it's your conscience bothering you, and CM is merely the external agent.

That doesn't follow at all, Raoul.

I am content with my Catholic Faith, but I still don't want to be preached to by a protestant minister or Mormon missionary. Is it because I secretly suspect the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons to have the truth faith? Of course not.

Yes, a woman who had an abortion will be more offended than the average person at a man praying the Rosary outside an abortion clinic. That's the "twinge of conscience" phenomenon you are referring to. But sometimes, you are offended by a person because they are ...generally offensive!

Number 2, it's not just "Matthew's little conscience" that was having issues with CM and FKP. There was a general outrage on this forum, and that's when I step in. If someone is able to live here in peace, and not totally disrupt the board, they can stay. When I get a flood of PMs about someone, usually it's a sign that someone is disturbing the place in a serious manner.

Not that this is a democracy -- you'll note that several unpopular members are still here.

Matthew

 I feel almost like he was sacrificed, like a virgin to King Kong, as a way for you to assert your webmasterly superiority.

Oh PUL-EEZE!

CM is irritating, there's no doubt about that.  I wrote him a sympathetic letter yesterday and got the expected snotty reply that he doesn't "respect my position."  I understand that if he really feels baptism of desire is a heresy, he must preach against it, but he doesn't know how to lay off at key moments, how to work the soft sell.  Instead of improving, he did get worse and worse.  It starts to sound like he is just reprinting a form letter -- a huge chunk of text appears in every thread about baptism of desire, as if it was cut-and-pasted.  

This I agree with.

Yes, but are you saying there isn't a special reason why sedevacantists are forbidden at AngelQueen, a different reason than the reason that an irritating ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pest or militant atheist might be banned?  They really are burying their heads in the sand -- it's obvious.  Even SSPXers who smack of sedevacantist sympathies, like those who are especially critical of Benedict XVI because of his relations with Jewry, get banned.  

Cathinfo is NOT AQ nor is it anywhere closer to being so.  AQ favors not only the SSPX position but also forbids any 'conspiracy theories'.  Cathinfo is charitable enough to allow just about any type of Trad on to the forum.  A Feenyite home aloner would be fine if they are charitable and willing to follow the rules we all have to follow on the forum.  BOD can still be discussed as far as I know, but keep it to the crisis section (there is no reason for a discussion about badminton to turn into a BOD debate)!