CM technically is not banned he is just restricted.

TheD said:

You can't have duel accounts CM.  If you intend to cause trouble than you will definitely be banned.  I also wonder if you really were FK, Agobard, and whoever else.

CM and Fkpagnanelli are not the same. This is FKPagnanelli's website -- http://www.thecatholicfaith.info/index.htm.  He's a married man and David is a younger bachelor.  David's website is called "Pillar and Ground."  They are both Feeneyites and probably have been in contact before.  

CM probably instructed Pagnanelli to be against Benedict XV and so on, because on the website it says that he ( Pagnanelli ) is "correcting any references to anti-Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII."

Being against Jєωιѕн perfidy is not to be a "nαzι," Clovis, why are you spreading this junk?  There's a famous sedevacantist in France who claims to be a "National Socialist" also, it's clear disinformation.

I'm referring to Vincent Reynouard, in case anyone is interested.

ChantCD, thanks for fixing my account.  I'll respond to your original post and subsequent posts in due course.

CM and Fkpagnanelli are not the same. This is FKPagnanelli's website -- http://www.thecatholicfaith.info/index.htm.  He's a married man and David is a younger bachelor.  David's website is called "Pillar and Ground."  They are both Feeneyites and probably have been in contact before.  

This is true.  At least someone here has a bit of  :detective: in them.

CM probably instructed Pagnanelli to be against Benedict XV and so on, because on the website it says that he ( Pagnanelli ) is "correcting any references to anti-Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII."

No.  Mike Bizzaro was the first person to propose to us that Benedict XV and Pius XI were antipopes.  Fk and I tried to DEFEND him.  We just couldn't do it.

There is a special Jєωιѕн perfidy.  They are the children of the devil.  No other race was once the chosen people and then killed the Savior and got a curse laid on their heads.  That is special.

I don't believe for a second that the nαzιs intended to eliminate all the Jews on Earth.  I am half-Polish and I have heard of "cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs," really labor camps, where the Jews lorded it over Poles.  That whole war was part of a global plot to give the Jews an excuse to steal Israel using their U.N.  Hitler was probably a Jew himself.

What really makes me ill is that the Poles, the real victims of the genocide, now lick the feet of the Jews, worshiping them from their so-called Catholic churches.  Poles can be suicidally masochistic.  This is the spiritual ѕυιcιdє of an entire nation and it is done out of classic Polish "niceness."  Do you hear me, St. Jude Thaddeus?  I wish I could find this YouTube video I once saw where the Polish VII Catholics file out of "Mass," bare their heads, kneel down and kiss a star of David at a Jєωιѕн cemetery, one by one.  NAUSEATING.

If Hitler was a Catholic and wanted to kick the Jews out of Germany due to the fact that they had completely sunk the economy, so that people were pushing worthless banknotes around in wheelbarrows, there would have been absolutely nothing wrong with that.  But that was not what really happened.

It's real simple -- don't support any side in a war that isn't fully Catholic.  If a group calls itself "National Socialists" what does that have to do with Catholicism?   But all the confusion of today must be laid at the feet primarily of the Jews; they are the masterminds of deceit.  No one can lie like a Jew, they get their training from the devil himself.  They are like the Mystical Body of the Devil complete with their own Unholy Ghost.

This is a long-winded way of saying that "trads" who pretend to be "National Socialists" are plants and/or dupes and/or disinfo agents.

ChantCD, thanks for fixing my account.  I'll respond to your original post and subsequent posts in due course.

Here it is:

CM,

I have to say, that you would drive away ANYONE considering the Catholic Faith to be the true religion, because "Catholic" is the name you, unfortunately, apply to your faith.

I would drive people away?  That does nothing to refute any of the positions I hold.  Christ drove away the multitudes with his announcement that the bread He would give is His flesh.

You imply that my faith is not Catholic.  We will see if your admonishment says anything to prove or even to support this notion.

But the fact is that I WANT NO PART OF YOUR RELIGION, whatever it is. Your faith involves staying home on Sunday,

The very devout and Catholic family Vianney in France in the 19th century had to stay home on Sundays, and for the exact same reasons - sell out clergy who had apostatized from the faith.  The logistics of the apostasy are now different, granted, but the fact remains that there is an apostasy taking place.

3 sacraments,

No, my faith has 7 sacraments.  But I don't know any priests who have not apostatized, therefore 4 of those sacraments are currently illicit.

no union with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament,

If a boy lived and died during the French revolution, and only ever received Baptism and no other sacraments, could he have been saved, if he died after attaining the use of reason?  Yes or no?

private determination of what is dogma,

Either the words on the page are completely and absolutely true or they are metaphors, you have no other choice.  And if the office of St. Peter is specifically instituted to DEFINE the faith, I will take completely absolutely true over metaphors (as also the Vatican Council decrees).

and consequent bitter denunciation of others who dispute those "dogmas",

Not until a person shows that he is IGNORING the points by diverting from them, creating a strawman fallacy or through other deceptive machinations.

and whatever is left of your Catholic Faith is dried up and eviscerated of Charity.

That really begs the question Matthew.  What is uncharitable about presenting the dogmatic decrees of the Solemn Magisterium and proposing that they are to be believed as they were declared, word for word?  THAT is what I have done, and what you are PREVENTING me from doing further.

Can one even say that the Catholic Faith is possible without Charity? No, not really. So I suppose I'm saying you're not acting like a Catholic.

I am forced to conclude that based on your actions.

Oh really?  Well we know that, according to Trent: "For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body."

So a person cannot be a LIVING member without charity (cannot be in the state of grace).  But can a person be CATHOLIC if he does not have charity?  You propose he cannot.

The heretic Paschasius Quesnel said the same thing, and his statements were condemned:

Unigenitus[/i] (Denzinger 1401) condemned the error of Paschasius Quesnel, wherein he]Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity.

Clearly there can be faith without charity, so even if you were right in saying I have not charity, you have still fallen into (material?) heresy trying to make a point that I'm not acting like a Catholic.
 

Objectively speaking, there are hundreds of Catholics present on CathInfo and you seem to be quite keen on distancing yourself from them. There must be a good reason for that. You must not be Catholic yourself.

The early Protestant reformers called themselves Catholic.  The Old "Catholics" call themselves Catholic.  The Arians called themselves Catholic.  Just because someone calls himself a Catholic doesn't make it so.

I certainly distance myself from anyone who is unwilling to profess the simple Magisterial truths as they were defined.  But it is not my place to say "You believe in lies about God, but it's okay..."  No! Look at what was defined and believe it or I can't justly say you're a Catholic!  That IS what the Church teaches!

When I saw you distancing yourself from others' prayers in a recent prayer request, it spoke volumes to me.

That thread has slew of people who reject one point or another of the Catholic Faith.  It would be scandalous for me to go in there and give the impression that I am praying WITH them.

What Catholic saint would say something like that?

Better question: What Catholic Saint would pray with heretics?  None.

Everyone else was offering condolences, prayers, etc. and you feel the need to mention that you're not praying with us because we are heretics. That was cold and calculated.

I don't choose for you to be heretics.  You do.  Calling attention to the fact is far from "cold" if it's true.

Violating charity (e.g., calling a name during an argument) because the passion of anger has been stoked is understandable, humanly speaking. But you seem to do it absolutely on purpose, as a matter of principle and because of the dictates of your "faith".

What are you talking about?  I don't engage in "name calling".  I present the Catholic teachings that are relevant to the issue at hand, and I mark people's behaviour, whether they are ignoring what I have said, distorting it, etc.  These are objectively knowable and observable behaviours.  Very seldom do I actually call a person a liar, heretic, etc. (though I sometimes do) and it is not uncharitable to do so, especially when one has patiently exhausted other avenues.

Perhaps in some twisted way you feel that you're dedicated to the truth, and that the truth requires behavior like that.

Every argument is ultimately reducible to very basic premises.  If you want to propose that I'm not dedicated to the truth, then should it not be easy enough to refute the premises I propose (and not with emotional argument)?

You know what they are:

1) The Magisterium is literally true;

2) To posit a contradiction against the Magisterium is to posit heresy;

3) Those who professes heresy are to be viewed a heretics until they amend their profession;

4) A person who follows a heretical religious superior is in a heretical sect and schismatic, since the superior is the defining principle of his religion;

etc.

Let me tell you something: The Pharisees did EVERYTHING RIGHT materially speaking. They tithed all products, did all the fasts, the sabbath rest, etc. BUT OUR LORD WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THEM -- AT ALL. They couldn't see the forest for the trees. They forgot love, mercy, etc. (Not my charges, those are from Our Lord whom you claim to follow)

What does that old saying mean? They couldn't see the forest because they were focusing too much on the trees. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel. In your case, you're focused on heresy so much you forgot what it means to be Catholic.

A word to the... A word for you: Nobody would EVER "convert" to the faith you profess, especially with antics like I quoted above. Pharisaism just isn't that attractive.

Pharisaism is adherence to the letter of the LAW without regard for the spirit in which it was given.  Heresy and schism, on the other hand, keep one from BEING Catholic in the first place, and so must both be eliminated in the case of individuals before "what it means to be Catholic" can be of any use to them.

By the way, I know what it means to be Catholic, and therefore I strive, I strive.

You aren't as bitter/despondent/rude as you probably will become, if you adhere to your current "faith". In 20 years, you'll be more bitter than FKP, if you still have any residual faith at all.

Are you a prophet or a soothsayer?

You need to seriously enter into yourself, and double-check just to make sure that you're not just deluding yourself -- double-check and make sure you're not puffed up with pride. You don't want to make a mistake on this one, for your soul's sake.

You're very right about all this, which is why I am amazed at the utter lack of regard for the Magisterium that is prevalent in our days.  Here is an example.

The Catholic Faith cannot be reduced to a dozen people worldwide.

Says who?  I'm not saying it has, but HOW DO YOU KNOW that your statement is true?

You like to quote Our Lord's prophecy, but you miss the first part

Quote from: Luke 18:8

But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

Look around -- I don't see any Second Coming. If it's not the end of the world, there can't be an apostasy THAT severe. The world can't end too soon, because we haven't even had the reign of Antichrist yet, who the Catholic Faith teaches will be a single man. And how long has the apostasy been THAT severe, according to your views? decades?

Doesn't the apostasy have to come BEFORE the Second Coming?  Do you feel you've made a valid point in here somewhere?

I learned at the Seminary that "doctrine without piety = good heresiarch", while "piety without doctrine = sentimental and liable to fall into error" You need both piety AND doctrine.

I agree with this, but are you implying I have not piety?  Again, are you a prophet or are you gazing through a crystal ball?  Have my posts wherein I speak of morality betrayed a seared conscience?

You're merely falling into the opposite extreme, a knee-jerk reaction to the "everybody's nice" religion of Vatican II.

If I'm the opposite of "everybody's nice", then what are you saying?  That I'm mean?

However, the saints would never act in the way that CM has acted.

Of course they would.  If they had a holy authority which must be obeyed and assented to unconditionally (the Catholic Church and what she has infallibly defined), they would preach it to others and denounce those who rejected their teaching.

For one thing, he has reached the insane conclusions that
A) the Catholic Church is completely invisible, that one can't know (by reference to a census, etc.) how many Catholics there are, and

You are defining the visibility of the Church as being contingent upon OCCUPIED ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES, but this does not follow.  It must be visible in a way that MEN CAN FIND IT AND BE SAVED.  You must concede that "IF CM is right, the Church is still visible because people can learn her doctrine and grow in holiness by her preaching by seeking out the Magisterium of Holy Church and Catholic books and examples".

B) One cannot point to buildings that are part of the Catholic Church

If heretics occupy buildings, they are not part of the Catholic Church but of a sect.  How insane is that?

C) It is ok to act in place of the Church authorities, declaring dogmas and anathematizing those who don't adhere to them.

The Church has ALREADY DECLARED the dogmas, and we must assent.  The Church has also declared that we (lay people) are to anathematize and avoid heretics.

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.

Not to mention the oft quoted Satis Cognitum, which states that any who oppose the Magisterium "in the least degree" are NOT Catholic.

He is confusing membership in the Catholic Church with perfection or sanctity.

Wrong.  I am equating the Catholic Church to the INFALLIBLE teacher of DOCTRINE.  I am not some Donatist who expects every member of the Church to be a saint - I expect them to be FREE heresy and schism.

In his zeal for the "spotless Bride of Christ", he has stripped away all the human, fallible element, until he is only left with himself, FKPagnanelli, and "perhaps some others scattered throughout the world that I'm not aware of".

This is a complete mishmash of an accusation.  "Stripped away the fallible human element"?  What on earth are you talking about?  We are ALL fallible.  I have been corrected by others for various assertions I have made and certain arguments and have accepted correction.  I don't hold myself out infallible, but I don't change my positions just because someone doesn't LIKE them or attacks them with demonstrably false arguments.

I'd say he means well, but I honestly don't know.

You say well, you are correct.

Ha ha.  Not a good sign that CM came on with another account to insinuate that Matthew was lying.

Not so.  I merely proposed that it was untrue, not that it was a deliberate lie.

He couldn't wait until the next day for Matthew to see my post?

Mea culpa.

Quote from: CM

Quote from: Raoul76

I don't believe for a second that the nαzιs intended to eliminate all the Jews on Earth.

Hitler was a Jew!  :whistleblower:

Oh come on.....You know that there are people who believe that the satanic manifestation that was the "Third Reich" was all a Vatitican plot? You wouldnt take the "Two Babalyons" seriously so why that trash?

Did you watch it?  Where was he wrong?  Can you demonstrate that he was wrong, or point me to resources that would do the same?

Thanks.