Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: Jaynek on January 31, 2015, 02:11:25 PM
-
He is a busy man. You should be patient. He runs this forum as a favour to us.
-
1. Make sure your ability to receive PMs is turned on. Someone (not you) has sent him several PMs which he attempted to reply to unsuccessfully.
2. If you're complaining about someone or something, he very likely looked into it as far as he wanted and either addressed or dismissed the complaint without replying to you. If the subject has grown in severity (ie. "this problem happened once" to "I have this problem every few minutes") you could send another message with updated information.
3. I'm pretty sure he mentioned to me what your message was about (I think it was you but I might be mistaken) and we both concluded your assertion was inaccurate.
-
Now, how would I have guessed that you were lodging a complaint against moi?
Did you also bring your other grievance to his attention?
How much of your "toleration" of crap, Matthew, is because you get a financial kickback of advertizing from the controversial activity?
-
Now, how would I have guessed that you were lodging a complaint against moi?
Did you also bring your other grievance to his attention?
How much of your "toleration" of crap, Matthew, is because you get a financial kickback of advertizing from the controversial activity?
What do you mean how did you "guess"? There is nothing to guess when it is printed before your eyes in this thread!
Uhm, your recent post confirmed the guess I made right from the outset ... before you admitted it.
And, what you quote of me is not a grievance, but a public question asked quite some time ago.
Give us a break. You were insinuating that Matthew was motivated by profit (as if he even breaks even running this place).
As for your serious, blatant and repeated violations, what do you have to say for yourself?
I guess that you'll have to put me on trial to determine whether my observations regarding your behavior were objectively true or not. I stand by them. You twist every single principle of Catholic theology into a perversion that suits your fancy and magically explain away everything that doesn't. You deliberately troll on this board. You ask a question, and after about half a dozen people respond to it, you simply claim that no one answered your question. You make gratuitous assertions without backing them up, and then when someone responds with citation after citation refuting your claims, you just keep posting one-liners that no one has ever answered your question. Unless someone agrees with your point exactly, then your point remains unaddressed and unrefuted ... despite it never having been even remotely proven in the first place. You've been caught in lie and distortion after lie and distortion. You have reduced the Catholic faith to a matter of your private judgment and then accuse others of doing that despite their being able to cite reputable theologians to back up their positions. You accuse people of judging others while constantly judging others. You turn the Church into a laughingstock by constantly advocating the position that "no true pope" could even passively tolerate anything bad or harmful in the Church.
I stand by everything I've ever posted about you as being objectively accurate, even if at times the language might have been a bit harsh. But, through your boorish behavior, you make yourself an occasion of sin against charity for most of us on this board. Truth is truth. It's as if someone on this board were to call a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ a "pervert"; while the language might be a bit harsh, it's nevertheless objectively true. So while I similarly have used harsh language against yourself, I stand by the objective truth of my remarks.
-
Who is going to be the winner in this ?
I get sometimes frustrated too by some of Nado's posts, but I must say that he does not throw insults around and certainly does not say such harsh and uncharitable things as Ladislaus at times throws at him. And while I mostly disagree with Nado, he does force me to think things through and do my homework. Isn't that what a forum is all about ? And likewise with Ladislaus, I appreciate his side too (apart from the uncharitable language at times).
Why don't you two show us how Catholics are to forgive each other and pray for each other's conversion instead. That way we all win.
-
such harsh and uncharitable things as Ladislaus at times throws at him
I've grown quite weary of this effeminate notion of charity that most people have. Just read some of the language that St. Jerome used against various enemies of the Faith in his day; it would singe your eyebrows off. Using harsh language is not intrinsically against charity. Our Lord referred to the Pharisees as vipers, painted spulchers, and as having the devil for their father; He scourged the money changers out of the temple. Nado needs to be scourged off of public forums, so much damage does he do to the Catholic Faith.
-
Why don't you two show us how Catholics are to forgive each other and pray for each other's conversion instead. That way we all win.
This has nothing to do with "forgiveness", Nobody. I am no one to forgive or not to forgive Nado. That's not mine but God's. But so long as Nado keeps posting his perversions of Catholic theology on this forum, I will continue to excoriate him for it. I am not going to let his trash slide idly by and say nothing about it out of some false "charity" or in a spirit of "forgiveness". Standing up for the truth is not contrary to charity. Let's say someone were constantly posing offenses against Our Blessed Mother on the forum. Should I "forgive" that and say nothing of it in a spirit of "charity" and let the continuing comments go unaddressed? What Nado does is an analogous offense against Holy Mother Church. Were it not for the vacuum of authority in the Church today, Nado would long have been ordered to shut up and never speak about Catholicism in public again ... if not outright excommunicated.
-
Jerome’s commentaries were not esoteric flights of scholarly fancy. The irascible scholar sometimes used his role as a biblical commentator to give his opinion on ecclesiastical controversies of his day, some of which were occasioned by his work. His comments sometimes use personal invective against his opponents that, by today’s standards, seems harsh and sarcastic.
For example, Jerome had a running quarrel with another Christian commentator named Rufinus. In the Preface to his translation of the Book of Ezekiel, Jerome wrote of the recently deceased Rufinus: “Now that the scorpion lies buried....” He once described the heretic Pelagius as the most stupid of persons whose wits were dulled by too much Scottish porridge.
Charity has precious little to do with "nitheness"; that's a modern perversion of the concept into pure emotion.
-
Why don't you two show us how Catholics are to forgive each other and pray for each other's conversion instead. That way we all win.
This has nothing to do with "forgiveness", Nobody. I am no one to forgive or not to forgive Nado. That's not mine but God's. But so long as Nado keeps posting his perversions of Catholic theology on this forum, I will continue to excoriate him for it. I am not going to let his trash slide idly by and say nothing about it out of some false "charity" or in a spirit of "forgiveness". Standing up for the truth is not contrary to charity. Let's say someone were constantly posing offenses against Our Blessed Mother on the forum. Should I "forgive" that and say nothing of it in a spirit of "charity" and let the continuing comments go unaddressed? What Nado does is an analogous offense against Holy Mother Church. Were it not for the vacuum of authority in the Church today, Nado would long have been ordered to shut up and never speak about Catholicism in public again ... if not outright excommunicated.
The problem is not the fact that you make the effort to "reprove, entreat and rebuke", but that you do not do so "in all patience and doctrine." (II Timothy 4:2)
I would myself not put up with people calling me the things you have called Nado. And neither would you put up with it. You will not catch many flies with vinegar.
-
And yet some people should be beaten with fists -- I guess that too was an "uncharitable" thing to say. When you call my comments "harsh and uncharitable", the harsh part is objectively correct, whereas the uncharitable part involves a judgment on your end with regards to my dispositions in the internal forum. Harsh does not necessarily mean uncharitable. Indeed Our Lord was often harsh with the Pharisees. So, for instance, Nado objects to where I state that his father is the devil. So that comment is inherently uncharitable? Obviously not, for otherwise you would be accusing Our Lord of uncharitable behavior. While I am not in any way trying to compare myself with Our Lord, the point I am trying to illustrate is that harsh does not mean uncharitable. That notion comes from this feminized emotional concept of charity that the modern world has been trying to suffocate everyone with, that same notion of charity that drives Francis to condone and "not judge" ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
I will, later today, objectively demonstrate with concrete examples the over-the-top boorish behavior of one Nado here on CI wherein he makes himself an occasion of sin against charity and grossly offends against the Catholic Faith.
-
Who is going to be the winner in this ?
I get sometimes frustrated too by some of Nado's posts, but I must say that he does not throw insults around and certainly does not say such harsh and uncharitable things as Ladislaus at times throws at him. And while I mostly disagree with Nado, he does force me to think things through and do my homework. Isn't that what a forum is all about ? And likewise with Ladislaus, I appreciate his side too (apart from the uncharitable language at times).
Why don't you two show us how Catholics are to forgive each other and pray for each other's conversion instead. That way we all win.
I have been putting up with this for some time now, and this is the first time I have complained about this to the moderators right here, not in PM. It is not a matter of forgiveness because I have never shown animosity towards Ladislaus other than his wrong thinking. However, Ladislaus just dug his heals in and confirms freshly right here that I am wicked and non-Catholic filth. If there is any time to follow through with the rules, it is when someone knows he is violating them seriously and repeats his accusations.
Let's put it this way, Matthew and MaterD would not put up with this for a second. I have been seeing these repeatedly for some time, and not retaliating. Enough is enough.
Let's put it this way, Matthew and Ladislaus both spent a lot of time at the SSPX seminary - if you had an ounce of humility, you would already admit that in most instances, they know more than the rest of us, including you - and when you get corrected by Ladislaus, you should not argue UNLESS, you can prove him mistaken with indisputable Church sources - until then, you can learn and correct yourself - not argue with him, not recklessly dispute what he is telling you with your hair brained idea of Catholicism - and not go whining to Matthew to alert him to your obtuse incompetence in this crisis.
You have posted many things that are absolutely anti-Catholic while trumpeting the Church is the source. Many of us have attempted to correct you but it always ends up in an argument that involves ad hominems.
My advice to you for the good of your soul in this crisis is to use this site to learn the Catholic faith rather than argue every aspect of it.
-
Ladislaus had all his chances during each discussion thread, and he kept bailing out and rending his garments.
Nado, I've been keeping up with just about every theological debate here, trying to better understand Church teachings. In truth, you use variations of the quote above quite regularly when anyone points out your errors, variations include " you're not answering my question" (which the one debating you has usually done but you keep repeating it) or "______ has run away from the discussion". It's a unique exasperating circular style of argument, but the pattern is clear for all who are following.
I do appreciate your intelligence and passion for our faith, but you are fixed in pride, making it almost impossible for you to be objective about corrections. And now this thread, which I hate to say makes you seem sissy-ish. No offense intended, but a lot of us thought you were a woman when you joined the forum - that would explain your style, and this complaint.
Lastly, Stubborn's comment is important to note. Yes, I know you've gone toe to toe with him too, but truth is truth.
(perhaps you should PM Ladislaus directly and work out privately)
-
Nado is completely intolerable. He pollutes every single theological thread on this forum, and I will no longer participate until he's gone.
Here's the standard Nado modus operandi.
1) Completely make up and gratuitously assert a theological principle that no Catholic theologian has ever held and one that no sedevacantist even holds.
2) Assert this invented principle as true unless disproven ... without even so much as bothering to provide the slightest bit of proof for it (not a single citation nor a single argument).
3) After several people thoroughly refute the principle, simply reassert it in a one-liner, without rebutting the arguments, claiming that it has never been refuted ... without ever proving it in the first place.
EXAMPLE #1
1) Claim that even occult heretics lose office in the Church, a principle that NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN holds and NO SEDEVACANTIST I've ever met holds.
2) Several people point this out, cite authorities like St. Robert Bellarmine to the contrary.
3) Nado comes back, over and over again, with a one-liner claiming that it has never been refuted and therefore that it's true.
EXAMPLE #2
1) Claim that "no true pope" could EVER tolerate any evil activity to take place within the Church, a principle that NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN holds and NO SEDEVACANTIST I've ever met holds.
2) Tries to "prove" this by making a citation to "passive infallibility" ... which has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion.
3) When we point it out that he completely fabricated this principle, he keeps referring to the definition of "passive infallibility" (which is nothing more than a corollary to the infallibility of the Magisterium which states that those who adhere to the Magisterium are, by virtue of that adherence, infallible).
4) Then Nado denies that he ever claimed this.
5) Nado continues to reassert this, claiming that it has never been refuted, despite never providing ANY PROOF, ANY CITATION for his gratuitous assertion.
Nado makes up principles, some of which are so preposterous that no theologian has ever held them, and then claims that the burden of proof is on those who do not accept the assertion. He then continues to be an insufferable irritant by popping in every few posts with a one-liner asserting that it's never been refuted.
That's tantamount to my claiming that when Our Lord ascended to heaven, He then went to the moon and set up a base camp there. Since no one can refute this, it must be true.
EXAMPLE #3
1) Nado creates a thread claiming that non-sedevacantists deny the dogma of the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
2) Non-sedevacantists respond that they simply have a different understanding of OUM, but Nado refuses this and claims that his "question" was never answered.
3) In point of fact, there is NO question whatsoever in the OP, just attacks against the non-SVs.
4) Nado demands examples of things taught infallibly by the OUM.
5) When provided these examples, Nado claims that his request for examples has not been answered.
EXAMPLE #4
1) Nado continues to calumniate Nishant by referring to him as a "Feeneyite".
2) Nado refuses to take that back when called out on it.
3) Nishant's position is the same as that held by St. Thomas Aquinas.
4) Nado squirms out of this by claiming that the necessity of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are simply for the purposes of when a priest can baptize someone, i.e. a necessity of precept and a pastoral consideration.
5) Nado completely makes that up. In point of fact, Nishant had spent nearly a page thoughtfully addressing the fact that these are held to be necessary as a necessity of means by all theologians before the year 1600 and by most theologians even right up until Vatican II. So again we have Nado completely making something up, without a single source, a single citation, and claiming it to be true until it's refuted. Despite the fact that Nishant spent a considerable amount of time addressing Nado's points, Nado simply dismisses the thoughtful post with a waive of the hand by saying it's off-topic to the thread (after HE was the one who had gone off topic in the first place).
EXAMPLE #5
1) Citations from St. Alphonsus about how deathbed conversions are one in a million.
2) Nado gratuitously claims St. Alphonsus is only talking about "visible" cases and that unless people can prove that St. Alphonsus actually meant what he said, his interpretation is the true one.
EXAMPLE #6
1) Nado criticizes Matthew and claims that he tolerates heresy on the forum in the interests of financial gain.
2) Nado then criticizes others for making judgments about people's motives.
Nado is an insufferable baboon. He has brought down the collective IQ of this forum by about 50% since he entered and started polluting pretty much any thread that I'd ever be interested in. I've had serious disagreements with many others on this forum, but Nado is utterly intolerable. There can be no rational discussion with the likes of him.
-
Ladislaus had all his chances during each discussion thread, and he kept bailing out and rending his garments.
Nado, I've been keeping up with just about every theological debate here, trying to better understand Church teachings. In truth, you use variations of the quote above quite regularly when anyone points out your errors, variations include " you're not answering my question" (which the one debating you has usually done but you keep repeating it) or "______ has run away from the discussion". It's a unique exasperating circular style of argument, but the pattern is clear for all who are following.
Yes, thank you. I forgot to bring that one up.
Combine them with the examples I cited above, and I'm pretty much done posting here on CI until Nado is gone.
I've put him on hide a few times because I've acknowledged that he has become an occasion of sin for me, but I keep seeing his responses in other people's replies, so that has not been affective for me.
So God bless you all. Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore. I can't so much as start a single thread without Nado derailing it somehow and dragging it off into a direction that he fancies.
-
Ladislaus had all his chances during each discussion thread, and he kept bailing out and rending his garments.
Nado, I've been keeping up with just about every theological debate here, trying to better understand Church teachings. In truth, you use variations of the quote above quite regularly when anyone points out your errors, variations include " you're not answering my question" (which the one debating you has usually done but you keep repeating it) or "______ has run away from the discussion". It's a unique exasperating circular style of argument, but the pattern is clear for all who are following.
I do appreciate your intelligence and passion for our faith, but you are fixed in pride, making it almost impossible for you to be objective about corrections. And now this thread, which I hate to say makes you seem sissy-ish. No offense intended, but a lot of us thought you were a woman when you joined the forum - that would explain your style, and this complaint.
Lastly, Stubborn's comment is important to note. Yes, I know you've gone toe to toe with him too, but truth is truth.
(perhaps you should PM Ladislaus directly and work out privately)
It is very hard to associate Nado's style of that of a man. Although he may be very young.... Anyway, a reminder here that true charity is saving people from Hell, and heresy which leads them to Hell. Nado is promoting across the forum a very feminmized, romantized, disordered Vatican II version of charity which is the root of the social and spiritual abyss we are in now. He does not really seem acquainted with the actual writings of the saints in their defense of Holy Mother Church. For example, St Jerome or St Augustine who were relentless against heretics and schismatic or any enemy of the Church.
Very few people appreciate the vehemence of the saints in combating against heresy, and designate it as lacking charity. But the saints know that true charity is saving people from hell, and heresy leads souls to hell. There is some insinuation of that judgment in the humorous story told of Pope Sixtus V. Looking at a picture of St. Jerome beating his chest with a stone, that pontiff said, as if addressing the saint in person, “you do well to hold that stone, for without it the Church would never have canonized you.”
"I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."
-
"I have hated them with a perfect hatred."
The Saint would be considered a "hate monger" today for his treatment of a heretic. These and other passages in Against Helvidius show the indignation of a holy man against an impious one. Catholic men today can learn a lesson from Saint Jerome:
"I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disguised at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue. ...
"...There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, "Is not this the carpenter’s son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us ? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them." Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy ? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime. ...
"...I have become rhetorical, and have dispotted myself a little like a platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittle-tattle in corners when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the Lord, am favoured with the same barking eloquence as His mother."
-
Excuse me if I butt in off-topic.
Awkwardcustomer said:
....I cannot believe for one minute that Matthew would put up with the kind of abuse that you have been subjected to.
Look how he banned Ggreg for making a joke about his water pump miscalculation. Goodness knows how he would react if he was on the receiving end of Ladislaus's vitreol.
Ggreg made more than a joke, and he made snide nasty comments deriding Matthew several times about this issue, seemingly with the intent of making Matthew appear like an idiot who cannot manage simple transactions and calculations. . I, and others, were subject to his nastiness from my first day on board almost 3 years ago. I was amazed that Matthew allowed him to stay for so long. He was a witty intelligent poster, but nevertheless it was time for his departure.
So what you say is not correct Matthew can and did put up with abuse - too long in my opinion.
-
Excuse me if I butt in off-topic.
Awkwardcustomer said:
....I cannot believe for one minute that Matthew would put up with the kind of abuse that you have been subjected to.
Look how he banned Ggreg for making a joke about his water pump miscalculation. Goodness knows how he would react if he was on the receiving end of Ladislaus's vitreol.
Ggreg made more than a joke, and he made snide nasty comments deriding Matthew several times about this issue, seemingly with the intent of making Matthew appear like an idiot who cannot manage simple transactions and calculations. . I, and others, were subject to his nastiness from my first day on board almost 3 years ago. I was amazed that Matthew allowed him to stay for so long. He was a witty intelligent poster, but nevertheless it was time for his departure.
So what you say is not correct Matthew can and did put up with abuse - too long in my opinion.
You may certainly butt in off-topic. If that is your perception of ggreg then fine. But here is another nasty comment made to Nado, yesterday on the 'Pope Leo XIII and the New Rite of Ordination' thread. How does this nasty comment compare with ggreg's?
ascent said to Nado:
If you honestly believe that water does not flow from the head even during & after immersion or water being poured on the head, then you're borderline mentally handicap. But that's not really the case, rather you're a pathological sower of discord & hopelessness, and a liar.
Nado, so full of FLUFF.
Nado, my little pet named Fluffy.
-
Ladislaus, you will be sorely missed. Nado is a blessing to me (sincerely), as he argues the seductive side of sedevacantism. I've been on that precipice for awhile now. You and key others provide him instruction in Church teaching, which subsequently brought me back from the brink. The scales literally fell from my eyes. As I have privately conveyed to those others, you'll never know how incalculably valuable your instruction has been.
Thank you and may God continue to bless you with His wisdom.
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
-
"I have hated them with a perfect hatred."
The Saint would be considered a "hate monger" today for his treatment of a heretic. These and other passages in Against Helvidius show the indignation of a holy man against an impious one. Catholic men today can learn a lesson from Saint Jerome:
"I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disguised at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue. ...
"...There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, "Is not this the carpenter’s son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us ? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them." Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy ? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime. ...
"...I have become rhetorical, and have dispotted myself a little like a platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittle-tattle in corners when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the Lord, am favoured with the same barking eloquence as His mother."
St. Jerome got a thumbs down LOL!
-
Excuse me if I butt in off-topic.
Awkwardcustomer said:
....I cannot believe for one minute that Matthew would put up with the kind of abuse that you have been subjected to.
Look how he banned Ggreg for making a joke about his water pump miscalculation. Goodness knows how he would react if he was on the receiving end of Ladislaus's vitreol.
Ggreg made more than a joke, and he made snide nasty comments deriding Matthew several times about this issue, seemingly with the intent of making Matthew appear like an idiot who cannot manage simple transactions and calculations. . I, and others, were subject to his nastiness from my first day on board almost 3 years ago. I was amazed that Matthew allowed him to stay for so long. He was a witty intelligent poster, but nevertheless it was time for his departure.
So what you say is not correct Matthew can and did put up with abuse - too long in my opinion.
You may certainly butt in off-topic. If that is your perception of ggreg then fine. But here is another nasty comment made to Nado, yesterday on the 'Pope Leo XIII and the New Rite of Ordination' thread. How does this nasty comment compare with ggreg's?
ascent said to Nado:
If you honestly believe that water does not flow from the head even during & after immersion or water being poured on the head, then you're borderline mentally handicap. But that's not really the case, rather you're a pathological sower of discord & hopelessness, and a liar.
Nado, so full of FLUFF.
Nado, my little pet named Fluffy.
But, remember, these comments were made in the Crisis in the Church sub-forum. Anything goes there. And anyone who goes in there just has to deal with it.
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
I hope that means the dozen or so posters who have left because of him will come back.
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
I hope that means the dozen or so posters who have left because of him will come back.
Mabel, are you saying that a dozen or so posters have left because of Ladislaus?
-
For the benefit of Cathinfo members who rarely venture into the Feeneyism and BOD sub-forum, here's the kind of comment that gets a free pass down there in the basement.
The 'accusation of heresy' comment.
Ladislaus said:
Nice try.
I lean SV myself. I have no "hatred" for SVism; just think it's wrong. In the Dimonds and their followers you find "Feeneyites" who are foaming-at-the-mouth SVs.
Of course people such as the Three SV Stooges on this thread here do tempt us to a hatred of SVism.
It's quite the contrary. Most SVs utterly despise Father Feeney due to their exaggerated notion of infallibility that would have the heretical SH be considered tantamount to a dogmatic definition. What a bunch of bad-willed idiocy. You make a mockery of Catholic theology.
What's so utterly ironic about this is that you bluster on and on about the heresies of the V2 Popes, but YOU HOLD THE SAME MANIFEST HERESIES THAT THEY DO with regard to ecclesiology and soteriology. You differ NOT A LICK from these men. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Consequently, by your own criteria, I hereby judge Nado, awkward, and 2V to be manifest heretics and therefore outside the Church and not Catholics.
Posted on Jan 18, in the 'If the Conciliar popes are not Popes......' thread.
-
No member is forced to visit the crisis / feeneyism subforum. Members can abstain from visiting those forums. Ironically, all the whinners of this thread are very fond of these threads and exhibit the same uncharitable behaviors they dare to accuse good Ladislaus of, who is one of the best learned posters of CI.
At lack of better argument to support theological positions, these whinners desperately use any outlet to release their frustration.
Pathetic!
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
I hope that means the dozen or so posters who have left because of him will come back.
Mabel, are you saying that a dozen or so posters have left because of Ladislaus?
Look at all the posters who have tangled with Ladislaus and his tribe and note their current degree of activity.
-
No member is forced to visit the crisis / feeneyism subforum. Members can abstain from visiting those forums. Ironically, all the whinners of this thread are very fond of these threads and exhibit the same uncharitable behaviors they dare to accuse good Ladislaus of, who is one of the best learned posters of CI.
At lack of better argument to support theological positions, these whinners desperately use any outlet to release their frustration.
Pathetic!
I agree here to some extent. I don't agree with Laudislas on all the issues, but I've never had any problems as I keep out of those sub-forums that deal with Feenyism and the other topics that tend to annoy me.
-
I wonder what Matthew thinks about all of this.
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
I hope that means the dozen or so posters who have left because of him will come back.
Mabel, are you saying that a dozen or so posters have left because of Ladislaus?
Look at all the posters who have tangled with Ladislaus and his tribe and note their current degree of activity.
Hmmm, it certainly seems as if Ladislaus and his mob have been given free reign to savage anyone who challenges them.
I wonder why.
-
Nado has been on my "look into banning" list for quite a bit of time.
Frankly, I only needed one reason -- the whole "Matthew tolerates heretics on CI because it's good for business" B.S.
But having read a few posts in this thread, I think the better reason is that Nado is a prime candidate for banning (degrading the forum in general).
A forum is only useful for rational, reasoned discussion. Someone who is disruptive (for example, but not limited to: posting nonsense in every thread, turning every discussion into an argument about Sedevacantism, trolling, etc.)
Someone who pulls an "Israel" and provokes/bullies until they get a response, then they cry "victim" -- that is quite disruptive for a forum.
Anyhow, I've been busy trying to help the Traditional cause in a concrete and practical way by hosting a Mass here this afternoon. I'm trying to build up a new chapel to host the Tridentine Mass in this area. That's where I was all day. I was cleaning/preparing for Mass, serving the Mass, hosting a potluck afterwards, then cleaning up. In my opinion, that is a prime way for a Catholic to help the cause during this Crisis.
In other words, I don't "regret" that I didn't intervene sooner. I took care of it eventually, that's all that matters. It's not like I was off reading comic books or something.
-
Nado reported Ladislaus' post calling someone "non-Catholic" and I almost laughed out loud. He was clearly employing a rhetorical device.
Anyhow, I can only repeat what I've said earlier: if you insist on discussing Feeneyism and/or Sedevacantism, bring your thickest skin and prepare for a rousing discussion. if either are a problem for you, you might want to restrict yourself to the OTHER NINETY PERCENT of the forum, which is much better in my opinion.
There is plenty of good stuff on CI outside the Crisis subforum. If you ask me, virtually all of it is outside that subforum.
I provide the Crisis subforum (and the Feeneyism sub-forum under it) as a service to those Catholics that (for whatever reason) can't live without such discussions. I can't understand it myself, but to each his own. Everyone can't be just like me. Some people seem to have a real need for such an area.
-
Matthew said:
I'm trying to build up a new chapel to host the Tridentine Mass in this area. That's where I was all day. I was cleaning/preparing for Mass, serving the Mass, hosting a potluck afterwards, then cleaning up. In my opinion, that is a prime way for a Catholic to help the cause during this Crisis.
awkwardcustomer said:
Matthew,
How virtuous you are.
While you boast of your services to Tradition, your gang of attack dogs runs wild in the 'Crisis in the Church' forum.
[...]
Cue Matthew and Ladislaus to come over all holier than thou and bursting with self-righteous indignation.
!!
Petulant and pridefully cruel statement, demeaning his efforts to promote the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because he didn't side with you and your guy. That's the bottom line behind such an outrageous comment. I was embarrassed for you when I read it.
Adding insult to injury, he is the host. Who taught you your manners?
Shame on you.
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
I hope that means the dozen or so posters who have left because of him will come back.
No such luck. Now that Nado's gone "good" Ladislaus will be back in the driver's seat.
I don't read this forum for the cult of personalities. I've benefited from everyone in one way or another. Yes, even Glaston once! :dancing:
However, regardless of subforum passions, I do expect that those posting comments will stick to Church teaching and, when in error, discontinue promotion of the same. But it's near impossible for us to consider that we may be wrong - we've lost all sense of humility and refuse correction.
A thread on pride would be very beneficial at this point.
-
Matthew said:
I'm trying to build up a new chapel to host the Tridentine Mass in this area. That's where I was all day. I was cleaning/preparing for Mass, serving the Mass, hosting a potluck afterwards, then cleaning up. In my opinion, that is a prime way for a Catholic to help the cause during this Crisis.
awkwardcustomer said:
Matthew,
How virtuous you are.
While you boast of your services to Tradition, your gang of attack dogs runs wild in the 'Crisis in the Church' forum.
[...]
Cue Matthew and Ladislaus to come over all holier than thou and bursting with self-righteous indignation.
!!
Petulant and pridefully cruel statement, demeaning his efforts to promote the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because he didn't side with you and your guy. That's the bottom line behind such an outrageous comment. I was embarrassed for you when I read it.
Adding insult to injury, he is the host. Who taught you your manners?
Shame on you.
I agree.
It's as simple as staying out of the sub Feeny forum. I don't go there and if I did it would bore me to death. Why some people have a need for that I don't know. Would they go to the St. Benedict center and debate daily and then get all roused up and complain about it later? Lack of humility is behind it, as another poster stated.
-
Perhaps one of my friends can e-mail me when Nado has left. Until then I won't post anymore.
Riiiiight.
I hope that means the dozen or so posters who have left because of him will come back.
No such luck. Now that Nado's gone "good" Ladislaus will be back in the driver's seat.
I don't read this forum for the cult of personalities. I've benefited from everyone in one way or another. Yes, even Glaston once! :dancing:
However, regardless of subforum passions, I do expect that those posting comments will stick to Church teaching and, when in error, discontinue promotion of the same. But it's near impossible for us to consider that we may be wrong - we've lost all sense of humility and refuse correction.
A thread on pride would be very beneficial at this point.
You mean like the Feeney sub-forum itself? Here we have a whole sub-forum dedicated to the promotion, uh, I mean "debate", of Feeneyism. There isn't one other Catholic forum out there that allows it.
-
Matthew said:
I'm trying to build up a new chapel to host the Tridentine Mass in this area. That's where I was all day. I was cleaning/preparing for Mass, serving the Mass, hosting a potluck afterwards, then cleaning up. In my opinion, that is a prime way for a Catholic to help the cause during this Crisis.
awkwardcustomer said:
Matthew,
How virtuous you are.
While you boast of your services to Tradition, your gang of attack dogs runs wild in the 'Crisis in the Church' forum.
[...]
Cue Matthew and Ladislaus to come over all holier than thou and bursting with self-righteous indignation.
!!
Petulant and pridefully cruel statement, demeaning his efforts to promote the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because he didn't side with you and your guy. That's the bottom line behind such an outrageous comment. I was embarrassed for you when I read it.
Adding insult to injury, he is the host. Who taught you your manners?
Shame on you.
Not demeaning Matthew's efforts to promote the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Demeaning his boasting about this while allowing vicious attacks on Catholics to go unchallenged on Cathinfo.
But it's all right as long as the attacks are confined to the 'Crisis in the Church' forum, where the superior types don't deign to venture.
Excuse me, but were you not the one that not long ago started a thread asking how to be for ever deactivated from CathInfo?
How come you are still here to only complain an demean the moderator? Develop some self-restrain to abstain from what is detrimental to your state of soul. Nobody is acting as vicious against you as you seem to be doing it against your own self.
As Matthew has repeatedly said if these threads are such an occasion of sin for you, simply abstain from them, or if you still feel the need to read or participate, which ironically all these whiners seem to persistently do (they can't get enough of them), then you need to grow a thicker skin and focus on the topic at hand, but you are too concerned with your personal issues and how they affect your self- esteem. That is not the appropriate attitude to discuss in the Crisis Forum, sorry.
-
You mean like the Feeney sub-forum itself? Here we have a whole sub-forum dedicated to the promotion, uh, I mean "debate", of Feeneyism. There isn't one other Catholic forum out there that allows it.
I completely deny your suggestion that allowing discussion of Feeneyism is to promote it.
You might as well say the same thing about Sedevacantism!
Anyhow, I could suggest the exact opposite: I want the Feeneyite subforum so that Catholic apologists could learn the arguments the Feeneyites -- and opponents -- use, to better fight their errors.
Are you suggesting that Feeneyism is such a small, or new, phenomenon that given them ANY attention is helping them to flourish? Sorry. Feeneyism exists, and is way bigger than that (unfortunately). I wish I could squelch it out by simply ignoring it on this little corner of the Internet.
I am not a Feeneyite. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Obviously, I don't believe my sub-forum helps the Feeneyites more than it hurts them, or I wouldn't have it here. In my opinion, it's a "wash", with a slight skew against Feeneyism.
-
You mean like the Feeney sub-forum itself? Here we have a whole sub-forum dedicated to the promotion, uh, I mean "debate", of Feeneyism. There isn't one other Catholic forum out there that allows it.
I completely deny your suggestion that allowing discussion of Feeneyism is to promote it.
I could say the exact opposite -- I want the Feeneyite subforum so that Catholic apologists could learn the arguments the Feeneyites -- and opponents -- use, to better fight their errors.
Are you suggesting that Feeneyism is such a small, or new, phenomenon that given them ANY attention is allowing them to live? Sorry. Feeneyism exists, and has existed long before Internet forums. It's a "legitimate" movement, even though I am not among their number.
I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
Obviously, I don't believe my sub-forum helps the Feeneyites more than it hurts them, or I wouldn't have it here. In my opinion, it's a "wash", with a slight skew against Feeneyism.
Matthew, how many anti-Feeneyite posters get banned and how many Feeneyite posters get banned? How many anti-Feeneyite posters stick around and how many Feeneyite posters stick around? How many anti-Feeneyite posters seem to have your ear? How many Feeneyite posters seem to have your ear? If things are slightly skewed against them, looks can be deceiving.
Feeneyism is not Catholic. You yourself have said this. If you can allow non-Catholic Feeneyites to present their case, why not Protestantism? Or Orthodoxy? Or Islam? Or Judaism? They're "legitimate" (albeit false) movements and have been around a long time.
-
Matthew said:
I'm trying to build up a new chapel to host the Tridentine Mass in this area. That's where I was all day. I was cleaning/preparing for Mass, serving the Mass, hosting a potluck afterwards, then cleaning up. In my opinion, that is a prime way for a Catholic to help the cause during this Crisis.
awkwardcustomer said:
Matthew,
How virtuous you are.
While you boast of your services to Tradition, your gang of attack dogs runs wild in the 'Crisis in the Church' forum.
[...]
Cue Matthew and Ladislaus to come over all holier than thou and bursting with self-righteous indignation.
!!
Petulant and pridefully cruel statement, demeaning his efforts to promote the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because he didn't side with you and your guy. That's the bottom line behind such an outrageous comment. I was embarrassed for you when I read it.
Adding insult to injury, he is the host. Who taught you your manners?
Shame on you.
Not demeaning Matthew's efforts to promote the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Demeaning his boasting about this while allowing vicious attacks on Catholics to go unchallenged on Cathinfo.
But it's all right as long as the attacks are confined to the 'Crisis in the Church' forum, where the superior types don't deign to venture.
Excuse me, but were you not the one that not long ago started a thread asking how to be for ever deactivated from CathInfo?
How come you are still here to only complain an demean the moderator? Develop some self-restrain to abstain from what is detrimental to your state of soul. Nobody is acting as vicious against you as you seem to be doing it against your own self.
As Matthew has repeatedly said if these threads are such an occasion of sin for you, simply abstain from them, or if you still feel the need to read or participate, which ironically all these whiners seem to persistently do (they can't get enough of them), then you need to grow a thicker skin and focus on the topic at hand, but you are too concerned with your personal issues and how they affect your self- esteem. That is not the appropriate attitude to discuss in the Crisis Forum, sorry.
Enough of your psycho-babble.
As I said earlier in this thread, I am only commenting here in support of Nado, who has been the target of relentless and vicious abuse from yourself and other posters in the 'Crisis in the Church' forum.
Sadly this is allowed on Cathinfo, and anyone who complains is told to put up or shut up.
Since that the case, all I can say is.......CARRY ON.
-
At the end of the day, it's Matthew's call. It's his forum. If he wants to ban "Feeneyites", or, for that matter, "Sedevacantists", it's entirely his choice. He could ban anyone doesn't support the Resistance. Conversely, if he wanted to set up an area in the forum where Protestants could raise objections against Catholicism, he could do that also ... without thereby promoting Protestantism; he could be doing it to help strengthen Catholics in apologetics. If he wanted to reinstate Nado and ban me instead, that's also his call. I'm not going to feel sorry for myself but would simply move along.
When I said that I would no longer participate while Nado was still around, it had nothing to do with his "positions" (such as they were) but rather because I found his posting style so disruptive as to render the forum unusable for me and because he was becoming an occasion of sin for me against charity. I objected in similar fashion to another poster some time ago; he kept re-pasting the same exact paragraph every two or three minutes on threads, without any regard to context and with no concern for derailing the thread and making discussion impossible. He was making the forum unusable, and Nado had the same effect.
-
Enough of your psycho-babble.
Counsel to check one's self should be de rigueur for all Catholics, encouraging each other to stay holy. Hardly psychobabble. But it does require a humble heart.
AC, I did not mean to pile on with my comment, but I was taken aback at your own viciousness toward Matthew. Truly I felt embarrassed for you. Even more so now, since you are digging in and justifying. I thought better of you.
Fwiw, I offered prayers for you this morning (and Nado). In your charity, could you could do the same for those of us you consider 'enemies' ?
-
Feeneyism is not Catholic.
Prove it.
With solid argument, instead of personal whining.
In all this time, you have failed miserably in doing so.
Thankfully, we have a subforum for doing just that but you won't because you can't.
And because you can't, you should probably quit embarrassing yourself promoting claims you don't know anything about. Claims born out of personal dislikings for particulars members in CI, instead of serious theological convictions.
-
Feeneyism is not Catholic.
Prove it.
With solid argument, instead of personal whining.
In all this time, you have failed miserably in doing so.
Thankfully, we have a subforum for doing just that but you won't because you can't.
And because you can't, you should probably quit embarrassing yourself promoting claims you don't know anything about. Claims born out of personal dislikings for particulars members in CI, instead of serious theological convictions.
See how much the Feeneyite forum skews against the Feeneyites Matthew?
And I'm truly touched Cantarella that you took me off ignore. Apparently I really hit a nerve.
-
Feeneyism is not Catholic.
Prove it.
With solid argument, instead of personal whining.
In all this time, you have failed miserably in doing so.
Thankfully, we have a subforum for doing just that but you won't because you can't.
And because you can't, you should probably quit embarrassing yourself promoting claims you don't know anything about. Claims born out of personal dislikings for particulars members in CI, instead of serious theological convictions.
See how much the Feeneyite forum skews against the Feeneyites Matthew?
And I'm truly touched Cantarella that you took me off ignore. Apparently I really hit a nerve.
Ladislaus has exceptional devices of flattery and manipulation at his disposal. Think of him as Grima Wormtongue.
Additionally, if anyone thinks that what happens on the Crisis forum does not have an effect on the rest of the forum, they are mistaken. Unless this is the Silent Animosity session of coffee and donuts after mass. There is a reason no one is talking. I'll just say it: the Feeneyites are ruining CI for everyone else.
-
I'll just say it: the Feeneyites are ruining CI for everyone else.
So three Feeneyites posting in a subforum that nearly nobody reads are ruining the whole forum for everyone.
-
I'll just say it: the Feeneyites are ruining CI for everyone else.
So three Feeneyites posting in a subforum that nearly nobody reads are ruining the whole forum for everyone.
C'mon Matto. You know they don't only post in there.
-
C'mon Matto. You know they don't only post in there.
I know they don't only post there, but they usually only post about BOD in the proper sub-forum. Cantarella and Stubborn and Ladislaus also post about sedevacantism also, and this is controversial, but that has nothing to do with Feeneyism.
I think all the posters here usually abide by the rules and only post about Feeneyism in the proper sub-forum and only post about sedevacantism in the Crisis in the Church forum, and these two topics are the most controversial ones that are commonly discussed.
-
C'mon Matto. You know they don't only post in there.
I know they don't only post there, but they usually only post about BOD in the proper forum. Cantarella and Stubborn and Ladislaus also post about sedevacantism also, and this is controversial, but that has nothing to do with Feeneyism.
I can't speak for Mabel, but I don't think she was merely referring to their discussions of BOD.
-
I'll just say it: the Feeneyites are ruining CI for everyone else.
So three Feeneyites posting in a subforum that nearly nobody reads are ruining the whole forum for everyone.
That is a mischaracterization of the situation. They don't just post there and there are more than three. If any one of the persons they have driven off showed up, started posting again, say on the SSPX forum, they would be right there. It doesn't stop there either, they make constant references and drop the names of other people in a demeaning way, in threads those individuals have not been involved in. They have no problem hurting the good names of others, however, Ladislaus is the absolute worst offender. Maybe you have no problem with those things, but I do. I also find it reprehensible to treat an elderly woman, the way Myrna has been treated. Anyone who could behave that way towards someone like Myrna, even disregarding her age, must be of the worst sort.
-
I have noticed that people on both sides are often harsh to one another when arguing over Feeneyism and sedevacantism. I don't know how to avoid this except to ban discussion of those topics. It is Matthew's call.
-
I have noticed that people on both sides are often harsh to one another when arguing over Feeneyism and sedevacantism. I don't know how to avoid this except to ban discussion of those topics. It is Matthew's call.
I'm at a point where I would be totally fine with that. As you know, there are other Catholic forums where the discussions between sedes and non-sedes are not like this and Feeneyism isn't given a forum, so to speak.
-
As you know, there are other Catholic forums where the discussions between sedes and non-sedes are not like this and Feeneyism isn't given a forum, so to speak.
I know there are other forums that do not allow discussion of Feeneyism, but I am not aware of other forums where sedes and non-sedes get along well without friction. Which forums are these. I would like to check them out.
-
As you know, there are other Catholic forums where the discussions between sedes and non-sedes are not like this and Feeneyism isn't given a forum, so to speak.
I know there are other forums that do not allow discussion of Feeneyism, but I am not aware of another forum where sedes and non-sedes get along well without friction. Which forums are these. I would like to check them out.
Never said there was no friction. However, I rarely see the vitriol that I see here.
-
If any one of the persons they have driven off showed up, started posting again, say on the SSPX forum, they would be right there.
I haven't seen this. That kind of behavior is against forum rules. FYI, that is the kind of obsessive, disruptive behavior that causes people to get banned.
It doesn't stop there either, they make constant references and drop the names of other people in a demeaning way, in threads those individuals have not been involved in.
I haven't seen this.
They have no problem hurting the good names of others, however, Ladislaus is the absolute worst offender. Maybe you have no problem with those things, but I do. I also find it reprehensible to treat an elderly woman, the way Myrna has been treated. Anyone who could behave that way towards someone like Myrna, even disregarding her age, must be of the worst sort.
I haven't seen this either. And why didn't any of the hundreds of members report something like that to me? There must have been some witnesses in the thread. Maybe it didn't happen? Help me out here.
NOTE: contradicting someone's arguments -- especially weak ones -- is not considered "reprehensible" when done towards an elderly person.
The elderly aren't exempt from the rule that if you want to argue Sedevacantism or Feeneyism, you need to bring your thick skin and a good shield.
-
As you know, there are other Catholic forums where the discussions between sedes and non-sedes are not like this and Feeneyism isn't given a forum, so to speak.
I know there are other forums that do not allow discussion of Feeneyism, but I am not aware of another forum where sedes and non-sedes get along well without friction. Which forums are these. I would like to check them out.
Never said there was no friction. However, I rarely see the vitriol that I see here.
I only post here and on another forum that I am not allowed to name here. On the other forum, the arguments between sedes and non-sedes got so heated that the moderators had to make special rules and try to tell people how to discuss the issue reasonably.
-
As you know, there are other Catholic forums where the discussions between sedes and non-sedes are not like this and Feeneyism isn't given a forum, so to speak.
I know there are other forums that do not allow discussion of Feeneyism, but I am not aware of another forum where sedes and non-sedes get along well without friction. Which forums are these. I would like to check them out.
Never said there was no friction. However, I rarely see the vitriol that I see here.
I only post here and on another forum that I am not allowed to name here. On the other forum, the arguments between sedes and non-sedes got so heated that the moderators had to make special rules and try to tell people how to discuss the issue reasonably.
Apparently those rules work..and sound like they are being enforced.
-
Apparently those rules work..and sound like they are being enforced.
I have noticed that after the new rules the arguments lessened, but so did the discussion.
-
Apparently those rules work..and sound like they are being enforced.
I have noticed that after the new rules the arguments lessened, but so did the discussion.
Then perhaps those that previously "discussed" really weren't interested in the discussion as much as the arguing.
-
CathInfo is CathInfo and is going to stay that way. We don't need all the forums to have the same rules -- that would be a waste of Internet bandwidth.
Sorry, but "the CathInfo ripoff forum(s) does it a different way" doesn't carry much weight with me. If anything, I'll just hold my ground and eventually they'll follow suit.
-
I think you do a good job moderating, Matthew. It must be a hard job with little thanks.
-
CathInfo is CathInfo and is going to stay that way. We don't need all the forums to have the same rules -- that would be a waste of Internet bandwidth.
Sorry, but "the CathInfo ripoff forum(s) does it a different way" doesn't carry much weight with me. If anything, I'll just hold my ground and eventually they'll follow suit.
I didn't think it would. As for them becoming like CathInfo? I highly doubt that.
-
As the "new guy", I have to say that I am impressed with the forum.
I have been on several other forums and this is certainly the best in regards to content.
Shutting down arguments or debates is a terrible idea. We need to have good debate as long as it is done properly. Name calling, as I have seen here from time to time, is childish and immature. But if people want to behave that way, let them; it's out there for everyone to see that their argument is futile and their contribution is meaningless.
I like Matthew's take on the sedevacantist and feeneyite rules; better have thick skin and bring a shield....there's no other forum out there like Cathinfo that will let you discuss these issues, both of them at the same time anyways.
If you wander into the "Crisis in the Church" forum, or the sub-forum, you better bring your best and that includes humility to admit when you're wrong.
I say if you don't like it here, try non-Catholic Answers......any Catholic worth his/her salt will be banned within 5 posts.
Well said, Bellator Dei.
I agree with everything you wrote above.
-
As the "new guy", I have to say that I am impressed with the forum.
I have been on several other forums and this is certainly the best in regards to content.
Shutting down arguments or debates is a terrible idea. We need to have good debate as long as it is done properly. Name calling, as I have seen here from time to time, is childish and immature. But if people want to behave that way, let them; it's out there for everyone to see that their argument is futile and their contribution is meaningless.
I like Matthew's take on the sedevacantist and feeneyite rules; better have thick skin and bring a shield....there's no other forum out there like Cathinfo that will let you discuss these issues, both of them at the same time anyways.
If you wander into the "Crisis in the Church" forum, or the sub-forum, you better bring your best and that includes humility to admit when you're wrong.
I say if you don't like it here, try non-Catholic Answers......any Catholic worth his/her salt will be banned within 5 posts.
You'll fit in well then BD.
-
They have no problem hurting the good names of others, however, Ladislaus is the absolute worst offender. Maybe you have no problem with those things, but I do. I also find it reprehensible to treat an elderly woman, the way Myrna has been treated. Anyone who could behave that way towards someone like Myrna, even disregarding her age, must be of the worst sort.
I haven't seen this either. And why didn't any of the hundreds of members report something like that to me? There must have been some witnesses in the thread. Maybe it didn't happen? Help me out here.
[/b]
Matthew, I remember seeing the post that Mabel may be referring to here, but I cannot be sure who was the offender. I only know that Myrna was the victim of vicious comment which surprised me coming from man to an older woman. It was a personal attack, not an argument being presented. So for what this comment is worth - probably not much - I thought I ought to say that Mabel is not the only one who saw it. It was remiss of me not to say anything at the time.
Regardless of age, every person has a right to be respected and not to be attacked because somebody else thinks them stupid or whatever.
:cheers: Boy this thread is fast moving! Before the cement dried I got a thumbs down. Is that a first?
-
They have no problem hurting the good names of others, however, Ladislaus is the absolute worst offender. Maybe you have no problem with those things, but I do. I also find it reprehensible to treat an elderly woman, the way Myrna has been treated. Anyone who could behave that way towards someone like Myrna, even disregarding her age, must be of the worst sort.
I haven't seen this either. And why didn't any of the hundreds of members report something like that to me? There must have been some witnesses in the thread. Maybe it didn't happen? Help me out here.
[/b]
Matthew, I remember seeing the post that Mabel may be referring to here, but I cannot be sure who was the offender. I only know that Myrna was the victim of vicious comment which surprised me coming from man to an older woman. It was a personal attack, not an argument being presented. So for what this comment is worth - probably not much - I thought I ought to say that Mabel is not the only one who saw it. It was remiss of me not to say anything at the time.
Regardless of age, every person has a right to be respected and not to be attacked because somebody else thinks them stupid or whatever.
:cheers: Boy this thread is fast moving! Before the cement dried I got a thumbs down. Is that a first?
I have a question: how would the forum know that something was done about it even if Nadir had reported it? I only recall seeing Matthew make mention of other members when he creates a thread announcing a ban. Have there been moderator comments within threads that I have missed? Maybe he has made warnings and I haven't noticed it because it's within a post and in the same font?
-
As the "new guy", I have to say that I am impressed with the forum.
I have been on several other forums and this is certainly the best in regards to content.
Shutting down arguments or debates is a terrible idea. We need to have good debate as long as it is done properly. Name calling, as I have seen here from time to time, is childish and immature. But if people want to behave that way, let them; it's out there for everyone to see that their argument is futile and their contribution is meaningless.
I like Matthew's take on the sedevacantist and feeneyite rules; better have thick skin and bring a shield....there's no other forum out there like Cathinfo that will let you discuss these issues, both of them at the same time anyways.
If you wander into the "Crisis in the Church" forum, or the sub-forum, you better bring your best and that includes humility to admit when you're wrong.
I say if you don't like it here, try non-Catholic Answers......any Catholic worth his/her salt will be banned within 5 posts.
BD, good and fair comment. However:
you better bring your best and that includes humility to admit when you're wrong.
- that's difficult for most of us. Funny, it should be easy for us.
-
They have no problem hurting the good names of others, however, Ladislaus is the absolute worst offender. Maybe you have no problem with those things, but I do. I also find it reprehensible to treat an elderly woman, the way Myrna has been treated. Anyone who could behave that way towards someone like Myrna, even disregarding her age, must be of the worst sort.
I haven't seen this either. And why didn't any of the hundreds of members report something like that to me? There must have been some witnesses in the thread. Maybe it didn't happen? Help me out here.
[/b]
Matthew, I remember seeing the post that Mabel may be referring to here, but I cannot be sure who was the offender. I only know that Myrna was the victim of vicious comment which surprised me coming from man to an older woman. It was a personal attack, not an argument being presented. So for what this comment is worth - probably not much - I thought I ought to say that Mabel is not the only one who saw it. It was remiss of me not to say anything at the time.
Regardless of age, every person has a right to be respected and not to be attacked because somebody else thinks them stupid or whatever.
:cheers: Boy this thread is fast moving! Before the cement dried I got a thumbs down. Is that a first?
Thank you, Nadir.
I don't know how many posts are reported on here, but if the number of people who speak up when something vile and unjust is posted is any indication, there is a lot that goes unreported.
It wasn't just Myrna. Nado and Ambrose were both accused of being women. That went way too far, no one said anything! Speaking of which, what happened to Hobbledehoy, Lover of Truth (yes, I know he was a bit annoying but he is not a bad man), SJB, Michael93, sunbeam, Luker, Mithrandylan, Thomistic Philosopher and so on, even Charlemagne and TKGS have barely posted. Maybe they are all busy but look what they have in common...
I'm not going to report every post that violates the rules, it isn't my job to police CI, but that doesn't mean I have to be blind to the fact that it has significant problems at the moment and at times. Before the Feeneyites became (more?) unhinged, it was actually a pleasure to post here.
-
I think Mabel and Nadir have it about right above.
-
Bellator Dei,
Best of luck. Many have gone before you.
Here is an example of what's in store for you if you take on the Three Feeneys. It is a post by Emerentiana, in which she responds to a series of their comments. Taken from the 'Is the CMRI schismatic?' thread on the 'Crisis in the Church' forum, (Nov 26, 2014).
Cantarella is quoted as saying:
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
To which Ladislaus replied:
Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.
And then Stubborn added:
Yes, quite phenomenal what we are witnessing here.
The above should give you a flavour of how the Feeneys operate, how they belittle other posters. And below is Emerentiana, giving her response to the above. Take note of what she says, Bellator Dei.
Ladisllaus, If I was moderator here, I would have banned any discussion of your heresies a long time ago.
LOT and Ambrose have stated the Church's teaching on BOB and BOD many many times. The only opinion you Feenyites have is that which comes from Feeney and the Diamonds. As Nado said, you repeat the same things over and over again. You are Diamond "bots" You have Diamond quotes on hand an post them over and over. As Nado said, "its embarrassing"
I am a simple lay woman. I don't pretend to be a theologian. My concern is that you will infect a new unsuspecting Catholic who comes to this forum with your poison.
A long time ago on this forum, you Feenyites stated that Catechumens went to hell if they did not have water baptism. Now I see that you have changed your stance, making an exception in your ideas to spare this class of souls from your damnation judgements. Your making progress!
Many on here have labored to point out your errors. As I said, most of us are sick and tired of your heretical posts and are done with the subject. Myrna and I have never "dispatched" anyone to keep this discussion going. Your cabal on here does that very well. You keep introducing new posts on the same tired subject. Nado took the ball this time. The rest of us are fed up with your tirades and insults.
The Diamonds are known to be very uncharitable. you learn from them.
I will pray for all of you!
Thought I should warn you, seeing as how you're new to Cathinfo.
-
Bellator Dei,
Best of luck. Many have gone before you.
Here is an example of what's in store for you if you take on the Three Feeneys. It is a post by Emerentiana, in which she responds to a series of their comments. Taken from the 'Is the CMRI schismatic?' thread on the 'Crisis in the Church' forum, (Nov 26, 2014).
Cantarella is quoted as saying:
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
To which Ladislaus replied:
Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.
And then Stubborn added:
Yes, quite phenomenal what we are witnessing here.
The above should give you a flavour of how the Feeneys operate, how they belittle other posters. And below is Emerentiana, giving her response to the above. Take note of what she says, Bellator Dei.
Ladisllaus, If I was moderator here, I would have banned any discussion of your heresies a long time ago.
LOT and Ambrose have stated the Church's teaching on BOB and BOD many many times. The only opinion you Feenyites have is that which comes from Feeney and the Diamonds. As Nado said, you repeat the same things over and over again. You are Diamond "bots" You have Diamond quotes on hand an post them over and over. As Nado said, "its embarrassing"
I am a simple lay woman. I don't pretend to be a theologian. My concern is that you will infect a new unsuspecting Catholic who comes to this forum with your poison.
A long time ago on this forum, you Feenyites stated that Catechumens went to hell if they did not have water baptism. Now I see that you have changed your stance, making an exception in your ideas to spare this class of souls from your damnation judgements. Your making progress!
Many on here have labored to point out your errors. As I said, most of us are sick and tired of your heretical posts and are done with the subject. Myrna and I have never "dispatched" anyone to keep this discussion going. Your cabal on here does that very well. You keep introducing new posts on the same tired subject. Nado took the ball this time. The rest of us are fed up with your tirades and insults.
The Diamonds are known to be very uncharitable. you learn from them.
I will pray for all of you!
Thought I should warn you, seeing as how you're new to Cathinfo.
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
-
2Vermont said:
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
The list just gets longer and longer.
I also remember how MyrnaM was insulted by Ladislaus. Wish I could remember which thread, or threads.
Perhaps Matthew doesn't realise that those who complain only do so when they have ABSOLUTELY had enough. And many don't complain at all. They simply disappear from Cathinfo.
-
Bellator Dei,
Best of luck. Many have gone before you.
Here is an example of what's in store for you if you take on the Three Feeneys. It is a post by Emerentiana, in which she responds to a series of their comments. Taken from the 'Is the CMRI schismatic?' thread on the 'Crisis in the Church' forum, (Nov 26, 2014).
Cantarella is quoted as saying:
Must say, though that Nado has become a very entertaining poster. Have to give her that!. Her utter ignorance combined with an innate inability to stop sprouting imprudent non sense are very comical. She just does not know when to stop! It surely keeps the threads alive.
To which Ladislaus replied:
Yes, now that Ambrose and LoT have stopped "contributing" to BoD threads, and Myrna / Emerentiana were in over their heads to begin with, they had to dispatch another CMRI-bot to continue trolling against the EENS dogma, to "take over driving" as Emerentiana put it.
And then Stubborn added:
Yes, quite phenomenal what we are witnessing here.
The above should give you a flavour of how the Feeneys operate, how they belittle other posters. And below is Emerentiana, giving her response to the above. Take note of what she says, Bellator Dei.
Ladisllaus, If I was moderator here, I would have banned any discussion of your heresies a long time ago.
LOT and Ambrose have stated the Church's teaching on BOB and BOD many many times. The only opinion you Feenyites have is that which comes from Feeney and the Diamonds. As Nado said, you repeat the same things over and over again. You are Diamond "bots" You have Diamond quotes on hand an post them over and over. As Nado said, "its embarrassing"
I am a simple lay woman. I don't pretend to be a theologian. My concern is that you will infect a new unsuspecting Catholic who comes to this forum with your poison.
A long time ago on this forum, you Feenyites stated that Catechumens went to hell if they did not have water baptism. Now I see that you have changed your stance, making an exception in your ideas to spare this class of souls from your damnation judgements. Your making progress!
Many on here have labored to point out your errors. As I said, most of us are sick and tired of your heretical posts and are done with the subject. Myrna and I have never "dispatched" anyone to keep this discussion going. Your cabal on here does that very well. You keep introducing new posts on the same tired subject. Nado took the ball this time. The rest of us are fed up with your tirades and insults.
The Diamonds are known to be very uncharitable. you learn from them.
I will pray for all of you!
Thought I should warn you, seeing as how you're new to Cathinfo.
Why don't you go and pray a Rosary instead of wasting time searching buried threads in a desperate attempt to provide examples of "uncharity"?.
Same applies for all the ladies here spreading GOSSIP; as claiming that all who EVER have stopped posting in CI, was because of 3 "Feeneyites", out of hundreds of members. What non sense!
-
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
So why would you want to keep posting here since CI is so full of injustices?
FYI, if it really mattered, which it doesn't, but if it did matter, whoever wants to waste their time can go back and find 100s of posts from the sede's with their list of ad hominems thrown about like rocks - and YOU'VE thrown your share of rocks and are just as guilty as the rest of us. Get over it.
Why not just do what Matthew said to do if you're going to post in the Crisis forum? "The elderly aren't exempt from the rule that if you want to argue Sedevacantism or Feeneyism, you need to bring your thick skin and a good shield." It's his forum, if you don't like it, start your own and see how you like it when posters knock the way you run it or tell you how they think it should be run.
-
It wasn't just Myrna. Nado and Ambrose were both accused of being women. That went way too far, no one said anything! Speaking of which, what happened to Hobbledehoy, Lover of Truth (yes, I know he was a bit annoying but he is not a bad man), SJB, Michael93, sunbeam, Luker, Mithrandylan, Thomistic Philosopher and so on, even Charlemagne and TKGS have barely posted. Maybe they are all busy but look what they have in common...
How would you know why all these people no longer post in CI?. Have all them told you why? You are spreading gossip out of nothing but a personal conjecture, just because your personal disliking for Ladislaus and I.
How strange that it is always you who brings up the same issue.
So Ladislaus, Stubborn and I, made all these people disappear?
Come on, Give me a break!
Go pray a Rosary...or do some actual reading that helps you understand and defend your anti-feeneyite theological position so we can discuss, but do it with real arguments instead of unwelcome gossip and ad hominems.
-
Nado and Ambrose were both accused of being women. That went way too far, no one said anything!
Nonsense. In the case of Nado, the confusion originates with a post in which Matthew himself addresses Nado as "he or she". After several posts in which people directly asked Nado whether he or she and Nado didn't respond directly, people made inferences from something in a post.
In the case of Ambrose, one poster uncovered a facebook account of a woman who called herself "Ambrose" and then had all the same positions as our CI Ambrose. When Matthew clarified that this was not true, Matthew threatened to ban anyone who continued to state or even imply that Ambrose was a woman. So it's just your imagination that "no one said anything."
You're digging deep, Mabel, because you can't stand the theological position taken by the "Feeneyites". That's true of many of you here on this thread.
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU called out "SJB" for constantly calling people idiots, and the insults coming from Don Paolo that made anything I've written look tame in comparison (he must have had a thesaurus in front of him opened to the term idiot or moron). You're very selective in who you criticize for "lack of charity" .
Basically your sanctimonious garment-rending about "lack of charity" seems reserved entirely to the "Feeneyites". In response to the insults made by the Cushingites AGAINST the "Feeneyites", you were astonishingly silent.
Instead, in response to these insults, you did nothing but roll out the
:applause: :rahrah:
smilies.
So please stop the sanctimious preaching about charity already, would you? So try to carry on without the "Captain Your Captain" Nado in charge of the fight.
-
2Vermont said:
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
The list just gets longer and longer.
I also remember how MyrnaM was insulted by Ladislaus. Wish I could remember which thread, or threads.
Perhaps Matthew doesn't realise that those who complain only do so when they have ABSOLUTELY had enough. And many don't complain at all. They simply disappear from Cathinfo.
Well that's different now that maybe Matthew doesn't realize it. Have you tried calling the complaint department at 1-800-waa-waaa to lodge your complaint?
-
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
So why would you want to keep posting here since CI is so full of injustices?
FYI, if it really mattered, which it doesn't, but if it did matter, whoever wants to waste their time can go back and find 100s of posts from the sede's with their list of ad hominems thrown about like rocks - and YOU'VE thrown your share of rocks and are just as guilty as the rest of us. Get over it.
Why not just do what Matthew said to do if you're going to post in the Crisis forum? "The elderly aren't exempt from the rule that if you want to argue Sedevacantism or Feeneyism, you need to bring your thick skin and a good shield." It's his forum, if you don't like it, start your own and see how you like it when posters knock the way you run it or tell you how they think it should be run.
It's interesting how supportive the Feeneyites are of this forum and how it's run. Probably because they know this forum is the only game in town for them.
I'm getting a lot off my chest my dear Stubborn. Trust me, I won't be posting here all that much anymore once I finish doing so.
-
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
So why would you want to keep posting here since CI is so full of injustices?
FYI, if it really mattered, which it doesn't, but if it did matter, whoever wants to waste their time can go back and find 100s of posts from the sede's with their list of ad hominems thrown about like rocks - and YOU'VE thrown your share of rocks and are just as guilty as the rest of us. Get over it.
Why not just do what Matthew said to do if you're going to post in the Crisis forum? "The elderly aren't exempt from the rule that if you want to argue Sedevacantism or Feeneyism, you need to bring your thick skin and a good shield." It's his forum, if you don't like it, start your own and see how you like it when posters knock the way you run it or tell you how they think it should be run.
It's interesting how supportive the Feeneyites are of this forum and how it's run. Probably because they know this forum is the only game in town for them.
I'm getting a lot off my chest my dear Stubborn. Trust me, I won't be posting here all that much anymore once I finish doing so.
Well, that's a shame. I'm very sorry to be the cause of your departure when you leave.
-
It wasn't just Myrna. Nado and Ambrose were both accused of being women. That went way too far, no one said anything! Speaking of which, what happened to Hobbledehoy, Lover of Truth (yes, I know he was a bit annoying but he is not a bad man), SJB, Michael93, sunbeam, Luker, Mithrandylan, Thomistic Philosopher and so on, even Charlemagne and TKGS have barely posted. Maybe they are all busy but look what they have in common...
Well, that's quite a barrage there.
Suffice to say you can't just rattle off one or two dozen names, and suggest that they left because of the cause you're defending. Anyone could do that! After all, people who don't post anymore aren't here to correct you, are they?
Hobbledehoy left for personal reasons. He was a huge fan of CathInfo and as far as I know, still is. I can't remember his exact reason for leaving, but he PM'd me and there's a good chance his reason wasn't for public consumption.
I was around when Ambrose was accused of being a woman, and I came down HARD on the offenders. So much for "no one said anything!"
Nado has been banned recently, so that's why he's not here anymore. As a sort of vindication for my "choosing" to ban him (over, say, Ladislaus) he had way more critics than fans. His rep score was 0. A person can skirt the rules, play games, etc. but when they tick everyone off, or play the troll, the rep score is the one thing that can't be "gamed" in such a case. That's what it's there for -- one more piece of data to help me moderate this forum.
Mithrandylan is active on AT LEAST one other forum, namely his own!
I have no idea about the other guys -- I try to have the attitude that a good SSPX priest would have (in the old days, I mean) to his congregation: they come, they go, and you can't control them. Who's to say what they can and can't do -- they are free. To try to control them would be A) futile and B) fascist/communist/bullying.
Sure I wish everyone good would stick around and be one big happy family (and everyone bad or annoying would go away), but unfortunately in this fallen world I don't get that option.
In other words: No, there will be no Utopia on the Internet either. Utopia is a hopeless goal on this earth IRL -- why should seeking an online Utopia be any less unrealistic?
-
And where is Emerentiana? Mabel, I think you should add her to your "another anti-Feeneyite bites the dust" list.
So why would you want to keep posting here since CI is so full of injustices?
FYI, if it really mattered, which it doesn't, but if it did matter, whoever wants to waste their time can go back and find 100s of posts from the sede's with their list of ad hominems thrown about like rocks - and YOU'VE thrown your share of rocks and are just as guilty as the rest of us. Get over it.
Why not just do what Matthew said to do if you're going to post in the Crisis forum? "The elderly aren't exempt from the rule that if you want to argue Sedevacantism or Feeneyism, you need to bring your thick skin and a good shield." It's his forum, if you don't like it, start your own and see how you like it when posters knock the way you run it or tell you how they think it should be run.
It's interesting how supportive the Feeneyites are of this forum and how it's run. Probably because they know this forum is the only game in town for them.
I'm getting a lot off my chest my dear Stubborn. Trust me, I won't be posting here all that much anymore once I finish doing so.
Then simply leave.
If there is so much to complain about CathInfo and the way the moderator runs it, what in the world are you doing here?
Go to the other forum, where you belong. You know which one. Join the anti-Cathinfo crowd there as you have already done.
-
With regard to my laying into Myrna, Myrna too exhibited a very childishly disruptive posting style. Pretty much on EVERY thread that related to some criticism of Francis, Myrna would chime in with the one-liner "And yet he's your pope." That became rather obnoxious after, say, about the 50th time or so.
Yes, I did use a reference to her as "granny Myrna" to underscore the absurdity of any untrained "grandmother" being able to declare the Holy See vacant on theological grounds. It's a form of argumentum ad absurdum.
And as Matthew quite easily figured out, when I solemnly declared "x, y, and z" to be manifest heretics and non-Catholics that too was a form of argumentum ad absurdum. If my declaration of manifest heresy on the part of these lay people meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, then a fortiori for any declarations made by them regarding the manifest heresy of Francis. And, in fact, lest the argument be lost on you, about 10 minutes and 2 posts later, I chimed in with an explanation of EXACTLY what I mean. My entire point was quite the OPPOSITE, underscoring that we have no business determining who is and who is not a heretic. Nishant, who's eminently charitable, at one point also adopted that kind of argument against a "manifest heretic"er.
-
With regard to my laying into Myrna, Myrna too exhibited a very childishly disruptive posting style. Pretty much on EVERY thread that related to some criticism of Francis, Myrna would chime in with the one-liner "And yet he's your pope." That became rather obnoxious after, say, about the 50th time or so.
Yes, I did use a reference to her as "granny Myrna" to underscore the absurdity of any untrained "grandmother" being able to declare the Holy See vacant on theological grounds. It's a form of argumentum ad absurdum.
I agree.
If an elderly woman (or man) is going to play "feisty", they need to be able to take at least as much as they dish out.
No fair letting them punch you to a bloody pulp (physically or verbally) while you stand there and do nothing, out of respect for their age.
What kind of lame deal is that?
I'm sure Myrna knew it might (or, likely would) offend/stimulate a response. She must have known the response she was aiming for.
Also note: It's not fair to make Myrna seem like some kind of hypocrite (who can dish out but not take) -- after all, she hasn't complained about this. It's others that are getting "offended for her".
So I'm not criticizing Myrna here -- I'm just talking about IN GENERAL for any elderly person jumping into an argument or verbal fray. I know quite a few elderly women that are feisty.
-
I know quite a few elderly women that are feisty.
And isn't it almost patronizing to lay off just due to age? That's almost a subtle insult in itself. We're not talking about physical violence here against the elderly. She has her wits about her, no? So what does getting into an argument on principles with an older person have to do with "abuse of the elderly" (which is almost what's being implied here). If, for instance, some older person started blaspheming against Our Blessed Mother, should I remain silent out of respect for the elderly? That doesn't even make sense and is being used a dishonest form of attack. It's common in various types of propaganda used by the media, to create an emotional link and then guilt by association. I still remember a debate between some Protestant and a Jew on TV where the Protestant said that Jews could not be saved. In response, the Jew kept bringing up "The h0Ɩ0cαųst", over and over again, even though that had NOTHING to do with the subject at hand and the Protestant wasn't the least bit "anti-Semitic". By the end of the debate, the Jews almost openly said that the Protestant was a h0Ɩ0cαųst-supporter for holding to the theological position that non-Catholics can't be saved.
-
Now, with ALL that said, I do admit that I often have problems with irascibility; it's currently the greatest vice that I am battling in my life. For the occasions where my harshness WAS motivated by a lack of charity, I do sincerely apologize. I'm trying to work on this. SOMETIMES the perceived harshness was just a calculated form of argument. At other times, I did genuinely lose my cool and acted intemperately. I get easily frustrated by certain things; my buttons get pushed. As I pointed out, I'm OK with an educated, well-informed person being arrogant about it. I'm actually quite moved by the uneducated person who's humble about it. What really pushes my buttons is a person who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and hasn't even the slightest education in theology and philosophy, and yet carries on with a hubris that would suggest he's the reincarnation of St. Thomas Aquinas.
-
Buh-bye.
-
Buh-bye.
It seems that was the first post of yours that I disliked.
Fare thee well.
-
:boxer: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer:
Take that you youngsters !!!!
-
Buh-bye.
It seems that was the first post of yours that I disliked.
Fare thee well.
For the life of me, having searched pages 14 to the present, I can't find where 2Vermont said that. But I did find where Ladislaus said that 2Vermont said that.
What 2Vermont said is:
Trust me, I won't be posting here all that much anymore once I finish doing so.
which I had interpreted, and by which I hoped that she meant that she would not be posting as much as before, but not that she was leaving us. If you are leaving 2V, be assured that I enjoyed having you here. God bless you, but I hope you'll hang around. At least the women's section!
-
:boxer: :boxer: :boxer: :boxer:
Take that you youngsters !!!!
hahaha, great :laugh2:
I know you have developed quite the thick skin, Myrna and I am actually fond of you, despite our differences.
Hugs to you :dancing:
-
For the life of me, having searched pages 14 to the present, I can't find where 2Vermont said that.
Matthew almost always deletes negative departure posts, but her's did end with "bye".
-
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU called out "SJB"
you can't be serious
-
It wasn't just Myrna. Nado and Ambrose were both accused of being women. That went way too far, no one said anything! Speaking of which, what happened to Hobbledehoy, Lover of Truth (yes, I know he was a bit annoying but he is not a bad man), SJB, Michael93, sunbeam, Luker, Mithrandylan, Thomistic Philosopher and so on, even Charlemagne and TKGS have barely posted. Maybe they are all busy but look what they have in common...
Well, that's quite a barrage there.
Suffice to say you can't just rattle off one or two dozen names, and suggest that they left because of the cause you're defending. Anyone could do that! After all, people who don't post anymore aren't here to correct you, are they?
Hobbledehoy left for personal reasons. He was a huge fan of CathInfo and as far as I know, still is. I can't remember his exact reason for leaving, but he PM'd me and there's a good chance his reason wasn't for public consumption.
I was around when Ambrose was accused of being a woman, and I came down HARD on the offenders. So much for "no one said anything!"
Nado has been banned recently, so that's why he's not here anymore. As a sort of vindication for my "choosing" to ban him (over, say, Ladislaus) he had way more critics than fans. His rep score was 0. A person can skirt the rules, play games, etc. but when they tick everyone off, or play the troll, the rep score is the one thing that can't be "gamed" in such a case. That's what it's there for -- one more piece of data to help me moderate this forum.
Mithrandylan is active on AT LEAST one other forum, namely his own!
I have no idea about the other guys -- I try to have the attitude that a good SSPX priest would have (in the old days, I mean) to his congregation: they come, they go, and you can't control them. Who's to say what they can and can't do -- they are free. To try to control them would be A) futile and B) fascist/communist/bullying.
Sure I wish everyone good would stick around and be one big happy family (and everyone bad or annoying would go away), but unfortunately in this fallen world I don't get that option.
In other words: No, there will be no Utopia on the Internet either. Utopia is a hopeless goal on this earth IRL -- why should seeking an online Utopia be any less unrealistic?
Several of those members are now at forum named removed.
Different forums have their different styles and sometimes people just need some trial and error before they find one that suits them. I know that many people appreciate the freedom that comes with Matthew's minimalist moderation style and would not be as happy anywhere else.
It is not my personal preference which is one reason this is not the main forum where I participate. But I think it is a good thing for CI to be here for those who thrive on this approach.
-
I know that many people appreciate the freedom that comes with Matthew's minimalist moderation style and would not be as happy anywhere else.
I love interacting with people who have different points of view. It keeps me honest and I learn a lot this way. If I just hid in a shell away from others with different points of view, that's when the sectarian mentality sets in. CI does a great service in allowing interactions between various flavors of Traditional Catholics (and even some Novus Ordo types), something which never happens in the real world.
-
I know that many people appreciate the freedom that comes with Matthew's minimalist moderation style and would not be as happy anywhere else.
I love interacting with people who have different points of view. It keeps me honest and I learn a lot this way. If I just hid in a shell away from others with different points of view, that's when the sectarian mentality sets in. CI does a great service in allowing interactions between various flavors of Traditional Catholics (and even some Novus Ordo types), something which never happens in the real world.
Yes, I know of a small forum that started up in September and is still struggling to get a reasonable amount of traffic. They banned a controversial poster who could have promoted a lot of much needed discussion on their forum. I question if they made the right decision.
-
I know that many people appreciate the freedom that comes with Matthew's minimalist moderation style and would not be as happy anywhere else.
I love interacting with people who have different points of view. It keeps me honest and I learn a lot this way. If I just hid in a shell away from others with different points of view, that's when the sectarian mentality sets in. CI does a great service in allowing interactions between various flavors of Traditional Catholics (and even some Novus Ordo types), something which never happens in the real world.
Yes, I know of a small forum that started up in September and is still struggling to get a reasonable amount of traffic. They banned a controversial poster who could have promoted a lot of much needed discussion on their forum. I question if they made the right decision.
I don't. You completely earned your ban, and the calumnies against myself and others are still online at SD.
-
I don't. You completely earned your ban, and the calumnies against myself and others are still online at SD.
I have never said anything nearly as bad as what gets said about me on your forum on a regular basis. You even autocorrect my name to Voldemort.
Besides, you have no credibility. You are an admitted liar.
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/forum.php?threadID=49127
@gopher: I lied when I first came here in hopes of getting attention. I had actually forgotten about that thread. That must be the source of the confusion. sbyvl36 (123 D)
New 14 Nov 2013
I guess it has to be pointed out that you are now claiming to be a middle aged Catholic who goes onto internet game sites and claims to be a pubescent boy while chatting with others. gopher27 (327 D) New 14 Nov 2013
Some people may complain about Matthew not keeping enough control over name-calling and attacks on his forum, but at least he does not participate in and encourage it. He sets a good example for his forum members, whether or not they choose to follow it.
-
You even autocorrect my name to Voldemort.
!!
Is this a Catholic forum? (Pardon my ignorance)
If so, and your statement is true, the autocorrect is bad enough, as an uncharitable / vindictive act of a moderator, but a reference to satanic laced pop culture?
Sbyvl, I see you are new to the forum. I pray your contributions are Catholic in nature.
-
It's mostly just a quarrel from another forum that should've been avoided. Give it no mind.
-
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU called out "SJB"
you can't be serious
I presumed he was referring to those in this thread who were calling him out.
(I did not downthumb you, btw)
-
It's mostly just a quarrel from another forum that should've been avoided. Give it no mind.
Got it. Thank you! Will do.
-
I wouldn't compare any of us Cathinfo posters to Christ, and I also wouldn't compare any Cathinfo posters to Barrabas. I don't think it is fair either way.
-
Nado has been banned recently, so that's why he's not here anymore. As a sort of vindication for my "choosing" to ban him (over, say, Ladislaus) he had way more critics than fans. His rep score was 0. A person can skirt the rules, play games, etc. but when they tick everyone off, or play the troll, the rep score is the one thing that can't be "gamed" in such a case. That's what it's there for -- one more piece of data to help me moderate this forum.
That is like picking Barrabas over Christ ...
I'm outta here.
It would seem hyperbole fornicated with blasphemy and gave birth to a damnable bastard - the above post.
Goodbye, Myrna.
-
That is like picking Barrabas over Christ ...
I'm outta here.
That's cult of personality - not an objective measure, and a drastically extreme analogy which indicates you are very upset. :pray:
edit: BTNYC's reply is harsh, but a better description.
-
:tv-disturbed:
-
You even autocorrect my name to Voldemort.
!!
Is this a Catholic forum? (Pardon my ignorance)
If so, and your statement is true, the autocorrect is bad enough, as an uncharitable / vindictive act of a moderator, but a reference to satanic laced pop culture?
Sbyvl, I see you are new to the forum. I pray your contributions are Catholic in nature.
Yes, it does claim to be a Catholic form. Based on his posting history, it appears that Sbyvl is here to publicize it and recruit members rather than contribute.
I suppose this is off-topic, but it does illustrate what sort of "competition" Matthew has.
-
I had a real account on Webdiplomacy.net. You linked to VDiplomacy.com.
I apologize. I have written to Matthew and asked him to remove my post.
-
See my PM to you.
-
Thank you.
-
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU called out "SJB"
you can't be serious
I presumed he was referring to those in this thread who were calling him out.
(I did not downthumb you, btw)
:facepalm: All we did was fight, for years.
-
Buh-bye.
It seems that was the first post of yours that I disliked.
Fare thee well.
For the life of me, having searched pages 14 to the present, I can't find where 2Vermont said that. But I did find where Ladislaus said that 2Vermont said that.
What 2Vermont said is:
Trust me, I won't be posting here all that much anymore once I finish doing so.
which I had interpreted, and by which I hoped that she meant that she would not be posting as much as before, but not that she was leaving us. If you are leaving 2V, be assured that I enjoyed having you here. God bless you, but I hope you'll hang around. At least the women's section!
Hi Nadir,
Thought I'd post one more time to thank you for your kind words. I also want to make it clear the reason why I am no longer posting (since you and I'm sure others are left wondering). Since my last goodbye post was too negative, I will just say that the main reason why I am no longer posting is because Feeneyism is allowed to be discussed here. It is not because of the lack of charity nor because of any issues with certain posters because I was doing just fine ignoring them.
Hopefully, this post will not be deleted because I do think it's important for others to see why someone leaves a forum. This way no one will be left wondering why I disappeared and no one can claim they knew why I left.
-
the main reason why I am no longer posting is because Feeneyism is allowed to be discussed here.
2V, I don't agree with many of your comments, nonetheless you will be missed.
Re: the quote above - in fairness, someone could insert "sedevacantism" or ____, for Feeneyism, which is usually confined to the subforum. So don't go there.
Remember us in your prayers please, as we will remember you likewise.
-
the main reason why I am no longer posting is because Feeneyism is allowed to be discussed here.
2V, I don't agree with many of your comments, nonetheless you will be missed.
Re: the quote above - in fairness, someone could insert "sedevacantism" or ____, for Feeneyism, which is usually confined to the subforum. So don't go there.
Remember us in your prayers please, as we will remember you likewise.
But I did go there. And yes, of course they could replace it with sedevacantism (although obviously I would disagree that the two are interchangeable). If they were against the discussion of SV here they could leave on that account. That's their prerogative (and I'm pretty sure that's happened before).
Anyway, I'm really done now....lol.
-
"I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."
1- Where is this from?
2- Spared them from what?
-
"I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."
1- Where is this from?
2- Spared them from what?
This quote is from a letter written by St. Jerome to Pope Damasus in the fights against Arianism which attacked two great mysteries of the Faith: the Trinity and the Incarnation.
37. He ever paid submissive homage to the Church, our supreme teacher through the Roman Pontiffs. Thus, with a view to putting an end to the controversy raging in the East concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity, he submitted the question to the Roman See for settlement, and wrote from the Syrian desert to Pope Damasus as follows:
I decided, therefore, to consult the Chair of Peter and that Roman faith which the Apostle praised; I ask for my soul's food from that city wherein I first put on the garment of Christ. . .I, who follow no other leader save Christ, associate myself with Your Blessedness, in communion, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For I know the Church was built upon that Rock. . . I beg you to settle this dispute. If you desire it I shall not be afraid to say there are Three Hypostases. If it is your wish let them draw up a Symbol of faith subsequent to that of Nicaea, and let us orthodox praise God in the same form of words as the Arians employ.[60]
38. And in his next letter: "Meanwhile I keep crying out, 'Any man who is joined to Peter's Chair, he is my man'."[61] Since he had learnt this "rule of faith" from his study of the Bible, he was able to refute a false interpretation of a Biblical text with the simple remark: "Yes, but the Church of God does not admit that."[62] When, again, Vigilantius quoted an Apocryphal book, Jerome was content to reply: "A book I have never so much as read! For what is the good of soiling one's hands with a book the Church does not receive?"[63] With his strong insistence on adhering to the integrity of the faith, it is not to be wondered at that he attacked vehemently those who left the Church; he promptly regarded them as his own personal enemies. "To put it briefly," he says, "I have never spared heretics, and have always striven to regard the Church's enemies as my own."[64] To Rufinus he writes: "There is one point in which I cannot agree with you: you ask me to spare heretics - or, in other words - not to prove myself a Catholic."[65] Yet at the same time Jerome deplored the lamentable state of heretics, and adjured them to return to their sorrowing Mother, the one source of salvation;[66] he prayed, too, with all earnestness for the conversion of those "who had quitted the Church and put away the Holy Spirit's teaching to follow their own notions."[67]
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html
-
"I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."
1- Where is this from?
2- Spared them from what?
This quote is from a letter written by St. Jerome to Pope Damasus in the fights against Arianism which attacked two great mysteries of the Faith: the Trinity and the Incarnation.
37. He ever paid submissive homage to the Church, our supreme teacher through the Roman Pontiffs. Thus, with a view to putting an end to the controversy raging in the East concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity, he submitted the question to the Roman See for settlement, and wrote from the Syrian desert to Pope Damasus as follows:
I decided, therefore, to consult the Chair of Peter and that Roman faith which the Apostle praised; I ask for my soul's food from that city wherein I first put on the garment of Christ. . .I, who follow no other leader save Christ, associate myself with Your Blessedness, in communion, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For I know the Church was built upon that Rock. . . I beg you to settle this dispute. If you desire it I shall not be afraid to say there are Three Hypostases. If it is your wish let them draw up a Symbol of faith subsequent to that of Nicaea, and let us orthodox praise God in the same form of words as the Arians employ.[60]
38. And in his next letter: "Meanwhile I keep crying out, 'Any man who is joined to Peter's Chair, he is my man'."[61] Since he had learnt this "rule of faith" from his study of the Bible, he was able to refute a false interpretation of a Biblical text with the simple remark: "Yes, but the Church of God does not admit that."[62] When, again, Vigilantius quoted an Apocryphal book, Jerome was content to reply: "A book I have never so much as read! For what is the good of soiling one's hands with a book the Church does not receive?"[63] With his strong insistence on adhering to the integrity of the faith, it is not to be wondered at that he attacked vehemently those who left the Church; he promptly regarded them as his own personal enemies. "To put it briefly," he says, "I have never spared heretics, and have always striven to regard the Church's enemies as my own."[64] To Rufinus he writes: "There is one point in which I cannot agree with you: you ask me to spare heretics - or, in other words - not to prove myself a Catholic."[65] Yet at the same time Jerome deplored the lamentable state of heretics, and adjured them to return to their sorrowing Mother, the one source of salvation;[66] he prayed, too, with all earnestness for the conversion of those "who had quitted the Church and put away the Holy Spirit's teaching to follow their own notions."[67]
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html
Thanks for the source.
I still don't know what he didn't spare them from though.
From blasting them with harsh language perhaps?
-
"I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."
1- Where is this from?
2- Spared them from what?
This quote is from a letter written by St. Jerome to Pope Damasus in the fights against Arianism which attacked two great mysteries of the Faith: the Trinity and the Incarnation.
37. He ever paid submissive homage to the Church, our supreme teacher through the Roman Pontiffs. Thus, with a view to putting an end to the controversy raging in the East concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity, he submitted the question to the Roman See for settlement, and wrote from the Syrian desert to Pope Damasus as follows:
I decided, therefore, to consult the Chair of Peter and that Roman faith which the Apostle praised; I ask for my soul's food from that city wherein I first put on the garment of Christ. . .I, who follow no other leader save Christ, associate myself with Your Blessedness, in communion, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For I know the Church was built upon that Rock. . . I beg you to settle this dispute. If you desire it I shall not be afraid to say there are Three Hypostases. If it is your wish let them draw up a Symbol of faith subsequent to that of Nicaea, and let us orthodox praise God in the same form of words as the Arians employ.[60]
38. And in his next letter: "Meanwhile I keep crying out, 'Any man who is joined to Peter's Chair, he is my man'."[61] Since he had learnt this "rule of faith" from his study of the Bible, he was able to refute a false interpretation of a Biblical text with the simple remark: "Yes, but the Church of God does not admit that."[62] When, again, Vigilantius quoted an Apocryphal book, Jerome was content to reply: "A book I have never so much as read! For what is the good of soiling one's hands with a book the Church does not receive?"[63] With his strong insistence on adhering to the integrity of the faith, it is not to be wondered at that he attacked vehemently those who left the Church; he promptly regarded them as his own personal enemies. "To put it briefly," he says, "I have never spared heretics, and have always striven to regard the Church's enemies as my own."[64] To Rufinus he writes: "There is one point in which I cannot agree with you: you ask me to spare heretics - or, in other words - not to prove myself a Catholic."[65] Yet at the same time Jerome deplored the lamentable state of heretics, and adjured them to return to their sorrowing Mother, the one source of salvation;[66] he prayed, too, with all earnestness for the conversion of those "who had quitted the Church and put away the Holy Spirit's teaching to follow their own notions."[67]
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html
Thanks for the source.
I still don't know what he didn't spare them from though.
From blasting them with harsh language perhaps?
Probably spare them from his "Perfect (Holy) Hatred" he spoke of in some of his letters. He replies about heretics: “I have hated them with a perfect hatred".
-
Probably spare them from his "Perfect (Holy) Hatred" he spoke of in some of his letters. He replies about heretics: “I have hated them with a perfect hatred".
I thought Our Lord condemned hating anyone, even enemies.
How does this square with "Love your enemies and bless them that curse you"? Are heretics and enemies of the Church an exception?
-
Probably spare them from his "Perfect (Holy) Hatred" he spoke of in some of his letters. He replies about heretics: “I have hated them with a perfect hatred".
I thought Our Lord condemned hating anyone, even enemies.
How does this square with "Love your enemies and bless them that curse you"? Are heretics and enemies of the Church an exception?
Well, that is a good question. It has to do with the concept of virtuous hatred and how it actually belongs to charity.
I think that is best answered by St. Thomas Aquinas here:
From the Summa:
Whether sinners must be loved out of charity
Objection 1: It seems that we should not love sinners out of charity. For it is written in the Psalms:"I have hated the wicked" (Ps 118:113). Now, David had perfect charity. Therefore, sinners should be hated rather than loved, out of charity.
Objection 2: Further, "love is proved by deeds," as St. Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (In Evang. 30). But good men do no works of love to the wicked: on the contrary they do works that appear to be of hate, according to the Psalm (100: 8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land;" also, God commanded in Exodus (22:18): "You shall not suffer a witch to live." Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.
Objection 3: Further, it is proper to friendship that one should desire and wish good things for one's friends. Now the saints, out of charity, desired evil things for the wicked, according to Psalm 9:18: "May the wicked be turned into Hell." Therefore sinners should not be loved out of charity.
Objection 4: Further, it is proper to friends to rejoice in and desire the same things. Now charity does not make us desire what the sinners desire, nor to rejoice in what gives them joy, but rather the contrary. Therefore, sinners should not be loved out of charity.
Objection 5: Further, it is proper to friends to associate together, according to Ethics (chap 5, n. 3). But we should not associate with sinners, according to 2 Cor 6: 17: "Wherefore come out from among them and be separate." Therefore, we should not love sinners out of charity.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctrina Christi I, 30), "When it is said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, it is evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbor." Now, sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy nature. Therefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity.
I answer to these arguments that two things should be considered in the sinner, his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for eternal happiness upon which the relationship of charity is based. as stated above (A. 3, q. 23, a. 1-5). Wherefore, we ought to love sinners out of charity in respect to their nature. [4]
On the other hand, their guilt offends God and is an impediment to their eternal happiness. Wherefore, in respect to their guilt, so long as they offend God all sinners ought to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to Luke (14:26). [5] For it is our duty to hate in the sinner his being a sinner, and to love in him his being a man capable of achieving eternal happiness. [6] This is to love him out of charity for the love of God.
Reply to objection 1: The Prophet hated the iniquitous as such, and the object of his hate was their iniquity. [7]This is the perfect hatred of which the same Prophet says (Ps. 139: 22): "I hate them with a perfect hatred." Now, for this same reason one hates what is bad in a person and loves what is good in him. Hence also this perfect hatred belongs to charity. [8]
Reply to objection 2: As the Philosopher observes (Ethics, 9, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we should not deny them the benefits of friendship so long as there is hope of their mending their ways. And we should help them regain virtue more readily than to regain money, had they lost it, for virtue means more to friendship than money. [9]
When, however, such persons fall into very great wickedness and become incurable, we should refuse them friendly treatment. It is for this reason that both divine and human laws command such sinners to be put to death, because it is more likely that they will harm others than mend their ways. [10]
Nevertheless the judge issues such sentences not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of love of charity, because he prefers the public good to the life of one single person. Moreover, the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner if he converts, as expiation for his crime; and if he does not convert, it profits him by putting an end to his sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin more.
Reply to objection 3: Such like imprecations that we come across in the Holy Scripture may be understood in three ways: First, by way of prediction, not by way of wish, so that the sense is: "The wicked shall be turned into Hell."
Second, by way of wish, so that the wisher�s desire refers not to the punishment the man receives, but to the justice of the punisher, according to Psalm 58:11: "The just shall rejoice when he shall see revenge." For according to the Book of Wisdom (1:13), not even God "delights in the perdition of the wicked" when He punishes them, but He rejoices in His justice, according to the Psalm (11:7): "The Lord is righteous and He loves righteousness."
Third, so that this desire refers to the removal of the guilt, not of the chastisement, [11] in such a way that the sin be destroyed, but the man may live.
Reply to objection 4: We love sinners out of charity not so as to desire what they desire and to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them desire what we desire and rejoice in what makes us rejoice. [12] Hence it is written (Jer 15:19): "Let them convert unto you; but you shall not convert unto them."
Reply to objection 5: The weak should avoid communicating with sinners on account of the danger of being perverted by them. But it is commendable for the perfect, [13] whose fall is not to be feared, to communicate with sinners in order to convert them. Thus, the Lord ate and drank with sinners as reported in Matthew 9:11-13. Yet all should avoid the society of sinners when it means participation in sin. Thus it is written (2 Cor 6:17): "Go away from among them and touch not the unclear thing," that is, what is in accordance with sin. [14]
Virtuous hatred belongs to charity
St. Luke (14:26) says: "If any man comes to Me, and hates not his father and mother, and his wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." It is a mistake to think that Our Lord did not teach that we can hate. There is a holy hatred that is an evangelical virtue. A love that would not generate hatred would not be love. Indeed, if I love someone, I must hate what brings evil to him. It is this holy hatred - its motives, nature and limits - that is magnificently taught in this text of St. Thomas.
When Should We Love Sinners & When Should We Hate Them?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/D031_Goodheart_2.htm
-
I don't. You completely earned your ban, and the calumnies against myself and others are still online at SD.
I retract and apologize for the untrue claim that there are any calumnies against me there