Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: JPaul banned  (Read 3376 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22404
  • Reputation: +19628/-139
  • Gender: Male
JPaul banned
« on: August 18, 2018, 12:14:39 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!3
  • JPaul has been banned for reasons similar to Wessex, but since these are individuals, I will address JPaul separately.

    It would seem that JPaul's outlook on the Traditional Catholic world, especially the Resistance, in the past 6 years has been colored by a single experience (or series of experiences) he had while driving with Fr. Pfeiffer in the early days of the Resistance.

    He can't seem to get over this one experience. It colors everything he sees, hears, or reads today. Everything is filtered through that one lens.

    Like Wessex, he doesn't seem to have any heroes in the Traditional movement, or any "dog in this fight" as it were.

    But most importantly, he seems to be downright damaged goods in this respect. He was mixed up with Fr. Pfeiffer for too long or something. To his credit he didn't follow Fr. Pfeiffer down a wicked path (he was no longer on board once Fr. Pfeiffer went off the deep end), but unfortunately he still holds some bad ideas (for example, about Bp. Williamson) dating back to his days with Fr. Pfeiffer. Such that he hasn't been able to completely heal or move on. He doesn't seem to have a favorite group, or a place he attends Traditional Mass anymore.

    He seems to be another ex-Trad who was seduced by the siren song of perfection, and has now become a disaffected, disgruntled home aloner who doesn't like the Conciliar Church.


    I won't tolerate Pfeifferite lies/propaganda being spewed on this forum, whether or not you're currently a Pfeifferite or not. Even recovering Pfeifferites and those who have never supported Fr. Pfeiffer have to guard their speech. This is not an anything-goes forum, nor are sins against the 8th commandment (detraction, slander, gossip, lies) ever tolerated here. You can try, but any offending posts will be deleted as soon as I read or hear about them. I don't care if the sins of the tongue target Fr. Pfeiffer or Bishop Williamson. Sins of the tongue are forbidden here.

    And to any of you CathInfo-haters reading this, I defy you to produce any examples of sins of the tongue on this forum. Just send me a link in a quick e-mail: my address is matthew at cathinfo dot com. I will not only address the sin(s), but I'll issue a written apology for each post I failed to delete in a separate thread for EACH POST THAT YOU FIND. I will entitle the threads, "Matthew has failed as a moderator - #1", #2, etc. Within the thread, I will link to the thread, or give the old link if the whole thread had to be deleted.
    This is a chance to humiliate Matthew on CathInfo! And such posts won't even be deleted or moderated!  Come on, guys, CathInfo is a cesspool of filth as you always say -- it should be easy to find some "crap" in a cesspool or septic tank, right? Don't tell me you can't find any filth in a cesspool! In other words, it's time to put up or shut up.

    Note: exposing truths for the public good is not even detraction, much less slander which involves untruths. Criticism (stating one's personal opinions) of public individuals is also morally licit.

    P.S.
    Bishop Williamson didn't throw anybody under the bus. Honorable men simply don't act this way.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3478/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #1 on: August 18, 2018, 01:18:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • These sins of the tongue you mention, are they only sins against the SSPX et al or  also for sins of the tongue against 
    CMRI and Bishop Pivarunas of which I have read many times from people.  

    I have no intention of going back to find them, just want to know for future how your rules apply.

    Just for your record, I have always enjoyed posting and reading on your forum, my only objection is I want the ad blocker on my computer because I realize you can't choose the ads but I really do try not to look or read many ads, not only here but all over the Internet.  Every time I get on lately I get a screen encouraging me to disable my ad blocker.  It didn't use to be that way!   

    Thanks in advance for your reply.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16456
    • Reputation: +9029/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #2 on: August 18, 2018, 02:20:22 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • These sins of the tongue you mention, are they only sins against the SSPX et al or  also for sins of the tongue against
    CMRI and Bishop Pivarunas of which I have read many times from people.  

    Those were legitimate criticisms of the organization and some of their theological positions ... unless I missed something.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3478/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #3 on: August 18, 2018, 02:28:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • Thanks for admitting the evil deed was done, as I said I am not going back to retrieve anything.  

    "legitimate criticisms?" That could be the case for any sin against the tongue, according to the poster or just be parroting? Nevertheless, I am anxious to see what the rules are in more detail. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16456
    • Reputation: +9029/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #4 on: August 18, 2018, 02:31:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Thanks for admitting the evil deed was done, as I said I am not going back to retrieve anything.  

    "legitimate criticisms?" That could be the case for any sin against the tongue, according to the poster or just be parroting? Nevertheless, I am anxious to see what the rules are in more detail.

    Matthew has already outlined that the criticism of public figures doesn't qualify for censure.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16456
    • Reputation: +9029/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #5 on: August 18, 2018, 02:32:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Note: exposing truths for the public good is not even detraction, much less slander which involves untruths. Criticism (stating one's personal opinions) of public individuals is also morally licit.

    You were accusing me of "misleading" for stating the fact that the CMRI twice published a particular theological article.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3478/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #6 on: August 18, 2018, 02:47:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew has already outlined that the criticism of public figures doesn't qualify for censure.
    I am sure Matthew can speak for himself.  

    Quote
    You were accusing me of "misleading" for stating the fact that the CMRI twice published a particular theological article.
    Not to worry, Lad, I have never since I registered here asked for anyone to be banned and I never will. 

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8930
    • Reputation: +3535/-729
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #7 on: August 20, 2018, 07:12:02 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • I shall miss him.
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3697
    • Reputation: +2320/-1081
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #8 on: August 20, 2018, 10:33:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When the history of the Church is written about our time period, there will be 2 main themes: 

    1.  The revolution in the Church due to V2/new mass, and the consequent apostasy of 90% of so-called catholics.
    2.  The disarray, in-fighting and chaos CAUSED and PROMOTED BY 95% of trad priests/bishops, who, in the face of no hierarchy, spent their time trying to grow a movement, instead of growing the Faith.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3478/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #9 on: August 20, 2018, 10:57:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When the history of the Church is written about our time period, there will be 2 main themes:

    1.  The revolution in the Church due to V2/new mass, and the consequent apostasy of 90% of so-called catholics.
    2.  The disarray, in-fighting and chaos CAUSED and PROMOTED BY 95% of trad priests/bishops, who, in the face of no hierarchy, spent their time trying to grow a movement, instead of growing the Faith.
    A consequence of having no True Pontiff and Pride from the remnant Bishops.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3697
    • Reputation: +2320/-1081
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #10 on: August 20, 2018, 11:14:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • A lack of a true pope does not excuse the power-hungry, control-freak, movement-growing attitude of 95% of trad bishops/priests.  It’s a pervasive problem which filters down to the laity, and destroys families, chapels and, for some, their souls.  Blaming this on the lack of a good pope is overly simplistic.  


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3478/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #11 on: August 20, 2018, 12:07:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A lack of a true pope does not excuse the power-hungry, control-freak, movement-growing attitude of 95% of trad bishops/priests.  It’s a pervasive problem which filters down to the laity, and destroys families, chapels and, for some, their souls.  Blaming this on the lack of a good pope is overly simplistic.  
    I didn't say it was an excuse, it is a fact when there is no earthly head, as you rightly say, that power-hungry, control-freak attitude comes into play and the devil dances.  
    Not overly simplistic just what happens, something like when the teacher leaves the room and the students have a "party."  When the parents are gone and leave the kids at home alone, anything goes.
    When we have a True Pontiff again, you will see Catholics will fall in line.  There will be One Fold and One Shepherd, that is God's promise.  
    Don't worry, just pray, as the Bible says, "Watch and Pray."

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3697
    • Reputation: +2320/-1081
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #12 on: August 20, 2018, 12:14:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There have been plenty of disputes, conflicts and uncharity in the history of the Church.  The existance of a true pope can force people to agree on doctrine and the liturgy.  There's still plenty of room for disagreement, discord and bickering.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3478/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #13 on: August 20, 2018, 12:27:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There have been plenty of disputes, conflicts and uncharity in the history of the Church.  The existance of a true pope can force people to agree on doctrine and the liturgy.  There's still plenty of room for disagreement, discord and bickering.
    Read the Papal Encyclicals and you will notice how during those times you described the Pope stepped in and had plenty to say. 
    Where is your pope today? 

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3697
    • Reputation: +2320/-1081
    • Gender: Male
    Re: JPaul banned
    « Reply #14 on: August 20, 2018, 12:38:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How many CENTURIES did it take for the Church to settle the debate on the immaculate conception?  Debate started in the 1200s and the dogma was defined in the late 1800s, so that's 600 years.  An orthodox hierarchy/pope does not mean that disputes/agendas will not exist.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16