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.

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.

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.

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

I am sure Matthew can speak for himself.  

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. 

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 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.  

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.

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.