Both are wrong. What he said absolutely equated her with the Faithful Departed...and he never denied that.
P.S.
It was brought to my attention that Poche was "in the right" in the RBG kerfuffle. All he reportedly said was, "May her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace."
I didn't really care if poche was banned except that other good members left or were banned because of poche. Now that poche is banned, please, Matthew, unban Klas4ge or whatever his name was and Mark76 and send an email to BTNYC informing him that poche is banned. And if there are any other members who left because of poche.
I removed the ban on Klas and Mark, and sent a message to BTNYC.👍👍👍
No one is required to be an active member. We all have free will. I can't force anyone to join or stay on CathInfo.
I removed the ban on Klas and Mark, and sent a message to BTNYC.Great.
No one is required to be an active member. We all have free will. I can't force anyone to join or stay on CathInfo.
I removed the ban on Klas and Mark, and sent a message to BTNYC.Thank you Matthew -- from KlasG4e (Know, love, and serve God 4 ever).
Whenever I saw a thread initiated by Poche, I didn’t bother to read it.That was my modus operandi as well.
Thank you Matthew -- from KlasG4e (Know, love, and serve God 4 ever).Amen!
Does anyone remember if pooch was S rev around E or E rev around S??
If a Trad seminarian said even a third of what Poche did, he'd be shown the door very quickly. That's how bad it was. Glad that he's gone.
Thanks for banning poche and unbanning those other members, Matthew. He was practically a male version of the Susan from the Parish Council meme.I'm not familiar with that meme.
"Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis."Welcome back, Mark!
Thank you.
It is a pleasure to come in from the cold.
I'm not familiar with that meme.
Thank you.
It is a pleasure to come in from the cold.
Poche is banned
"Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis."A ‘thumb down’ for being ‘unbanned’?
A ‘thumb down’ for being ‘unbanned’?It appears almost every post in this thread and in Lad's thread regarding banning poche has gotten a down thumb...and I highly doubt it's poche under a new account.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
It appears almost every post in this thread and in Lad's thread regarding banning poche has gotten a down thumb...and I highly doubt it's poche under a new account.
The latter.
In the spirit of De mortuis nil nisi bonum, it is not inappropriate to recall amidst all the jubilation that whatever else might be said about poche, he was never rude, coarse, snide, or insulting in either his comments or his disagreements with anyone. Temperance in discussion and argument might not be the greatest or the most important virtue, but it is indeed a virtue and as such is worthy of remark and imitation, especially as no one here, myself certainly included, is in any way regretful that he has been banned.
Likely, it was Cera.I don't think so. She hasn't been online in a couple of days.
Poche's disoriented Catholic, soul-mate.
It could be Poche under a new account, you never know.I don't think that's his style. I suspect a poster who has a tendency to defend him.
It's a satire of White Boomer women who are diehard modernists.That cartoon of the dykey-looking bipedal carbon-based life form who was (possibly) assigned female at birth absolutely nails it!
A tweet from Susan's "official" twitter account:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a85bec2c6a4b0bfccb7ef07a3af47d9e)
Another meme:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-888246c01958f0596e5c4f9969e17e77)
Welcome back Mark! I love the website.
I don't think that's his style. I suspect a poster who has a tendency to defend him.
Poche was many things but never sneaky or dishonest.[/quote]
claudel quoteQuotePoche was many things but never sneaky or dishonest.
Likely, it was Cera.
[color]
Poche's disoriented Catholic, soul-mate.
claudel quote
Poche was many things but never sneaky or dishonest.
Incredulous quote
Likely, it was Cera. Poche's disoriented Catholic soul-mate.
You're right; it isn't his style. Poche was many things but never sneaky or dishonest. Sadly, he never listened to sense either.When I meant it wasn't his style I was thinking more along the lines of not being revengeful.
Taking Pope St. Pius X's, et al, quotes out of context isn't dishonest or sneaky?
Taking Pope St. Pius X's, et al, quotes out of context isn't dishonest or sneaky?
When I meant it wasn't his style I was thinking more along the lines of not being revengeful.
If you're innocently duped, you don't feel any compulsion to distort the truth one direction or the other. You don't distort things when you're just looking for the truth.
I think it would be difficult to find genuinely probative evidence that poche willfully distorted the truth. After all, there are at least a dozen conciliar-oriented websites that are stocked with the sort of cherry-picked quotes—all tending to celebrate the council and the Newchurch that emerged in its revolutionary aftermath—that poche was forever posting here. I think it's likely that he frequented such sites on a regular basis and brought the fruits [ahem] of his research back here. He was, after all, Newchurch right down to his corpuscles.
Take, for example, the quotes that suggest that Pius XI's Mit brennender Sorge was nothing but a condemnation of Hitler and the nαzι regime. Poche must have posted those sentences here twenty times or more in the eight years I've been around. Of course, even the Jews are fans of those bits in that encyclical, though naturally for their own malicious reasons.
Poche seems genuinely to have believed that what he wrote was true. The truly Trad thing to do would be to remember him occasionally in our prayers, with the object being that he'll awaken from his delusional dream before it's too late.
I think it would be difficult to find genuinely probative evidence that poche willfully distorted the truth. After all, there are at least a dozen conciliar-oriented websites that are stocked with the sort of cherry-picked quotes—all tending to celebrate the council and the Newchurch that emerged in its revolutionary aftermath—that poche was forever posting here. I think it's likely that he frequented such sites on a regular basis and brought the fruits [ahem] of his research back here. He was, after all, Newchurch right down to his corpuscles.I would agree with this except he was corrected probably just as many times and continued to post the same things anyway.
Take, for example, the quotes that suggest that Pius XI's Mit brennender Sorge was nothing but a condemnation of Hitler and the nαzι regime. Poche must have posted those sentences here twenty times or more in the eight years I've been around. Of course, even the Jews are fans of those bits in that encyclical, though naturally for their own malicious reasons.
Poche seems genuinely to have believed that what he wrote was true. The truly Trad thing to do would be to remember him occasionally in our prayers, with the object being that he'll awaken from his delusional dream before it's too late.
What you meant didn't require explaining.Yes, it did because what I meant was not the same thing you thought I meant.
Grow up, little girly-man. The one thing you can be relied upon to do is miss the point.
claudel, please try to calm down. You ruthlessly excoriated CryptoNox on another thread for asking a question about the Confiteor ... simply because he didn't understand something. There's no need for that.
Thank you to all for your kind words and welcome.
There is one thing,I am warning everyone now that Poche may try to come back on here with a different account. I hope this won't be the case but mark my words.Poche was banned at Suscipe Domine some years ago and never tried coming back with a different account. So I don't expect it here either.
This is a delicate matter, but as nobody else has raised it yet, I shall. With poche gone, the average number of daily comments at CathInfo has already dropped by about fifteen hundred. One long-standing thread in particular is in danger of sinking without trace. So my question to you, Mark, is this: Friday or not, what's your dinner?Reminds me of that Taj Mahal song "Fishin' Blues": "Many fish bites if ya gots good bait…"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Closing thoughts on the Poche ban.Except in Leo Frank's case, he was most likely innocent. Jim Conley was most likely Mary Phagan's murderer.
The reality is, people die and their souls go to Hell... en masse.
Bl. Maria de Agreda quoted Our Lady as stating, in the “Mystical City of God”:
“It is a battle between Babylon and Jerusalem until the end of time”.
The souls of Poche, Ginsburg, Calles and Leo Frank will reach their just eternity based on which camp they died in.
Except in Leo Frank's case, he was most likely innocent. Jim Conley was most likely Mary Phagan's murderer.
That rubbish has been blown entirely out of the water about a thousand times, troll! Before you abandon this site forever, search the archives for a recent thread on the topic—if you dare.Well I dont know about you, but folks like BTNYC would be delighted to know that Conley was a black man. It's a win-win situation either way!
Well I dont know about you, but folks like BTNYC would be delighted to know that Conley was a black man. It's a win-win situation either way!
claudel quote
Grow up, little girly-man. The one thing you can be relied upon to do is miss the point.
You're a funny Boomer, claudel.
Which poster do the CA rank and file regulars find the most troubling: Poche, Jayne, or Greg? I have entertained myself over the years watching some here go apoplectic over the aforementioned posters. Are Jayne and Greg banned as well?
claudel quote:
I'm not a boomer
Neither of them have lied and distorted and also promoted error/heresy condemned by the Church. Nor have Jayne or Greg.
Oh, yes you are!
Prove it, moron.
Which poster do the CA rank and file regulars find the most troubling: Poche, Jayne, or Greg? I have entertained myself over the years watching some here go apoplectic over the aforementioned posters. Are Jayne and Greg banned as well?No, I am not banned and I just posted earlier in this thread. I suspect most members who have been here less that five years do not even know who I am. Or, if they do, they think of me as someone who argues with flat earthers, not a notorious forum trouble maker comparable to Poche.
Prove it, moron.While you may not be of the physical age of the typical boomer, your lack of civility and inability to reason demonstrates the boomer mentality.
Prove it, moron.
While you may not be of the physical age of the typical boomer, your lack of civility and inability to reason demonstrates the boomer mentality.
You're in your 70s. You're a Boomer. BOOO...BOOOOOOOOO...BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMER!!
By the way, Greg is banned, but not over religious issues. His rudeness to the forum owner passed what Matthew was willing to tolerate.
While you may not be of the physical age of the typical boomer, your lack of civility and inability to reason demonstrates the boomer mentality.
Technically speaking Claudel may be from the "Silent Generation" .
Many Nam Vets were.
Thank you for serving Claudel!
Like moi, claudel is a VN Veteran.
I thought Claudel was born during the war. But why don't people like him? I think he is one of the best posters here. I always like reading his posts. I think he can reason well enough though sometimes he does insult people. Though he has never insulted me.
I thought Claudel was born during the war. But why don't people like him? I think he is one of the best posters here. I always like reading his posts. I think he can reason well enough though sometimes he does insult people. Though he has never insulted me.Read his posts above in this topic. He's not a nice person and his insults are unnecessary.
Look at the chart provided by Incredulous. Then drop us a line when your testicles finally descend, little girly-boy.Disgusting.
Technically speaking Claudel may be from the "Silent Generation" .Interesting graph, but I'm not sure how much the idea of naming "generations" as if they were separate classes of people really makes sense. Maybe with the Boomer generation it makes some sense, because that generation is defined by objective, concrete events, namely the end of World War II and the subsequent large number of children produced by people of a similar age group. But after that ... I dunno, I don't see any objective basis for subsequent names of generations.
Many Nam Vets were.
Thank you for serving Claudel!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Generation_timeline.svg/1024px-Generation_timeline.svg.png)
Absolutely true. Greg was outspoken and deliberately provocative at times, and he was intolerant of anything that he considered sanctimonious or just plain stupid. He seemed to enjoy creating controversy, and as a result, almost everyone sparred with him at some point or another. But he used his material success and prosperity in a manner consistent with the corporal works of mercy. His generosity with employment advice and concrete offers of job assistance has had no parallel here at CathInfo. For that reason alone, I admired him and regret his absence (well, sometimes). Moreover, I think that the malice and contempt for Greg that some people here are still ready and willing to express says a great deal more about them than about him.
Interesting graph, but I'm not sure how much the idea of naming "generations" as if they were separate classes of people really makes sense. Maybe with the Boomer generation it makes some sense, because that generation is defined by objective, concrete events, namely the end of World War II and the subsequent large number of children produced by people of a similar age group. But after that ... I dunno, I don't see any objective basis for subsequent names of generations.
.
From the Iliad of Homer, and ancient Greek epic poem: Like the generations of leaves, the lives of mortal men. Now the wind scatters the old leaves across the earth, now the living timber bursts with the new buds and spring comes round again. And so with men: as one generation comes to life, another dies away.
For those who were wondering like moi about the connection between Spork and the Jєωιѕн emblems see:Where in this article does it say anything at all about Jєωιѕн emblems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork)
Look at the chart provided by Incredulous. Then drop us a line when your testicles finally descend, little girly-boy.You were born in 1946 or 1945. The former is the Boomer gen and the latter is where the Silents end. So even if you technically fall under the Silent category, you and your generation share mostly the same mentality as the Boomers. Let us not be deontological in our use of semantics. "Boomer" is a colloquial term for anyone over the age of 60 or so, and whose body hasn't yet taken the room temperature challenge (which is now almost the entirety of the Greatest Pawns generation) . That means you, too.
Let us not be deontological in our use of semantics.
"Boomer" is a colloquial term for anyone over the age of 60 or so, and whose body hasn't yet taken the room temperature challenge (which is now almost the entirety of the Greatest Pawns generation). That means you, too.
Disgusting.
You were born in 1946 or 1945. The former is the Boomer gen and the latter is where the Silents end.
If you're going to try to impress readers by using a voguish academic term to demonstrate the extent of your formal study and the breadth of your academic sophistication, you ought to choose a term that has relevance in the context into which you drag it. Unfortunately for you, "deontological" is here a fish out of water, and what its use demonstrates most significantly is your dishonesty and moral impoverishment. You underscore your shallowness and inadequacy rather than any intellectual formation worthy of the name.
Talk about grasping at straws! Here are how these pitiably desperate sentences translate into plain English. "Since I am wrong on the facts, I'd better now declare, with Humpty Dumpty, that words mean whatever I want them to mean. I'm certainly not going to let some old jerk cause me to lose face! I mean, he has no intersectionality at all! Besides, I can always count on my fellow preteens here at CI to snigger along with me. Dude, it's so cool to be based!"
By the way, since you have shown yourself to be so extraordinarily age-conscious, how about confessing your own chronological age, girly-boy? I already know your maturational age, of course.
With poche gone, the average number of daily comments at CathInfo has already dropped by about fifteen hundred.
One long-standing thread in particular is in danger of sinking without trace. So my question to you, Mark, is this: Friday or not, what's your dinner?
I appreciate your refreshing honesty, tbh. It's your way of speaking, especially considering you're from NY, and it's not crass or anything.
Very kind of you; I won't forget your words, especially now, when the Sanctimony Squad is pressing on all sides. Cheers!Unlike Poche, Claudel, you are well worth picking over. I like your style!
H/t to AD, too, for his delightfully cranky comment. Poche as a rebel against the government's tiresome food pyramid is an idea to ponder. I'm not ready to go out to buy some Velveeta, but … well, you get the idea.
Unlike Poche, Claudel, you are well worth picking over. I like your style!
Indeed, the otherwise-bombastic pseudointellectual shows his true colors by diving into the sewer with this puerile insult.Yea, but it's NOT your forum, that's the point. Stop acting like it is.
If this were my forum, I would ban the guy for this comment alone. Croix got banned for less.
I thought Claudel was born during the war. But why don't people like him? I think he is one of the best posters here. I always like reading his posts. I think he can reason well enough though sometimes he does insult people. Though he has never insulted me.I agree. Even though we have our disagreements, I find his writing style witty and he seems like a decent chap.
Yea, but it's NOT your forum, that's the point. Stop acting like it is.
I like some of your post, but your holier than thou attitude and quickness to scandalize others who don't measure up to your scruples is getting a little played out. Let the moderator moderate and not encourage others to get on your ban-wagon. ::)
I agree. Even though we have our disagreements, I find his writing style witty and he seems like a decent chap.
So far, QvD, three people have down-thumbed you for writing what you did. I promise that I wasn't one of them!I’m over the downvote thing, it’s a broken and useless system. Most of them (80+%) were from Croix. There are posters who will give me 5-10 at a clip just to be vindictive. Good Catholics right? 🙄 I very seldom give a downvote even though I’m tempted to give many, I try to practice self control. 😀
[wink]
I appreciate the information, Captain Obvious, that this isn't my forum. Nevertheless, I am as entitled as you are to post my opinions. Evidently your hypocrisy escapes you in trying to dictate what I can and cannot post here. You'll note that I didn't even request that claudel be banned for his vulgar comments, merely said that I would ban him if he were on a forum that I moderated.I find it interesting (surprising?) that most posters here have ignored the vulgarity (at best). I can see messing up as we all do from time to time, but then I would think a Catholic gentleman (especially an older and wiser one) would at least apologize for it once brought to his attention.
I find it interesting (surprising?) that most posters here have ignored the vulgarity (at best). I can see messing up as we all do from time to time, but then I would think a Catholic gentleman (especially an older and wiser one) would at least apologize for it once brought to his attention.Vermont, you are absolutely correct and I apologize! I think you know me well enough to know that I’m very careful about using any profanity or vulgarity. Not long ago I legitimately criticized Croix regarding his effeminate downvoting attacks against you, me and others. I even apologized to the forum for going a bit too far. I reread Claudel’s posts on this thread and some were certainly vulgar and crass. I still like Claudel’s style, but I suggest that he retract the posts. (This is coming from a “Baby Boomer”. 😀)
I’m over the downvote thing, it’s a broken and useless system. Most of them (80+%) were from Croix. There are posters who will give me 5-10 at a clip just to be vindictive. Good Catholics right? 🙄 I very seldom give a downvote even though I’m tempted to give many, I try to practice self control. 😀
Indeed, the otherwise-bombastic pseudointellectual shows his true colors by diving into the sewer with this puerile insult.
If this were my forum, I would ban the guy for this comment alone. Croix got banned for less.
IMO, the downvote option is a good feature of this forum, and I have more downvotes (percentage-wise) than most forum members. I don't assume vindictiveness with the downvotes, though it's a possibility.I don’t have a problem with the idea per se, but this system on Cathinfo leaves much to be desired. I know, for a fact, that approximately 80% of my downvotes are from Croix under various pseudonyms. If the system only allowed someone to give say 5 downvotes a day to a particular member or if their name was attached to their vote, it would be a great improvement. One good thing that has come out of this is my reluctance to give others downvotes too hastily. (I just gave you an upvote to make up for any downvotes I gave you in the past. 😀)
Downvoting helps to ease arguments, since a downvote can be given instead of argument. Otherwise, this thread would probably be even more contentious.
However, I upvoted Alaric's post #109 on this thread, because it made sense.
I hope you understand that a few of us might be concerned about your above post, Ladislaus.
Your actions, which included the threat of not posting again until Poche was banned, show that you believe that you have a certain amount of power here. That is a bit disconcerting, since now you are saying that you want someone else to be banned.
What happened to the “Burning at the Stake” emoji ?The Wine, Beer & Mary Juanita emojis are also gone :confused:
Like excommunication, Cathinfo should have a solemn ritual for member banning.
I hope you understand that a few of us might be concerned about your above post, Ladislaus.Actually, it wasn't a threat. He DID stop posting (with one exception to explain why he wasn't posting) until poche was banned. I remember you have expressed your desire that all sedes be banned. You could try not posting until all sedes are banned. Who knows, if you get enough people to join you, it might work. Don't blame Ladislaus for making a very accurate assessment of the situation and then effectively bringing about a change that the vast majority of us were in agreement with.
Your actions, which included the threat of not posting again until Poche was banned, show that you believe that you have a certain amount of power here. That is a bit disconcerting, since now you are saying that you want someone else to be banned.
Just because you frame it in terms of "if it were my forum" doesn't change the idea that you now believe that you are entitled to say who should or should not be a forum member. Your recent victory regarding Poche has emboldened you. Not that it was a bad idea to ban Poche, but now that victory seems to have gone to your head. That isn't right or proper. Just because you are insulted doesn't mean that a forum member should be banned because of it.
"Spork" never talked at the Fisheaters. And Jayne's pseudo mea culpa is laughable. She's made enemies with the best fora have to offer.
I appreciate the information, Captain Obvious, that this isn't my forum.Thank you for recognizing.
Nevertheless, I am as entitled as you are to post my opinionsI never questioned your sense of entitlement. I merely pointed it out.
Evidently your hypocrisy escapes you in trying to dictate what I can and cannot post hereI'm not dictating anything. i'm merely making an observation. Unlike some on here demanding others disappear and will hold their breath until that happens. ::)
You'll note that I didn't even request that claudel be banned for his vulgar comments,Who's claudel? And thanks again for not requesting he be shunned by all the cool people here.
merely said that I would ban him if he were on a forum that I moderated.In your own words......." Evidently your hypocrisy escapes you in trying to dictate what I can and cannot post here" ::)
The Wine, Beer & Mary Juanita emojis are also gone :confused:Yea, I miss them too.
Spork, are you actually poche?
Actually, it wasn't a threat. He DID stop posting (with one exception to explain why he wasn't posting) until poche was banned. I remember you have expressed your desire that all sedes be banned. You could try not posting until all sedes are banned. Who knows, if you get enough people to join you, it might work. Don't blame Ladislaus for making a very accurate assessment of the situation and then effectively bringing about a change that the vast majority of us were in agreement with.
Which a vast majority of sedes and sedewhatevers are in agreement with, you mean.
Yeah, I think I did say once that all sedes hould be banned, in a moment of frustration. But I don't parrot the request. And I certainly would never say I'm going to stop posting until sedes are banned (as much as you might like that idea).
I'm going to continue to point things out which may be unpleasant for sedes and sedewhatevers. You can always put me on "ignore" if that's a problem.
If so, it would be be more evidence that the Pocher is a Yid.
I'm going to continue to point things out which may be unpleasant for sedes and sedewhatevers.
I'm going to continue to point things out which may be unpleasant for sedes and sedewhatevers. You can always put me on "ignore" if that's a problem.
*obsessed*
What's most unpleasant about your posts is that you never actually make a rational argument, but simply dismiss the position and make derogatory comments.Sedeprivationists are outside the Church. If R&R or Novusordoism is true they are obviously outside the Church, but if sedevacantism is true they are also outside the Church of sedevacantism. Don't risk your salvation to a crackpot position of one theologian and then adopted by a small minority of Thuc Bishops. And don't try to fall back on tradcuмenism. Your soul depends upon it. Abandon your Sanbornian buffoonerey and choose the Church of sedevacantism or the Church of Francis.
Sedeprivationists are outside the Church. If R&R or Novusordoism is true they are obviously outside the Church, but if sedevacantism is true they are also outside the Church of sedevacantism. Don't risk your salvation to a crackpot position of one theologian and then adopted by a small minority of Thuc Bishops. And don't try to fall back on tradcuмenism. Your soul depends upon it. Abandon your Sanbornian buffoonerey and choose the Church of sedevacantism or the Church of Francis.
"The see of Rome is formally vacant!"
LOL
With this post, it is you who are coming across as a buffoon.No, Lad, you are the buffoon. I was obviously joking, digging at Meg, which is why I quoted "What's most unpleasant about your posts is that you never actually make a rational argument, but simply dismiss the position and make derogatory comments. " but you took me seriously. You can not tell an honest opinion from an obvious joke. Now I don't think you are really a buffoon . . . but you should have saw my joke as a joke instead of taking offense. But I do like Meg also and am glad she posts here.
No, Lad, you are the buffoon. I was obviously joking, digging at Meg, which is why I quoted "What's most unpleasant about your posts is that you never actually make a rational argument, but simply dismiss the position and make derogatory comments. " but you took me seriously. You can not tell an honest opinion from an obvious joke. Now I don't think you are really a buffoon . . . but you should have saw my joke as a joke instead of taking offense.
In that case, accept my apologies, and take the criticism in the previous posts as that of the satirical position you posted. I did not recognize the satire or the joke there.No need to apologize. I am sorry my joke was not funny.
No need to apologize. I am sorry my joke was not funny.
No, it's not that. I simply didn't recognize it as a joke. Perhaps an emoticon would help. Before the invention of emoticons, I was routinely misconstrued as being serious when making sarcastic or satirical comments. Sometimes it's only the context of non-verbal communication (tone of voice, etc.) ... or now, an emoticon ... that the difference can be discerned.I don't think it had to do with any of that. It seems to me that Matto has become more anti-sede in recent months, so the posts were totally believable.
It seems to me that Matto has become more anti-sede in recent months, so the posts were totally believable.I became "anti-sede" after I tried to listen to the first Novus Ordo Watch "TRADCAST" and right at the beginning the host declared that only sedes were traditional Catholics. That was the moment. But I am not really anti-sede. My two best friends are sedes and I respect them and consider them Catholics and don't argue with them. But I disagree with the position and think it is mistaken and think some of the more extreme ones are schismatic. Sometimes when thinking about the sad state of the Church I make fun of sedes, but they are not the only people I make fun of.
I did ask poche several times to let us know where he's coming from and why he posts on the forum given that he disagrees with every other member here. He refused to answer.
That to me suggests that he was just a malicious troll.
I have started to like Meg. … I’ve thought of her positions as an +ABL ultra-loyalist, and maybe a sede-phobe. But that’s okay.
He did not refuse to answer. Rather, he simply didn't answer. As an exercise in self-control, Ladislaus, try writing fifty tendentiousness-free words every day.
It might suggest to someone less egocentric that poche simply thought it was none of your business, especially as your status at this site is no more official than his was.
Poche is gone, and very few people hereabouts regret his dismissal (I don't). But showering ceaseless insults on a guy who is in no position to respond is anything but admirable. What's next for you, Ladislaus? How long will it be till you start telling us all what you've been eating for dinner, whether it's Friday or not? And will those comments be as overbearing as your other comments are?
If R&R or Novusordoism is true they are obviously outside the Church, [...] Don't risk your salvation to a crackpot position of one theologian and then adopted by a small minority of Thuc Bishops.Wrong analysis, my friend. The Novus Ordo, which R&R officially recognizes as the "Catholic Church", at the very least, tacitly holds that even Buddhists, Muslims and Jews are somehow inside the Church and can have salvation, if they're of good will. So sedeprivationists certainly can't be outside the Church and damned, if those who reject the true Christ (proclaimed by the Athanasian Creed) can be saved.
Matto,This is incorrect as there was no wrong side in GWS. Catholics are allowed to recognise either FR or It faction as true Il Papa. :cowboy:
Also, you do realize, don't you?, that one can be formally united to the Church while being materially separated, just as those Catholics were who happened to side with the wrong pope during the so-called Western Schism.
If R&R or Novusordoism is true they are obviously outside the Church, [...] Don't risk your salvation to a crackpot position of one theologian and then adopted by a small minority of Thuc Bishops.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St Frumentius quote:
Wrong analysis, my friend. The Novus Ordo, which R&R officially recognizes as the "Catholic Church", at the very least, tacitly holds that even Buddhists, Muslims and Jews are somehow inside the Church and can have salvation, if they're of good will. So sedeprivationists certainly can't be outside the Church and damned, if those who reject the true Christ (proclaimed by the Athanasian Creed) can be saved.
In other words, it's a safer bet to be any sede that doesn't breach the threshold of schism, than to be novus ordo. If the sede is wrong and the novus ordo is right, then the sede is still saved as are all other religions. But if the sede is correct, and the novus ordo is wrong, how many novus ordo will be damned? Our Lord tells us narrow is the way to the Father, and few are making it through...
Wrong analysis, my friend. The Novus Ordo, which R&R officially recognizes as the "Catholic Church", at the very least, tacitly holds that even Buddhists, Muslims and Jews are somehow inside the Church and can have salvation, if they're of good will. So sedeprivationists certainly can't be outside the Church and damned, if those who reject the true Christ (proclaimed by the Athanasian Creed) can be saved.Honestly, even most sede clergy believe that non Christians can be saved under some conditions, for better or worse.
In other words, it's a safer bet to be any sede that doesn't breach the threshold of schism, than to be novus ordo. If the sede is wrong and the novus ordo is right, then the sede is still saved as are all other religions. But if the sede is correct, and the novus ordo is wrong, how many novus ordo will be damned? Our Lord tells us narrow is the way to the Father, and few are making it through...
What happened to the “Burning at the Stake” emoji ?I miss that little man who rolls around on his back killing himself with laughter.
Like excommunication, Cathinfo should have a solemn ritual for member banning.