What are the heresies he expressed on the forum that make him a non-Catholic? As I understood it he was a sedi-privationist. He was not being hated for heresy, but for supposed misogyny and anti-semitism and anti-ketosis and down-voting those who disagreed with him. None of those things would make him a non-Catholic. Perhaps bad Catholic might be fair if one wanted to judge his character.

To be honest, Croix a long time ago said something that I thought was questionable, but it is understandable in these times of uncertainty.

It might come as a surprise, but I do not think I would say he is a non-Catholic.  

So there is nothing he said that is against the faith, it is just your "strong gut feeling" then because he said things that while not heresy you considered uncharitable? Then say he is uncharitable, but not a non-Catholic. The way you said it was very rash in my opinion. When you accuse someone who professed belief, of being a non-Catholic, you should have footnotes. He does not support abortion or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, like many supposed Catholic people do.

As the monk said when he was called a fornicator, he said "I am guilty". When he was called a thief he said "I am guilty". When he was called a murderer he said "I am guilty." When he was called a heretic he said "No. I am not a heretic." Why did he admit to all those sins yet deny being a heretic? Because to be a heretic is not a normal sin, it severs one's connection to God in a way greater than other sins.

So without proof you declared your fellow Christian a heretic, one of the worst possible sins, and cast him outside the Church. I know you are used to judging Pope Francis and the Bishops and cardinals and priests as heretics because they believe in Vatican II, but here you are judging another man who professes to believe as you believe to be a heretic. Rashly done. You are trying to kill his reputation, even denying his faith, for no good reason while claiming to be above him and being the charitable one yourself. Pray for him indeed.

If you do have evidence for his heresy, please provide it and we can read it, if not, please be quiet. It would be fair to say he is breaking the forum rules by making new accounts instead of accepting his banishment, but that is not heresy, and he is not the first person to do it.

Excellent comment

jajajajaja jejejejeje :-D

dodododo dadadada  

Well said, Matto.  Heresy is far too serious a matter to make accusations without evidence.  We can't go around shouting "heretic" every time we don't like people or think they aren't nice.

As I recall, I never wrote the word “heretic“, I simply suggested that Croix, in my opinion, was not a Catholic. In my nearly 30 years as a traditional Catholic, I have never met an anonymous “traditional Catholic” that has ever acted the way he does. There are several people on this forum who know me either by reputation or in actuality. These people can vouch that I’m a Catholic, the same can’t be said of Croix. He is worldly, he is a liar, he has multiple false accounts, he is vengeful, he attacks and accuses Jєωιѕн converts of being Marranos just because they were once Jєωιѕн. Jaynek, did you or Matto call him out for accusing 2Vermont of being a Jєωιѕн infiltrator? Croix reminds me of a cousin of mine who has been caught several times attacking people online pretending to be someone else.

He is worldly, he is a liar, he has multiple false accounts, he is vengeful, he attacks and accuses Jєωιѕн converts of being Marranos just because they were once Jєωιѕн. Jaynek, did you or Matto call him out for accusing 2Vermont of being a Jєωιѕн infiltrator?

I do not call out people every time an accusation is made because it happens very often, so I only do it once in a blue moon. Most of the time I just ignore it. I have defended 2vermont against accusations of being a maranno in the past and I know Jayne is often accused of the same. I defended Croix in this instance because it seemed like you attacked him unjustly while acting like you were better than him. And so many people attack Croix and no one defends him. Often for me, when it comes to murky waters like possible detractions or calumnies or perhaps just judgments I think are rash or unwarranted it is hard to know how to respond.

You said that "he does not seem to profess the true faith"which is the equivalent of calling someone a heretic.  It means you are talking about his beliefs, not his behaviour.

I am not saying that I approve of his behaviour.  I don't approve.  Not at all.  But every single Catholic on this forum falls short of behaving as we ought at times and that does mean that we are not Catholic.  If you want to say he does not behave as a Catholic should, that is reasonable.  It does not follow that he does not profess the true faith.

If I noticed him accusing 2Vermont of being a Jєωιѕн infiltrator, I would have down-voted it.  I can't remember whether that happened because there are too many posts under too many names to keep track.

I corrected that to read: “If he is validly baptized  he doesn’t seem to be a person who professes the true faith.”

That does not make it any better.  A profession of faith is a statement of one's beliefs. Here is an example: "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."

A person who professes the true faith is a Catholic.  You are saying that he does not seem like a Catholic, especially in what he says about his beliefs.  That just isn't a fair criticism.

Sorry, it does make a whole world of difference. In the former statement I would have to show proof of heresy, in the latter, I would not.

Look, the guy seems to me to be a troll who attacks REAL traditional Catholics. If you don’t think that’s a likelihood, I know a Nigerian prince who wants to send you an inheritance.