The Vatican Council of 1870 provided a defacto spiritual dictatorship. Forget Scripture, forget prophets, forget dissenting opinion of the Body of Christ. The papacy now emulates human values of any dictatorship in human history. I think Pius IX just made a serious mistake. They have been building on the human foundation of what I call Club Infallible for the past 139 years. So far we have had 10 infallibles since 1870, and six of them are considered non Catholic.

   Anybody who studies the Vatican would agree that it has become a political animal, not spiritual. Instead of preaching the Gospel, they are covering all the glaring mistakes they have made in the past 139 years plus making up new outrages all the time.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

-- George W. Bush (August 5, 2004)

  Pope Ratzinger works 24/7 on how to destroy every shred of hope and faith of everyone on the planet.
 

   

Pope Pius X was a vigilante against Modernism, Leo XIII an outspoken enemy of the satanic Free Masons, and Pius IX, with the Vatican Council, shone a light in the darkness, a light ignored by too many on this forum and in the rest of the world.

These three were the last popes, and I pray we may have another.

Benedict XV started the Modernist wrecking ball rolling.

No, he wouldn't be banned for defending SGG. No one ever has.

I've banned a few people for creating multiple accounts, accusing the forum owner of grievous sin, insubordination, etc.

But if William, Laurencio, etc. (all the same guy, chances are) had stuck to arguing with Gladius, even in a heated manner, they would not have been banned.

But William, Laurencio, Brent Sanders, etc. were probably all the same man: a violation of CathInfo rules against holding multiple accounts.

They had several things in common, which common sense tells me can't be a coincidence:

* same attitude toward Gladius
* same attitude toward other posters here, and towards the forum owner
* same argument/problem with Gladius' words & actions
* none of them learned from the "others" mistakes -- so it's probably one stubborn person rather than 5.
* all of them were VERY "into" the issue while their accounts were active. They were near-obsessed with it; so it makes sense that, having been banned, they would re-join.

Like I said, I expect people to leave me out of it. I'm hosting the forum, and I leave you to your own arguments. When two Catholics get into a heated argument about a given issue, it's very tempting for both approach the moderator to try and get his opponent banned for heresy. There is little in matters of Faith that "doesn't matter", right? One of the opponents has to be in heresy, right? And heresy has no right to a voice. "Freedom of speech isn't a Catholic concept", etc.

But you see how that would destroy all good discussion on matters of importance. So I usually ignore such requests. But WilliamLaurencioBrentSanders wouldn't let it rest; he continued to attack this forum and me personally. So, for the good of the forum, I banned him/them.

Matthew

No, he wouldn't be banned for defending SGG. No one ever has.

I've banned a few people for creating multiple accounts, accusing the forum owner of grievous sin, insubordination, etc.

I was not aware of the details.  Thanks

And heresy has no right to a voice. "Freedom of speech isn't a Catholic concept", etc.

But you see how that would destroy all good discussion on matters of importance. So I usually ignore such requests.

Matthew

Infallibility (when correctly understood) is defined dogma.  Are we allowed to openly question and ridicule (e.g. Club Infallible) such defined dogma here on this forum?  I was not aware that "good discussion" could include ridiculing defined dogma.  

Robert

  First of all , ditch the way overused heretic label. St. Peter denied Christ three times. Christ told Peter to "Get behind me Satan". St. Peter was also corrected by St. Paul. Plus he used to curse !  Nobody calls him a heretic. This should make all popes act in a more humble manner. Prancing around in a three tier tiara , telling people you are like Jesus in the flesh, along with brainwashed followers with sugar plum dreams of infallibility : Sorry this is a nightmare from hell. I think the infalliblity part only works when the pope is humble and does seek grace of the Holy Spirit and  the council of the Body of Christ and also abiding in scripture and tradition. In a strange way, Infalliblity is like a Protestant who says I am saved. Can anyone else see that this produces schizophrenic thinking ? Try talking to a hard core fundamentalist.

    On the plus side, St. Pius X was half Polish and had more common sense and backbone than any 20th century pope.

 He had the sense to write a Catechism for the layman. (not for the Canon lawyers ) He tried to preach to the laymen , just like Jesus ! Here is the PDF link for his catechism.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hismercy.ca%2Fcontent%2Febooks%2FThe%2520Catechism%2520of%2520St.%2520Pope%2520Pius%2520X.pdf&ei=L_SKSvOWDoziNZeG_boP&rct=j&q=Pope+Piux+X+catechism+download&usg=AFQjCNHSOO0KISnlKqPTqBrOqRVne74ehw

radtrad,

Classiccom is an "Old Catholic"; one who rejects Vatican I (yes, that's ONE, not TWO) and whose list of anti-popes includes the holy and esteemed St. Pius X!

He constantly refers to the Catholic Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) as "club infallible"

He is a testament to my patience running this forum. Though I wouldn't place any bets -- one of these days my patience is going to run out. He is technically violating "in necessary things, unity" by being from a schismatical sect and rejecting a pre-Vatican II saint like St. Pius X.

My definition of "in doubtful things, liberty" includes everything in the Crisis in the Church -- but by Crisis I mean what happened at Vatican 2 -- nothing bad at all happened at Vatican I. There was no crisis back then.Matthew

I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but Peter Diamond cites that St. Anthony Mary Claret had a stroke at the Council because of the errors against No Salvation outside the Church that were being taught.

You are insinuating that this Saint was ill because he disagreed with Papal Infallibility?

   I think Saint Anthony Mary Claret said in his biography that the atmosphere of Vatican Council made him ill.

From the above mentioned autobiography (p.148) :

This climate simply doesn't suit me. I have been here three times: the first time, I got sick; the second, I didn't feel well all three weeks I was here; the third, which has already been four months, I have suffered a great deal.

Then from page 148 he writes:

I have suffered more than usual and have felt a deep desire to die. It seems to me that I have fulfilled my mission.

Finally, we read:

There are two main causes for this latest trouble I've been feeling: first, the extraordinary heat at the beginning of this summer; second, the business of the Council itself, especially the matter of the Church and the Pope. Because I can't bear that anyone or anything should trespass in this matter--I'd gladly shed my blood for it, as I said in open session--when I heard the errors and even heresies and blasphemies that were being spoken on it, I was so overcome by indignation and real that the blood rushed to my head and
affected my brain. My mouth wouldn't hold back the saliva and it ran down my face, especially on the side where I have the scar from the wound I received in Cuba. Besides this, my speech is greatly slurred. I have undergone all the treatments ordered by the doctor and they have brought me considerable relief.  (Letter 1451.)

p. 248.

He became ill, yes.  But not because he disagreed with Papal Infallibility.  None of the quotes above show that.  

Every single biography about St. Anthony Mary Claret that I have come across says that he defended Papal Infallibility.  Please provide a source for your material.  Here is just a few examples:

According to Clifford Stevens' "The One Year Book of Saints:

Because of his closeness to the royal family, he was attacked in the press and was forced to leave Spain in the revolution of 1868, when the queen was exiled. He went to Rome and took part in the Vatican Council of 1870 at which he spoke in defense of papal infallibility.

From Claret.org

His presence became noticeable when the subject of papal infallibility was discussed, which Claret defended vehemently.

From Tradition in Action:

In his last days, he participated in Vatican Council I, which the Pope had convened at the Vatican in December of 1869. Seeing many liberal Bishops opposing the matter of Papal Infallibility that was being discussed, he became indignant and strongly censured them in a speech. Hearing the errors being spoken on this topic, he was so overcome with indignation that the blood rushed to his head and he suffered a stroke from which he never recovered. He died some months later.