I doubt that Catholic Martyr is going to listen to any of our advice, since we all adhere to various degrees of heresy ... with me as an SSPX sympathizer (although not a follower per se) adhering to nearly the highest degree.

I admire Catholic Martyr's earnestness, and I mean that sincerely.

I wish the best for Catholic Martyr but he is in a dangerous spot.

Later on tonight I am thinking of writing a little essay on the psychology of the Feeneyite.  And yes, I know he denounces Feeney, but he is still a Feeneyite.  It is only logical that a sectarian movement like this would turn on its own master.  This is what the proud spirit is like.  It feeds off strife and contention.  It shuns peace.  

Others can contend with him if they choose; I have no interest.  Once you start down this path you start throwing out Council decrees, the Code of Canon Law, and various Popes.  It is a via absurda.

I can relate to him because I also have an overweening pride and a need to appear original.  I understand this war-like nature.  It is easy to forget that Catholicism is about peace-making, not pretending to be Michael the Archangel and tossing Satan out of heaven every day.  Needless to say, we are none of us Michael the Archangel.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't speak out against heresies if he sees them.  We are called upon to do that.  But he should question himself and see if they are really heresies, or if he is just shadow-boxing.  Is it really the truth he cares about, or is it the thrill of being confrontational, of being hated?  Oh yes, being hated can be a pleasure, especially when you think you are the only righteous one!  I have been there.

Polemics are fun, but the next day I always feel guilty.  Like I am trying to judge in the place of God, trying to know more than I should.  This is why I pray and ask God to humble and humiliate me.  Catholic Martyr would do well to question his motives and doubt himself.

Which part -- that I have overweening pride?  No!  

Michael, you act like you know me.  You do not.  You have ignored my email, so now I am going to publish it right here.

"...Look, Michael, I recognize charity in your posts, unlike some people who fling around words like "stupid" "mental rot", etc. just because someone holds a position which is contrary to theirs.  Also, you seem to have a strong zeal for the honour and glory of Holy Mother Church.

"You jokingly showed that you think I am a so-called "Feeneyite" (Do not engage the Feeneyite, do not engage) because I deny baptism of desire.  Feeney held a heretical position, and he died while in communion with the Vatican II antipopes.  I claim no communion with the man at all, lest I share in his eternal torments.

"You also accused me of denying Trent.  I know exactly what part of Trent you think I deny, but the truth is I affirm it.  I simply understand it in a certain way, which you do not.  I understand that a person, once attaining the use of reason, cannot be justified without water or the desire for the sacrament, that is that someone cannot be validly baptized against their will.

"I believe that infallible teachings from the Solemn Magisterium cannot contradict each other.  In the Canons on baptism in Trent, there is nothing at all said about desire.  It is only in the decree on justification that the word was used, and it cannot mean what you think it means for the very simple reason that it destroys the coherence of dogmatic decrees, by rendering Canons 2 and 5 on baptism meaningless.  Neither of these canons speak about desire.  Why would the Synod Fathers, teaching about baptism, leave that out if it was the intention to teach baptism of desire?  Or why would they not at least refer to the so-called 'exception' in the section on justification?  To say they would not have made it explicit is to ignore the trend in the Council, for indeed when they taught on original sin, they made a very explicit exception for the Blessed Virgin Mary.  They certainly would have done so if they meant to teach baptism of desire, and they would have done it right in the canons on baptism.

"Can you please respond this time?"

Micheal, I add this:  Why would psychology be more important to you in this matter than theology?  I would have thought you better than reducing yourself to not so subtle and implicit character assassination of a character that you can only guess at (you do not know me).

~sigh~

You guys are assuming I don't pray now?  What is this?  Tell someone to pray, and all of a sudden it means they are impious and prideful?

The only real pride I am frequently tempted with is physical pride, because in addition to praying, studying the Holy Faith and working, I also exercise, but I am careful to dress modestly so that I do not get puffed up.

And no, I never said I pray enough, or well enough.  I pray for that too, but first I pray that God may remove any and all spiritual blindness I may suffer.

Alright guys, I hope your satisfied if I cry myself to sleep.

It is good advice.

I love this photo of a sedevacantist "pope" ...

Maybe you could put up the photo of JP2 on a stage with a bare-breasted American gal pretending to be native?  Or in a ѕуηαgσgυє?  Your photos of loonies does not do damage the likes of photos of your beloved ones worshiping with animists, Judaics, etc.

I think that, had he lived longer, the good Archbishop would have had a clearer view of just what he was dealing with.

Moving in the mind-numbing soup of modern anti-culture (and post-V2 culture) tends to make one unable to see clearly, no matter how long one looks at a particular situation/picture.

Maybe he would have changed, maybe not.

Imo, if a man sees something like Assisi in 1986, with Mr John Pretty-on-Top et alii, and does not instantly think "APOSTASY", he will likely never get it.  That is just my opinion, based upon experience.  Initial reactions to things like Assisi, Lake Togo in Africa, the visits to the ѕуηαgσgυєs, etc., are a pretty accurate gauge of the Catholic instinct.