And as for this, Pope Francis distinguishes proselytism from Evangelism.

hαɾɾιs word salad, or Clintonesque "depends on what the meaning of is is".  Bergoglio defines prosletysim as trying to convince someone their beliefs are wrong and to change their beliefs ... and was absolutely not just referring to "coercion".  That's precisely what you're attempting to do here ... despite the fact that you're trying to disguise it by simply using a different word.  Pathetic semantics here.  Doesn't Catholicism prohibit lying?  Bergoglio was NOT limiting his prohibition of proselytism to "coercion".

So explain why Pope John Paul II says in the CCC that the Church has the obligation and right to Evangelize all men? Pope Francis affirms the CCC. Even Pope John Paul II sometimes spoke against "proselytism", it confused me at first but I looked it up and he meant something different by it. Anyway, the CCC has more Magisterial authority than private statements and it says to Evangelize all.

I really couldn't care less if you really think I supposedly don't have 1 MN views already. I do. I know that's not necessarily 1 MN viewers, that's true, but it's close. Also in latest analytics I have about 30,000 views a week. Multiplied by 52, that's around 1.6 MN a year. As I said, I am growing for more. What you really should be doing, Ladislas, as an ex-Sspx seminarians who has the knowledge, is joining me and other Catholics in helping Atheists and Prots come home and become Catholic.

Just the other day, my friend Lucas, a former Protestant came home to the Catholic Church after conversations we had on X spaces. X is exciting and is the future. God Bless.

So explain why Pope John Paul II says in the CCC that the Church has the obligation and right to Evangelize all men? Pope Francis affirms the CCC. Even Pope John Paul II sometimes spoke against "proselytism", it confused me at first ...

OK, I'm trying to have some patience here.  Issue isn't the words but about what they mean.  Someone can have an abortion and try calling it a "surgical procedure", thereby pretending they didn't have an abortion.

I never said that didn't have a word "evanglization", but as you admit they both condemn proselytism.

What you're DOING here is proselytism by their defintion and it's what they've condemned.  Just because you want to CALL it "evangelization" doesn't mean you're not here proselytizing, just like the individual above not having an abortion but, rather, a surgical procedure.

What you're doing here is in fact what both Wojtyla and Bergoglio refer to as proselytism ... regardless of you pretending it isn't by simply applying the word "evangelization" to your activity.

So, the Conciliars distinguish between proselytism and evangelization in that the former is basically telling them they're wrong and that they should change their beliefs ... whereas the latter is presenting your beliefs in an appealing way so that, if they are so inclined, they may approach closer to that fullness of truth.  With the V2 relativism, there's really no such thing as error, but, rather, degrees of truth, truths that are "less full" and truths that are "more full".

So the second you came on here attackiing sedevacantists as schismatics and attacking me as a heretic ... that is 100% what Wojtyla and Bergoglio define as proselytism and have commanded you not to do.  See, I do it too, but I reject their false teaching.  But you claim to accept their teaching authority but are in fact rejecting this teaching of theirs by what you're doing on this forum and what you're doing on X.  It matters nothing that you claim it's "evangelization" since you want to redefine the words to allow yourself to continue this mission from God to convert people to the Conciliar religion, but that Conciliar religion condemns your attempts to convert people to it.

So you're trying to have your Traditional cake and eat your Conciliar religion also.  Pick one or the other.

If you accept the Conciliar religion, then the ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF the revolution entails a recharacterization of what used to be called "error" as instead "degrees of truth", and there's no desire (or need, since they can be saved in false religions by following their consciences) to CONVERT ANYONE (that which Wojtyla and Bergoglio call proselytism).

You have no business here telling us we're wrong, in error, schismatics, heretics.  That's proselytism and is condemned by your "Popes".

Why don't you write a letter to Tucho's Dicastery (formerly Holy Office) whether going on a forum and attacking, say, Greek Orthodox as "schismatics" who need to reject their errors and become Catholics counts as "evangelism" or the "proselytism" they condemn.  They've already defined the difference, but you're just ignoring it because your ego demands that you continue on with this mission of yours despite it having been condemned by your Conciliar Church.

Nishant's "mission" from God is precisely the kind of grandiosity pathognomonic of manic breaks in bipolar patients.

impulsivity in manic posting
grandiose self-importance
paranoid over-reaction
apparent sleeplessness
verbosity as a "pressured speech" equivalent
hysterical style


This is not simply an instance of some unfortunate nut case.

Consider:

his conciliar heresies, including his neo-Judaizing
his double-standards,
"cafeteria" Catholic Magisterium (picks and chooses what doctrines, disciplines, and definitions he will obey/disobey),
duplicity (a constant flow of straw men, falsified quote,  fake name in violation of forum rules, et al.)

So it should be clear that this mental case is a malign presence here.

I don't know much about such conditions, but it does sound reasonable.  I think that the delusion of grandeur, literally thinking (and I think at one point he believes that God somehow indicated this to him) that he's going to convert a billion people ... certainly qualifies as a mental disorder.

I knew a guy who had full-blown narcissistic personality disorder.  At one point he just admitted in casual conversation (he was Lebanese and a Maronite Catholic) that he had attended a Maronite seminary in his youth but was dismissed because his spiritual director told him "you think you're God."  I think that he did literally believe that he was God or close to it.

, but are just here to troll and on some mission to "convert" us (even though we're all 

Pretty sure that's a Banable offence as per the sign up page.

It is a banable offense. For some reason, Matthew is allowing Nishant Xavier to keep posting, but he hasn't said why. Though maybe he has said why, and I missed it. Perhaps Matthew has grown weary of continually banning this guy, and is maybe hoping that we will talk some sense into him.  Though Nishant Xavier never, ever admits that he is wrong, or that he could be wrong, about anything. Perhaps he believes that he is a prophet of God, and therefore above reproach? There's no humility there at all. Does he realize this? Maybe not. If he has mental problems, then that would explain a lot.

MarkM's name was changed, but I'm not sure what that means.

Do you have a point?  You think you're doxing me or something, you malicious heretic?  While I have referred to this letter myself before, your obvious intention to dox out of malice should result in your immediate banning.  You will be reported for this.  You feign sanctimonious piety all the time, but it's a lie just like everything else you post.  I'm also going to go on X and call you out for malicious doxing on another forum to show your "followers" who you really are.

Not sure how many times I've had to explain to your low-IQ and/or dishonest brain that I'm a sedeprivationist and not a sedevancantist.  I've referred to this letter before and explained its history.  I wrote this as a letter to a friend who had asked me why I had backed away from straight sedevacantism.  This was never intended for publication but somehow got over to The Angelus and they published it without my permission or knowledge ... and even made some edits, including some faulty translations.  It didn't even have my name on it, which they added ... but spelled wrong.  They knew where I was and could have easily reached out to me.

In any case, this started me on my journey away from SVism toward sedeprivationism.  Interestingly, then-Father Sanborn, whom I had left just before this I wrote this, ended up in the same place by a different route.  You'll notice that this is not an endorsement of R&R, which The Angelus took it to be, engaging in false dichotomy, something you do all the time, just an expression of my difficulties with straight SVism, which was in fact my original title, or, rather, subject line,  ... which I still hold to and continue to argue when I debate straight SVs on CI here.

Yeahhh, I've seen you refer to this before. And this letter plus your other writing on this topic has been almost instrumental to helping me understand the crisis AND putting the matter to rest for me personally, thereby easing my conscience.
Lots of others take issue with what you say on this topic but I have learned a ton from you and I'm grateful. I am one of the few Sedeprivationist/SV I know and your explanations made it so much easier for me to talk(and get along) with other Traditional Catholics that do not see things the same way. 

You are appreciated here on the forum. Just want to tell you that, man. 👍

God bless you.