CM,

I have to say, that you would drive away ANYONE considering the Catholic Faith to be the true religion, because "Catholic" is the name you, unfortunately, apply to your faith.

But the fact is that I WANT NO PART OF YOUR RELIGION, whatever it is. Your faith involves staying home on Sunday, 3 sacraments, no union with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, private determination of what is dogma, and consequent bitter denunciation of others who dispute those "dogmas", and whatever is left of your Catholic Faith is dried up and eviscerated of Charity. Can one even say that the Catholic Faith is possible without Charity? No, not really. So I suppose I'm saying you're not acting like a Catholic.

I am forced to conclude that based on your actions. You might have the baptismal character (as you say about me and everyone else here), but you aren't practicing the Catholic Faith. Your faith needs a new name -- Davidism, Davidite, or something like that.

Objectively speaking, there are hundreds of Catholics present on CathInfo and you seem to be quite keen on distancing yourself from them. There must be a good reason for that. You must not be Catholic yourself.

When I saw you distancing yourself from others' prayers in a recent prayer request, it spoke volumes to me.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Please-pray-for-this-little-girl

(Independently of others in this thread)

What Catholic saint would say something like that? Everyone else was offering condolences, prayers, etc. and you feel the need to mention that you're not praying with us because we are heretics. That was cold and calculated.

Violating charity (e.g., calling a name during an argument) because the passion of anger has been stoked is understandable, humanly speaking. But you seem to do it absolutely on purpose, as a matter of principle and because of the dictates of your "faith".

Perhaps in some twisted way you feel that you're dedicated to the truth, and that the truth requires behavior like that. Let me tell you something: The Pharisees did EVERYTHING RIGHT materially speaking. They tithed all products, did all the fasts, the sabbath rest, etc. BUT OUR LORD WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THEM -- AT ALL. They couldn't see the forest for the trees. They forgot love, mercy, etc. (Not my charges, those are from Our Lord whom you claim to follow)

What does that old saying mean? They couldn't see the forest because they were focusing too much on the trees. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel. In your case, you're focused on heresy so much you forgot what it means to be Catholic.

A word to the... A word for you: Nobody would EVER "convert" to the faith you profess, especially with antics like I quoted above. Pharisaism just isn't that attractive.

You aren't as bitter/despondent/rude as you probably will become, if you adhere to your current "faith". In 20 years, you'll be more bitter than FKP, if you still have any residual faith at all.

You need to seriously enter into yourself, and double-check just to make sure that you're not just deluding yourself -- double-check and make sure you're not puffed up with pride. You don't want to make a mistake on this one, for your soul's sake.

The Catholic Faith cannot be reduced to a dozen people worldwide. You like to quote Our Lord's prophecy, but you miss the first part

But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

Look around -- I don't see any Second Coming. If it's not the end of the world, there can't be an apostasy THAT severe. The world can't end too soon, because we haven't even had the reign of Antichrist yet, who the Catholic Faith teaches will be a single man. And how long has the apostasy been THAT severe, according to your views? decades?

I recommend you take a couple of months (at least) reading Lives of the Saints, while completely refraining from works of doctrine.

I learned at the Seminary that "doctrine without piety = good heresiarch", while "piety without doctrine = sentimental and liable to fall into error" You need both piety AND doctrine.

You're merely falling into the opposite extreme, a knee-jerk reaction to the "everybody's nice" religion of Vatican II.

Matthew

I learned at the Seminary that "doctrine without piety = good heresiarch", while "piety without doctrine = sentimental and liable to fall into error" You need both piety AND doctrine.

You're merely falling into the opposite extreme, a knee-jerk reaction to the "everybody's nice" religion of Vatican II.

Boy, that certainly can't be emphasized enough! How often do we see people getting so caught up in the letter of the law, they forsake Catholic doctrines or even common sense? And how often, in the other direction, do we see those so "pious" (sentimental) that they're willing to believe just about anything presented to them, or follow the winds of doctrine in any direction?

This is why I never studied the docuмents sedevacantists use to back up their errors. All of us can look at the letter of the law, and draw our own conclusions, and end up with WRONG conclusions. We are only frail human beings. We are quite, quite easily led astray, each according to their particular weakness... one by exaggerating the letter of the law, one by exaggerating the spirit of the law. If we are not aware of this weakness or weak point in ourselves, and if we do not take reasonable, sane, prudent measures to balance ourselves out, the enemy will surely exploit that weakness, one way or the other.

Thanks for saying this, and reminding us about this very important point! We do need both, and we must be careful to err to neither side, by finding that sane, rational, prudent balance between them, so that exaggerations will not creep in.

Well, the North American martyrs told the Native Americans that their ancestors were lost.  What were they supposed to do, say they were likely/possibly saved just to make the Catholic Faith seem more palatable?  It's not so much WHAT you tell a person as HOW you tell it. Many of Our Lord's teachings can be stumbling blocks to conversion, but we don't water them down to facilitate false conversions.  In the case of the Baptist, one could avoid the issue, perhaps say that it's always possible he received the grace he needed before he died (and it is), without deny or watering down EENS.

Just as truth without charity is dead and empty, so charity without truth is just hollow emotion and "niceness".

 

Quote

Perhaps in some twisted way you feel that you're dedicated to the truth, and that the truth requires behavior like that. Let me tell you something: The Pharisees did EVERYTHING RIGHT materially speaking. They tithed all products, did all the fasts, the sabbath rest, etc. BUT OUR LORD WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THEM -- AT ALL. They couldn't see the forest for the trees. They forgot love, mercy, etc. (Not my charges, those are from Our Lord whom you claim to follow)

  Some people believe that charity doesn't necessarily mean sayingt kind works, showing affection and smiling at others. Sometimes harshness, punishment and making someone suffer is charity. The best examples are parents, teachers, doctors, surgeons and policemen who make people suffer because of love.
 

Some times the suffering is necessary, but many times it is not. If it's possible to correct someone gently, respectfully, it is better to do so. Yes, some are stubborn and need
 :plant:
but most respond better to truth presented in a gentler manner.

I'd say if you have to be harsh with someone, perhaps it would be better to do so in a more private manner than using a public Internet forum.

V2 actually set in motion this false Hegelian dialectic between truth and charity.

V2 implied that preaching the truth of the Catholic Faith to non-Catholics and confronting them with their errors is just plain "not nice".  So the anti-V2 folks have a tendency to overreact in the opposite direction by rejecting all "niceness" and embracing the bitter truth (sometimes almost relishing when others are in error).

As a matter of fact, rebuking those in error can and should be a great act of charity.  It's all in one's intentions and motives.  To allow someone to remain uncorrected in their errors is a great act of un-charity--but you don't have to be mean and nasty about it.  In sports, I've had coaches who were hard on me.  Some I liked because they just wanted us to improve.  Others I disliked because they were just mean jerks.  And we knew the difference.  Preaching truth with love tends to win people to the truth.  Preaching truth with self-righteous arrogance tends to drive them away from it.  It's the same truth.

I like the way some people cite Padre Pio in defense of being harsh with people.  I respond that I'll lay off as soon as they bilocate over to me and show me their stigmata.

Padre Pio said that Our Lord directed hiim at times to be harsh and that it was incredibly painful for him.  And, you know what, in every docuмented case of Padre Pio's "harshness", it worked wonders on the souls towards whom it had been directed.  Some people need it to shake them out of a certain tepidity.  If I went to confession to someone like Padre Pio, who reminded me of forgotten sins that only God could know, and he was harsh with me, I'd take that as a wake-up call from God Himself.  With anyone else who lacks Padre Pio's gifts, you'd just think he was being a jerk.

I like the way some people cite Padre Pio in defense of being harsh with people.  I respond that I'll lay off as soon as they bilocate over to me and show me their stigmata.

Padre Pio said that Our Lord directed hiim at times to be harsh and that it was incredibly painful for him.  And, you know what, in every docuмented case of Padre Pio's "harshness", it worked wonders on the souls towards whom it had been directed.  Some people need it to shake them out of a certain tepidity.  If I went to confession to someone like Padre Pio, who reminded me of forgotten sins that only God could know, and he was harsh with me, I'd take that as a wake-up call from God Himself.  With anyone else who lacks Padre Pio's gifts, you'd just think he was being a jerk.

at times harsh, mostly not.....note it is exception, not the rule....

You know that Arians in their time were not called "Arians," they were CATHOLICS who followed the opinions of the man Arius.  This is the same for most heretical movements -- they take place under the banner of Catholicism.  They could have appealed to the same "mercy" you are asking for, Matthew, said "Do we not believe in Christ like you?  Go to Mass like you?"  

Charity, throughout the history of the Church, has never meant passively swallowing the errors of others or assuming they are all good Catholics.  St. Paul said "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh."  He said "I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock." I can tell you, wolves may very well be at work on this website, iniquity may very well be at work on this website.  

Debates and controversies keep the Church healthy.  This kind of sentimental attitude has nearly killed it.  Do you want to be Catholic, or part of a giant heretical sewing circle or form of social club, with Catholic trappings?  

*****

You're saying, Matthew, that CM cannot have his view of the Crisis, that he must have yours.  So you really do mean to impose on another Catholic's valid opinion.  If he were really just a crank, why would it bother you so much that he thinks the faithful have been reduced to a handful?  You aren't offended by roscoe's crank opinions -- you encourage them.  

It is probable that you are disturbed by the suggestion that you are not Catholic.  But if you are disturbed by something, chances are, it's your conscience bothering you, and CM is merely the external agent.  When he calls me a heretic, it's almost comforting aggravation, like having a loveable little dog that nips your ankles.  It's not offensive at all.  A Catholic website without belligerent Feeneyites is like Times Square without freaks.  

He is blind on the baptism of desire issue and misreading decrees; the most you can hold against him is that he's no St. Thomas theologically -- not yet anyway.  This has led him to what I believe are rash and injurious conclusions.  But does that mean he should be banned?  

People say CM lacks charity ( while claiming not to be able to read anyone's heart ).  Well, there are lots of ways to lack charity.  Probably the best way is to lack the love of truth, and then end up screaming for the blood of Christ, because what He says makes you uncomfortable.  Unfortunately, I see just that frightening attitude in the process of formation here.  At AngelQueen it is already in full effect.  How people can literally ban the very discussion of sedevacantism, and not see that they are sticking their heads in the sand, is beyond me.  

*****

Not even Jesus tried to force belief on others, because it can't be done.  I cannot believe that everyone here is good-willed and Catholic, and that has been made a condition of membership.  Basically this site is being whittled down to SSPX, NO, and liberal sedes who are okay with the una cuм.  

That is your comfort zone, Matthew, and since this is your site, that's your right.  In the beginning, this site had no agenda, and I'd always kind of imagined you listening to each side and weighing their merits.  That is, Matthew, I imagined you as intrigued by sedvacantism and keeping an open mind.  Eventually, though, the mind has to settle, and yours appears to have settled.

One question -- what was the point of the ignore button?