Author Topic: ALL MEMBERS READ THIS (Read 101956 times)

TheD · « **Reply #30 on:** February 08, 2010, 01:44:40 PM »

Thank-you Matthew, for keeping things under control. Fk's ranting got old fast.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:06:45 PM »

I think that there's an enormous difference between saying "That's heretical." and "You're a heretic."--with the former preserving charity. Plus, unless you have an explicit dogmatic definition in support of your position, you should probably preface your remarks with "It seems to me ..." or "I think ...".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Ladislaus
Does that mean I have to stop calling CM and fk formal heretics who will surely burn in hell?

No, it does not.

LOL. I just wrote that tongue-in-cheek, alluding to what those guys say about pretty much everyone else in this forum. Although, unfortunately, I'm sad for fk and CM, because I think that they might be going off the deep end. So in a sense it's not a laughing matter. There was a time in my life where I wasn't that far from where fk and CM are today. I started the process of backtracking when I realized how absurd it was that the Catholic Church had been reduced to about three people. God chastised me in His great mercy. I pray that He might also have mercy on fk and CM.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:20:20 PM »

Quote from: fkpagnanelli

ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU CLAIM THAT "POPE AUGUSTINE" IS NOT A CATHOLIC? Or do you claim that "Pope Augustine" is Catholic?

I suspect that most people would consider "Pope Augustine" to be rather unbalanced more than anything else. Unfortunately, though, his is in essence the very same affliction under which fk and CM also labor. If you can reject Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII, then why NOT also St. Pius V?

And I'm pretty sure there's something at least implicitly heretical in thinking you can become pope by epikeia.

Most pre V2 theologians would have claimed that rejection of St. Pius V would be heretical. But they would also have said the same of rejecting BXV, PXI, and PXII.

roscoe · « **Reply #34 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:23:45 PM »

Notice the above cracks re: MJ that are not mine.

I have major differences with Belloc but in this case I agree that Raoul and CM should be the next to go.

I trust von Pastor b4 the modern usurped Catholic Pedia.

Acc to Pastor( as has been noted numerous times only to fall on deaf ears), a condition of the settlement of the GWS was that one was left free to call either faction the True Pope. This is because it was a political schism( most around here are aware of this) and no heresies or homos were involved. Sorry if I can't remember chap and verse, but like the abolition of the 'veto' by Pius IX, it is a historical truth.

I agree with Ladislaus and if anyone is paying attention, I have tended to use words like heretical or engaging in heresy instead of shouting heretic all over the place.

To bad that Matthew has no time to deal with my contentions re: sspx.

roscoe · « **Reply #35 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:26:47 PM »

I have no op on 'Pope Augustine' because he is even worse than,CM, fkp or Raoul and is not to be taken seriously.

roscoe · « **Reply #36 on:** February 08, 2010, 02:30:30 PM »

Actually the last Pope John of the GWS WAS involved in hersey but he recanted and that was that. I do not recall if De Luna was Pope John or another of the French Popes of the schism.

Jamie · « **Reply #37 on:** February 08, 2010, 03:23:36 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Notice the above cracks re: MJ that are not mine.

I have major differences with Belloc but in this case I agree that Raoul and CM should be the next to go.

I trust von Pastor b4 the modern usurped Catholic Pedia.

Acc to Pastor( as has been noted numerous times only to fall on deaf ears), a condition of the settlement of the GWS was that one was left free to call either faction the True Pope. This is because it was a political schism( most around here are aware of this) and no heresies or homos were involved. Sorry if I can't remember chap and verse, but like the abolition of the 'veto' by Pius IX, it is a historical truth.

I agree with Ladislaus and if anyone is paying attention, I have tended to use words like heretical or engaging in heresy instead of shouting heretic all over the place.

To bad that Matthew has no time to deal with my contentions re: sspx.

De Luna was Anti-Pope Benedict XIII. Also, it was Pope Pius X who abolished the veto - he was the elected because Mariano Rampolla was vetoed by the Emperor of Austria-Hungary.

Now, as for De Luna, if you are going to state that he was NOT an anti-Pope, you must declare Pope Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII as anti-Popes because they were the Popes who reigned during the reign of the anti-Pope. Furthermore, after the death of anti-Pope Benedict XIII there was a new anti-Pope who succeeded him (Clement VIII) - he was elected by only 3 Cardinals. Succeeding him was anti-Pope Benedict XIV who was elected by 1 Cardinal. The line of succession of these Avignon anti-Popes ended there.

Jamie · « **Reply #38 on:** February 08, 2010, 03:28:28 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Actually the last Pope John of the GWS WAS involved in hersey but he recanted and that was that. I do not recall if De Luna was Pope John or another of the French Popes of the schism.

De Luna was not Pope John - it was Pope John XXIII (the cause for minor controversy when the 20th century John XXIII took that regnal name). The WS John XXIII was anti-Pope John XXIII and his real name was Baldassarre Cossa and he abandoned the legitimate Pope Gregory XII.

Jamie · « **Reply #39 on:** February 08, 2010, 03:51:59 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I'm disturbed about one other thing. Matthew, will you please reinstate Fkpagnanelli? I have agreed with your other choices of banishment but this one leaves me with a queasy feeling. Fk struck me as having a good heart beneath a crusty exterior. He also had some valid points to make. I think he contributed to the dynamic of the site.

While I agree about banishing Roscoe, I absolutely do not agree with what you are saying here about Fkpagnanelli. He was the main reason for my initial request to Matthew to do something about the mess and, frankly, if he was allowed to stay here I, for one, would be seriously considering leaving. I am sure I am not the only one. He was simply unable to say anything in charity - he constantly spewed vitriol. He was damaging and disturbing.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 08, 2010, 03:53:51 PM »

On second thought fkpagnanelli is pretty abrasive. I just read his Pope Augustine thread and it seems he was indulging in suicidal behavior, trying to get himself banned.

He might have been provoked into it by the New Rule though. After reading that I'd have to mentally believe everyone here was Catholic, I was about to leave the website. I am still ready to leave if that is the case, although I don't feel the need to go down with guns blazing.

sedetrad · « **Reply #41 on:** February 08, 2010, 03:57:24 PM »

Don't ban roscoe!

I find many of his posts illumimating and fun. He seems like a jolly character.

Andy

Jamie · « **Reply #42 on:** February 08, 2010, 04:02:53 PM »

Quote from: sedetrad

Don't ban roscoe!

I find many of his posts illumimating and fun. He seems like a jolly character.

Andy

Pot will do that to a person.

roscoe · « **Reply #43 on:** February 08, 2010, 04:10:28 PM »

Thanks sedetrad but I have been thinking about retiring anyway.

There was no heresy or apostate actions of the GWS Popes so the only way they could be considered anti-popes is by invalid election. Because of this it was decided( as posted numerous times) at the setlement of the schism that one was left free to call either Pope the True Pope.

Any disagreements-- Take it up with von Pastor

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Pastor

Dulcamara · « **Reply #44 on:** February 08, 2010, 05:47:12 PM »

How about trusting the moderator to ban who needs to be banned?

:rolleyes:

The whole lynch mob thing never did sit right with me, I guess.