The majority of CathInfo members profess to be Catholics trying to save their souls to the best of their ability, during this Crisis in the Church which is serious beyond precedent. I believe this majority consists of members who possess the indelible Baptismal character which is necessary for salvation.

I cannot know whether or not there are formally excommunicated persons (or vitandi) present on CathInfo (and nobody can, since all we see is a screen name); there are undeniably those who still need to convert to Catholicism, who have explicitly admitted they are learning the Faith, and we cannot know whether or not there are others who have incurred latae sententiae, except by there words and actions in the external forum, by which they manifest and make known their hearts.

St. Matthew 15:18: "But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man."

I will not impose (i.e., require as as prerequisite for membership in the Catholic Church) dogmas that do not exist: But I will not pretend that certain dogmas are not dogmas, that certain heretics are popes, that certain heresies are not heresy or that coming to the wrong conclusion concerning the above (when one has within his power to know the truth) does not either eject one from the Church or keep one out of it.


I will not act in any manner that goes against my declaration (above). - David


___________________________________________________

The majority of CathInfo members are Catholics trying to save their souls to the best of their ability, during this Crisis in the Church which is serious beyond precedent. This majority consists of members of Christ's Mystical Body, who possess the One True Faith which leads to salvation.

There are no formally excommunicated persons (or vitandi) present on CathInfo to the best of my knowledge; and (with few exceptions) none that still need to convert to Catholicism.

I will not impose (i.e., require as as prerequisite for membership in the Catholic Church) dogmas that do not exist: including, but not limited to, positions regarding: past popes, Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, Natural Family Planning, and Fatima.


Putting these side-by-side just seems to really accentuate CM's devilishly arrogant attitude.  

I agree.  Furthermore, the three main problem people on the site (CM, Raoul, and FK) ALL responded in the negative to Matthew's request and put forward their own requirements.  That definitely warrants banning in my opinion.

The majority of CathInfo members profess to be Catholics trying to save their souls to the best of their ability, during this Crisis in the Church which is serious beyond precedent. I believe this majority consists of members who possess the indelible Baptismal character which is necessary for salvation.

I cannot know whether or not there are formally excommunicated persons (or vitandi) present on CathInfo (and nobody can, since all we see is a screen name); there are undeniably those who still need to convert to Catholicism, who have explicitly admitted they are learning the Faith, and we cannot know whether or not there are others who have incurred latae sententiae, except by there words and actions in the external forum, by which they manifest and make known their hearts.

St. Matthew 15:18: "But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man."

I will not impose (i.e., require as as prerequisite for membership in the Catholic Church) dogmas that do not exist: But I will not pretend that certain dogmas are not dogmas, that certain heretics are popes, that certain heresies are not heresy or that coming to the wrong conclusion concerning the above (when one has within his power to know the truth) does not either eject one from the Church or keep one out of it.


I will not act in any manner that goes against my declaration (above). - David


___________________________________________________

The majority of CathInfo members are Catholics trying to save their souls to the best of their ability, during this Crisis in the Church which is serious beyond precedent. This majority consists of members of Christ's Mystical Body, who possess the One True Faith which leads to salvation.

There are no formally excommunicated persons (or vitandi) present on CathInfo to the best of my knowledge; and (with few exceptions) none that still need to convert to Catholicism.

I will not impose (i.e., require as as prerequisite for membership in the Catholic Church) dogmas that do not exist: including, but not limited to, positions regarding: past popes, Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, Natural Family Planning, and Fatima.

David,

While you're more diplomatic and sly than FKP, you do nevertheless believe that no one on this board shares the same Faith as you (FKP having been banned earlier today).

You are more polite than he, but it doesn't change the fact that you consider us ALL to be non-Catholics.

It is true that profession of the Catholic Faith is not a strict requirement for CathInfo membership. Nevertheless, virtually all of us on CathInfo are Catholic, and the Crisis on the Church subforum is where we discuss the Crisis in OUR Catholic Church. You do not believe you are part of our Church, so there is no reason for you to be posting there.

Therefore, I am making the Crisis subforum read-only for you. This does not excuse you from the requirement of keeping all Crisis-related posts in that forum. (Ergo, you can't post anything related to the Crisis: Papal claimants, Church teaching, errors, controversial heresies, etc.)

FKP also blatantly broke the rules against being charitable (and he is considerably less polite) -- so this solution wouldn't have worked for him. But it can work in your case, if you so desire.

If you have an important post that needs to go in the Crisis subforum, you can PM it to another member who agrees with you. If you cannot find such a member, perhaps you should ask yourself what you're doing here in the first place.

Matthew

P.S.  Raoul, I'm sorry, my reply to you will have to wait until tomorrow.

Quote

I agree.  Furthermore, the three main problem people on the site (CM, Raoul, and FK) ALL responded in the negative to Matthew's request and put forward their own requirements.  That definitely warrants banning in my opinion.

I'm sorry that I bother you, Jamie.

The ONE requirement I have is that I be allowed rights over my own brain.  Matthew has no right to ask me to believe everyone here is Catholic, any more than Joseph Stalin has the right to make me believe he is God.  This would be to infringe on my conscience.  That is why it triggered a reaction among those whose consciences are sensitive.

As someone who loves freedom, I'm going to take a wild guess that Matthew did not mean what he said literally.  

Otherwise I fully intend to comply with all of Matthew's wishes, and always have, to the best of my ability.  

Your "brain" is subject to the requirements of charity insofar as when a man expresses to you that he is Catholic and believes what the Church teaches in its dogmas and doctrines, or the Fathers, and assents to accepted theological conclusions, you're obliged to take him at his word.

The only ones dissenting from the traditional papal magisterium are you and CM on the pretext of course that you have a better grasp of true doctrine, papal teaching notwithstanding.  In fact, you don't faint from even deposing Popes who stand in your way to true enlightenment.  A frightening thought for most Catholics.    

What are we supposed to do with that?  When you declare our popes to be invalid usurpers because you've come along with your enlightened points of view and new fangled opinions?  Do you expect us to take it lightly?  Do you expect us to see virtue in that?  The Catholic system starts to unravel when a man attempts to kick against the goad.  In this you two are related to the liberals and modernists that fill the ranks of the hierarchy.      

Matthew has actually been very tolerant of sedevacantists, consistently resisting calls to have them all banned.  That's why I joined this forum.  Matthew's openness and tolerance towards opinions that fall short of dogma are incredibly refreshing.  Over the years, both the dogmatic sedevacantists and dogmatic sedeplen!sts have caused eachother to polarize more and more, so that one can find denunciations of heresy and schism coming from each quarter against the other.  Such attitudes have short-circuited real rational discussion of this horrific crisis in this Church and have served to create a real crisis of humility and charity among Traditional Catholics.

Consequently, in openly discussing issues around sedevacantism, the necessity of baptism, and NFP (the three most hotly controverted issues among Traditional Catholics), I have actually seen more rational discussion and charitable tolerance on this forum than I have anywhere else.  I find it incredibly refreshing and edifying.

I for one enjoy when people challenge my positions.  Even if I don't agree with the arguments they bring, I always learn something if I keep an open mind--if in no other way than by causing me to take a more balanced, nuanced, and logically refined view of the matter in question.  I often devil's advocate against my own positions, to keep myself honest, and it's funny that I can actually find better objections to my own ideas than what usually come from those who have been blinded to all logic due to various agendas.  And therein lies the brilliance of the scholastic method as well, in putting up objections to your own conclusions and having to refute them.

And I understand why people get so dogmatic.  Because this crisis has so attacked the Faith, almost shaken it to its very core, people sometimes feel a need to put up psychological defenses to help safeguard their own faith.  Sometimes, however, these defenses can be overly simplistic, or black-and-white, lacking the appropriate logical distinctions and nuances.

Unfortunately, however, the defenses of these positions become extremely vitriolic.  Why do people get so bitter in these polemics?  Truth needs no defense.  Truth is the truth regardless of whether anyone believes it or not.  So if we argue and engage in polemics, trying to convince others of our positions, the only real motive for this should be charity, the desire to bring others out of their errors and to truth.  If we see excessive bitterness, that usually comes from a polemic motivated by the desire for self-justification, and to keep up our psychological barriers against this horrible crisis.

I made a conscious decision to almost completely disengage from the polemic about thirteen years ago now.  I do enjoy theology, but this polemic had done great harm to my own mind and soul.  I now much prefer to spend time in prayer, in contemplation, and in acts of charity towards others.

Our Lord taught us that His followers would be recognized by their love for one another.  If Traditional Catholicism is to be seen as the right way, we need to begin demonstrating that charity.  Otherwise, it'll be rejected out-of-hand for its "bad fruits" by those who might otherwise be inclined in that direction.  We can become a stumbling block for others.

I actually recognize a certain amount of validity in the points made by sedevacantists, as well as the anti-sedevacantists.  And I have argued both sides of this issue since I've been a member of this forum.  I have taken an in-between position of "Papa Doubtism" (LOL).  I find great peace in that spot intellectually, because I leave the resolution of this crisis with God, acknowledging my inability to fully come to terms with this great crisis.

I have over the years gotten to know very many SSPX, sedevacantist, conservative Novus Ordo, Eastern Rite Catholic, CMRI, Feeneyite, and independent bishops, priests, religious, and lay people.  I have nothing but compassion for everyone--especially for those who have strayed the furthest from charity into extremism.  We must remember to have charity for all, even for the uncharitable.  And I know how most of those who have strayed from charity are in fact tortured souls.  I know that first hand from how deeply this kind of attitude scarred me.  Truly the shepherd has been struck (in some manner) and the sheep scattered.  But I am certain that when Our Lord chooses to come out once again and call His sheep, those of His flock will know and hear His voice--and many Novus Ordo, SSPX, FSP, sedevacantist, and independenet folks will happily reuinted under Our Shepherd.   Sadly, there will be those in each group also who will not.  And in that way shall we know who have been formal Catholics and who have not.  I think that Our Lord has allowed these divisions in order to actually separate out the bad impurities from the Church, not unlike how a centrifuge operates, with the heavier impurities being pushed further and further out towards the extreme so that it can be separated from the pure essence.  We're in the difficult painful stages of a marvelous and miraculous purification of the Church by Our Lord.

If all sides could at least momentarily put down the axes they are grinding and extend a hand of charity, perhaps we could actually get somewhere, and Our Lord would then begin through us to thwart the devil's divide-and-conquer tactics.

 

I'd actually like to know the extra-forum relationship between CM and fk, for there can't be two people who think so alike, rejecting all the same popes, etc. who came to these conclusions entirely independently.

For some time, I suspected that CM and fk were the same person, acting good-cop (CM) and bad-cop (fk).

So what?  With these types, it's ALWAYS About THEM.

It is the v2 cult that has driven people away from the Faith.

true, but angry, nasty people do not encourage either....my friends I ntoed earlier has made this woman angry and now, she has no interest in the Faith at all..everytime she shows interest, some angry in your face idiot kills it....one guy talking to me, in front of her, stated "so, its your job to convert her" she felt manipulated, used and very angry...guy besides his words came off as triumphant, rude and arrogant....

in my area, a lotof people leave Church to Prt congregations, when I ask why, they say "well, these people were nice and rally cared about me, I enjoy getting active in things". it is not a fake care either, for Prots engage people most of time with genuine concern.

now this lady, who is Prot, who do you think she sees Christ in? she has noted to me, not Catholics....

One wants to insult her, one wants to convert her on the spot and others are either cold or rude.....who then shows care and love described in the NT?

One cannot see Truth if others are in the way......we, esp siunce v2, are cold and dessicated, we offer little......sacrements? of course, but one has to take that step after several others first......she understands why we beleive in sacrements, but cannot accept herself and again, no one to turn to that has not been rude, cold or arrogant, so the Church is a turn off to her......it is people like CM that have made it so for her.....

know a convert couple, going to Trad latin Rite made them almost lose Faith and stay at home,,,got them goignto Eastern Rite and they are happy, but often, same mentalities they see, esp form latins, but more a "dont worry, be happy" attitude on part of easterners.....