Author Topic: Charity (Read 1314 times)

Pope Augustine · « **on:** November 24, 2009, 10:42:40 AM »

We speak not of those who are silent, and whom We have not been exposed. But of those in these forums.

The Apostolic See commends ChantCD for his charity in allowing it to address people on these forums. It also commends Catholic Martyr who, while certainly a heretic, has displayed natural charity to the See in times past. These are people most likely to receive God's eye opening grace.

But even the hardest of hearts (like Lucio) can be turned to God. Time alone will tell who is among the elect, who responds to grace.

Belloc · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2009, 10:47:58 AM »

um....so you say that CM is a heretic, yet he will receive graces anyway???

:pop:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2009, 11:52:18 AM »

Quote from: Pope Augustine

We speak not of those who are silent, and whom We have not been exposed.

This sentence does not even make sense. You might think of employing a secretary who grasps English (and Latin) and can write well.

Quote

Time alone will tell who is among the elect, who responds to grace.

Indeed.

Pope Augustine · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:24:13 PM »

Eamon,

Suffice to say that two can play your little game of grammatical propriety. While it was not of the best form, to mention "whom" or "who" without any kind of proposition prior to it leaves it to the sense of the reader on how to complete the phrase. The intelligent reader will grasp the meaning.

Here are some good examples of your own errors in recent posts:

YOU SAID: Yes, there is more to the story (some of which I know), and Dr. Droleskey cannot share what he has not been told, but experience shows that an actual loss of faith flows from grave harm, not just from bullying, in and of itself.

Ending a sentence with "itself" is highly improper grammar.

YOU SAID: Well said, positivus. Welcome to the forum.

You should not put a comma before positivus. You are not quoting someone.

YOU SAID: Go get the relevant quotes (or, what would be better) carry on in the thread where it all started) or shut up. End of story.

You have placed a double parenthesis, always a problem.

YOU SAID: Could he not be refraining from motives of charity? Well, I have serious reasons to doubt such.

Ending a sentence with such is highly unsophisticated.

Why are you joining yourself to the Pharisees Eamon, you should know better.

Keep in mind that the Apocalypse contains imperfect Greek.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2009, 12:36:21 PM »

Thanks for the tips. Btw, typos, etc., are not quite the same thing as a sentence that does not make sense. Look at the second half of your sentence I quoted.

Quote

We speak not of those who are silent, and whom We have not been exposed.

FWIW, I was not addressing the who/m issue, but what follows. Perhaps you just left out "by"? Such is an innocent enough mistake.

I am flattered (and more than a little surprised) that you have obviously been keeping close tabs on what I write.

Cheerio.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2009, 05:11:37 AM »

Quote from: Pope Augustine

Eamon,

Suffice to say that two can play your little game of grammatical propriety. While it was not of the best form, to mention "whom" or "who" without any kind of proposition prior to it leaves it to the sense of the reader on how to complete the phrase. The intelligent reader will grasp the meaning.

Here are some good examples of your own errors in recent posts:

YOU SAID: Yes, there is more to the story (some of which I know), and Dr. Droleskey cannot share what he has not been told, but experience shows that an actual loss of faith flows from grave harm, not just from bullying, in and of itself.

Ending a sentence with "itself" is highly improper grammar.

YOU SAID: Well said, positivus. Welcome to the forum.

You should not put a comma before positivus. You are not quoting someone.

YOU SAID: Go get the relevant quotes (or, what would be better) carry on in the thread where it all started) or shut up. End of story.

You have placed a double parenthesis, always a problem.

YOU SAID: Could he not be refraining from motives of charity? Well, I have serious reasons to doubt such.

Ending a sentence with such is highly unsophisticated.

Why are you joining yourself to the Pharisees Eamon, you should know better.

Keep in mind that the Apocalypse contains imperfect Greek.

Dear Pope Wizard Of The Web,

Eamon obviously reacted somewhat spontaneously to your errors that he saw here in this thread.

How very undignified and childish of you to go hunting elsewhere on the forum for Eamon's grammatical errors and then point them out here.

There is a big difference in what you both just did.

Also Eamon is mere laymen. He is not held to the same high standards that popes are held to. He is not as accountable as a pope. :wink:

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2009, 05:17:53 AM »

Quote from: Pope Augustine

The Apostolic See commends ChantCD for his charity in allowing it to address people on these forums. It also commends Catholic Martyr who, while certainly a heretic, has displayed natural charity to the See in times past. These are people most likely to receive God's eye opening grace.

Gus,

I don't think either of them will get intoxicated witth your transparent flattery.

RC

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2009, 05:31:49 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

I am flattered (and more than a little surprised) that you have obviously been keeping close tabs on what I write.

Oh and don't get your hopes up Gus; I don't think Eamon will get intoxicated with your flattery either.

Pope Augustine · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2009, 11:08:20 PM »

"Roman Catholic",

If God gave you wisdom you would have known not even to respond to what We said regarding the pointed errors. Gladius has some God given wisdom and realized the point. But because you love to strain gnats and swallow camels, you fell into the trap that was set for the wicked.

As We've said before in other ways, so We say again now... you are anathema.

Let Gladius speak for himself, and let everyone boast in the Lord only.

Augustine

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2009, 01:50:11 AM »

Dear Pope Wiz,

As for what you just wrote and everything else you have written on this site, and other sites:

You better go back behind the curtain now and blow more smoke because you have not scared me yet.

CM · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2009, 02:13:27 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

um....so you say that CM is a heretic, yet he will receive graces anyway???

:pop:

Although it's theologically and factually incorrect to call me a heretic, it's theologically correct to say that heretics are given grace by God.

Otherwise, Belloc, nobody would ever convert to the Christian Faith. It is a dogma of the Holy Catholic Faith that prevenient grace ALWAYS precedes sanctifying grace. (cf. Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2009, 01:02:11 PM »

In this thread in particular, grammar, etc IS a gnat. Fair enough. I admit my mistake and offense, begging your pardon.

What I find FAR more interesting is the fact that you were able to produce a post that used several quotes from disparate posts of mine, collecting them and commenting upon them within a very short time. Most of the work had to have been done previous to the use of the information.

I do not think you, like some of the present "popes", are mad. Although I cannot prove it via such a medium, it seems more like you are a very intelligent man, causing confusion within Traddieland on purpose.

To produce the post you did, you had to have been watching what I write for some time, and quite closely. Such is not illegal, but it makes one wonder as to the reason. I have not been paying ANY attention to your posts. Yes, I posted in this thread, but it was a quick one-off. Your reaction has told me some things I did not remotely suspect (knowing ZERO about you until now).

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:19:27 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

..... it seems more like you are a very intelligent man, causing confusion within Traddieland on purpose.

I agree that fake-pope Gus is causing confusion on purpose.

It appears that originally he started his scam as a reactive measure to what some Catholics were writing on a another webgroup: traditionalcatholicsclub@yahoogroups.com The archives there contain proof.

At the time pope Gus (aka Phillip etc. etc. etc. ) did not have a long-term plan in place. The intention was to fool some traditional Catholics and to mock them.

He eventually admitted that his "Pope Augustine" creation was a fake. He revealed some of his true colors and he ridiculed those whom he thought had fallen for his sick joke.

Later on he decided to bring the scam back to life, so he tweaked it and developed it so that it would cause trouble to a wider audience. He even tries to explain away his past scam. He can't deny it because too much proof exists. So he wants us to believe that he did start off making up the pope thing but later on he really became the pope.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:35:59 PM »

There are employment opportunities for internet chimps. Maybe that's what's going on here? :ape: :ape: :ape: :ape:

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** November 27, 2009, 05:26:22 AM »

Pope Augustine does not even really exist outside of the www.

The person who is running the con is a perverted fraudster.

Hey "Pope Augustine" you still have not answered: If someone
wants to meet you in a visitation where exactly are you located?