Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7

Author Topic: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning  (Read 6338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline poche

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16730
  • Reputation: +1218/-4688
  • Gender: Male
Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2020, 10:49:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Incredulous on January 08, 2020, 07:47:03 PM
    How did you choose he name "Poche"?
    This is how I chose the name Poche;
    Capt. Felix Pierre Poché must have been one of those Army rarities who could almost invariably separate a few real facts from a multitude of rumors when almost all communication was by word of mouth.
    The young Confederate Army officer, 27 at the time of the 1864 cινιℓ ωαr campaigns in Louisiana, did not believe in slavery, though his family owned some slaves, did not approve of secession, but became fiercely patriotic to the Confederacy; at first would not join the Confederate Army, but later won citations for bravery in battle; was instilled with the love of the Napoleonic-type of massed infantry, cavalry and artillery tactics, but was deeply moved by the suffering of both friendly and enemy soldiers who fell on the battlefield.
    He was also devoutly religious, and devoted to his young wife and his 2-year old daughter. He was one of those fourth generation South Louisiana French-Acadian aristocrats-son, grandson and great-grandson of planters-whose loyalty to his relatives friends and neighbors knew no bounds.
    Capt. Poché was truly an officer and a gentleman. But to those who would remember him 100 years later, the most important characteristic of this young Confederate Army officer who would someday become an associate justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court was his obsession for keeping a diary.

    http://pochefamily.org/diaryfelixppoche.htm
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #76 on: January 08, 2020, 10:50:37 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: roscoe on January 08, 2020, 08:52:17 PM
    This is correct Meg as the тαℓмυd is certainly on the Index for the layman & i would imagine most of the Clergy. Exceptions are made for certain qualified theologians who need to prepare for a disputation or whatever. There have been debates w/ тαℓмυdic 'scholars' in the past... :popcorn:
    Is Mark79 one of those qualified theologians? 
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #77 on: January 08, 2020, 10:51:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on January 08, 2020, 10:26:54 PM
    "Certainly"? "Imagine"? Really?

    Which Index? Tridentine? or Pauline?

    Which edition/year of the ever-changing indices?

    If forbidden, why did Pope Leo X commission publication of one of the most ornate тαℓмυd editions ever?

    Sorry, Roscoe, I'd need a reliable reference substantiating that during the papacy of Pope Pius XII, the last true Pope, the тαℓмυd was listed on the Index.

    For decades I have periodically researched тαℓмυd tractates and related commentary. I have never found even an unreferenced or vague statement that the тαℓмυd was on the Index. It may have been so at one time, but I need a verifiable reference, not supposition, that the тαℓмυd remained on the Index during the most recent valid papacy.

    I wonder if the non-sedevacantist harpy herself understands that her "valid" Pope Pius VI eliminated the Index.

    In fact, Meg's "valid" Pope Bergoglio's official newspaper recommended DAILY тαℓмυd study, a recommendation that was not restricted to "qualified theologians" or "clergy":

    L’Osservatore Romano recommends Daf Yomi (Daily тαℓмυd Lessons)
    http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/06/losservatore-romano-reccomends-daf-yomi.html





    scroll to page 6:
    L’Osservatore Romano, Anno CLIII n. 96 (46.340), venerdì 26 aprile 2013, Il тαℓмυd giorno per giorno, pagina 6.

    Could it be that it is such a contradiction to the Catholic Faith that no good Catholic would want to waste their time on it? 
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9543
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #78 on: January 08, 2020, 10:56:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Then why does your Pope's newspaper (over which he has control) recommend DAILY тαℓмυd STUDY?
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9543
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #79 on: January 08, 2020, 11:01:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Dec 28:
     
     Poche: Matthew and Mark79 are right. I did make a mistake in quoting from Matthew. I apologize.
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/condemnation-of-poche-errors-and-formal-warning/msg681100/#msg681100
     
     Dec 29:
     
     josefamenendez  called him out: Poche, that was a "mistake' with serious deliberate intention to obfuscate the true meaning of the scripture to support a larger false perception.  ("It" meaning the Church versus "you" meaning Peter). Some people would call that a lie to further an agenda.That's no mistake.
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/condemnation-of-poche-errors-and-formal-warning/msg681126/#msg681126
     
     I asked: If you made a mistake, singular, why did you defend the "mistake" with additional "mistakes"?…
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/condemnation-of-poche-errors-and-formal-warning/msg681108/#msg681108
     
     I accused him and posted additional evidence in that thread of Poche piling lies upon lies.
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681107/#msg681107
     
     Eventually, after a variety of ruses, Poche responded:
     I went to confession this morning and the priest gave me absolution.
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681110/#msg681110
     
     I took that at face value: Then let us all keep a clean slate.
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681116/#msg681116
     
     Perspicaciously, josefamenendez called Poche on his mockery: I see a lot feigned innocence that is atypical of an autist. Poche is insideously clever in his replies. The depth of certain posts (especially in foreign languages) belies the his childlike responses here. He tends never to answer a question and always misdirects. Hmmmmm... very good bot or serious troll
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681124/#msg681124
     
     So, if he hadn't lied, but only made a "mistake," why did he feign (or misdirect) that he confessed?
     He attempted to use confession as an alibi. Poche mocked confession.
     
     Jan 4:
     
     Responding to josefamenendez' Dec 29 accusation "serious deliberate intention to obfuscate the true meaning of the scripture to support a larger false perception," Poche stated: You are right. I had a larger idea that I was trying to convey.
     
     
     Jan 5:
     
     Poche: I see a huge difference between a deliberate lie and an honest mistake.
         https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/condemnation-of-poche-errors-and-formal-warning/msg682408/#msg682408
     
     So, BEFORE AND AFTER feigning repentance at confession (by misdirection), Poche denied (by misdirection) any LIES in his posts. His LIES were merely "mistakes" and "larger ideas." Poche is the one who mocked confession.
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #80 on: January 08, 2020, 11:20:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on January 08, 2020, 10:37:01 PM
    Ideas like the Blessed Mother was prefigured by a demon's star?
    "Greater ideas" that require falsifying scripture?
    Ideas like stacking lies upon lies?
    Ideas condemned by the Magisterium?
    We need no such "ideas."
    Leave and take your channeled demons with you.



    The Holy Virgin is the star of the Sea. According to John the Evangelist, she wears a crown of twelve stars.
    1] And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 
    Revelations 12:1
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9543
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #81 on: January 08, 2020, 11:50:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: poche on January 08, 2020, 11:20:41 PM
    The Holy Virgin is the star of the Sea. According to John the Evangelist, she wears a crown of twelve stars.
    1] And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
    Revelations 12:1
    The Star of the DEMON Rempham is NOT the Star of the Sea.
    The Star of the DEMON Rempham is NOT a prefiguration of the Star of the Sea.
    A devil or symbol of a devil is NOT a prefiguration of the Immaculate Conception.
    Your suggestion is a great blasphemy, yet you continue to defend it.
    As I said, "We need no such ideas."
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #82 on: January 08, 2020, 11:54:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on January 08, 2020, 11:50:22 PM
    The Star of the DEMON Rempham is NOT the Star of the Sea.
    The Star of the DEMON Rempham is NOT a prefiguration of the Star of the Sea.
    A devil or symbol of a devil is NOT a prefiguration of the Immaculate Conception.
    Your suggestion is a great blasphemy, yet you continue to defend it.
    As I said, "We need no such ideas."
    The only star I am interested in is the Holy Virgin;
    [size=+3]A[/size][size=+1]VE[/size] maris stella,
    Dei Mater alma,
    atque semper Virgo,
    felix caeli porta.     		[size=+3]H[/size][size=+1]AIL[/size], O Star of the ocean,
    God's own Mother blest,
    ever sinless Virgin,
    gate of heav'nly rest.
    Sumens illud Ave
    Gabrielis ore,
    funda nos in pace,
    mutans Hevae nomen.     		Taking that sweet Ave,
    which from Gabriel came,
    peace confirm within us,
    changing Eve's name.
    Solve vincula reis,
    profer lumen caecis
    mala nostra pelle,
    bona cuncta posce.     		Break the sinners' fetters,
    make our blindness day,
    Chase all evils from us,
    for all blessings pray.
    Monstra te esse matrem:
    sumat per te preces,
    qui pro nobis natus,
    tulit esse tuus.     		Show thyself a Mother,
    may the Word divine
    born for us thine Infant
    hear our prayers through thine.
    Virgo singularis,
    inter omnes mites,
    nos culpis solutos,
    mitis fac et castos.     		Virgin all excelling,
    mildest of the mild,
    free from guilt preserve us
    meek and undefiled.
    Vitam praesta puram,
    iter para tutum:
    ut videntes Iesum
    semper collaetemur.     		Keep our life all spotless,
    make our way secure
    till we find in Jesus,
    joy for evermore.
    Sit laus Deo Patri,
    summo Christo decus,
    Spiritui Sancto,
    tribus honor unus. Amen.     		Praise to God the Father,
    honor to the Son,
    in the Holy Spirit,
    be the glory one. Amen.


    http://preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/AveMarisStella.html
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9543
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #83 on: January 08, 2020, 11:58:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: poche on January 08, 2020, 11:54:27 PM
    The only star I am interested in is the Holy Virgin;
    That is a lie.
    You suggested that the "star of the Jєωs" (the Bible calls it the Star of the demon Rempham) prefigured Our Blessed Mother.
    Your own words show that you have an interest in the demon's star.
    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/st-stephen-exposed-the-Jєω's-occult-star/msg681317/#msg681317 


    You also said: "God … can also choose a pagan star to be the prefiguration for the advent of the Holy Virgin, who is the Star of the Sea.
    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681521/#msg681521

    Except nowhere does God say such a thing. YOU and YOU ALONE said it. You attempt to pretend God is an accomplice to your blasphemy.
    Logged

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1218/-4688
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #84 on: January 09, 2020, 01:12:25 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on January 08, 2020, 11:58:21 PM
    That is a lie.
    You suggested that the "star of the Jєωs" (the Bible calls it the Star of the demon Rempham) prefigured Our Blessed Mother.
    Your own words show that you have an interest in the demon's star.
    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/st-stephen-exposed-the-Jєω's-occult-star/msg681317/#msg681317


    You also said: "God … can also choose a pagan star to be the prefiguration for the advent of the Holy Virgin, who is the Star of the Sea.
    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681521/#msg681521

    Except nowhere does God say such a thing. YOU and YOU ALONE said it. You attempt to pretend God is an accomplice to your blasphemy.
    You are correct. All that I want in relation to any stars is how they could lead us to the Holy Virgin. How can we honor the Holy virgin? Where can we see her prefigured in the Old Testament? Where can we find her? Where we find the Holy Virgin there we can find Jesus. Because it was the exception that the Holy Virgin was not near to her Holy Son.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9543
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #85 on: January 09, 2020, 09:48:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: poche on January 09, 2020, 01:12:25 AM
    You are correct. All that I want in relation to any stars is how they could lead us to the Holy Virgin. How can we honor the Holy virgin? Where can we see her prefigured in the Old Testament? Where can we find her? Where we find the Holy Virgin there we can find Jesus. Because it was the exception that the Holy Virgin was not near to her Holy Son.
    It is typical of both you and Satan to admix truth and lies.

    You have done so repeatedly with your drive-bys, dropping a satanic bomb (demon symbol prefiguring Mary, falsifying Matthew for your "greater idea," lying about what Jorge says to give him cover, "paraphrasing" St. Paul to defend Jorge's "Jesus made himself the devil," partially quoting Pope St. Pius X to falsify and ally him with Jorge's Judaizing, etc.) and when called out for your blasphemies and lies, dropping mass quantities of pious sounding camouflage that do not really address or exculpate your lies and blasphemies.

    You are truly despicable.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9543
    • Reputation: +6255/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #86 on: January 09, 2020, 11:25:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!4
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on January 09, 2020, 09:48:37 AM
    It is typical of both you and Satan to admix truth and lies.

    You have done so repeatedly with your drive-bys, dropping a satanic bomb (demon symbol prefiguring Mary, falsifying Matthew for your "greater idea," lying about what Jorge says to give him cover, "paraphrasing" St. Paul to defend Jorge's "Jesus made himself the devil," partially quoting Pope St. Pius X to falsify and ally him with Jorge's Judaizing, etc.) and when called out for your blasphemies and lies, dropping mass quantities of pious sounding camouflage that do not really address or exculpate your lies and blasphemies.

    You are truly despicable.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #87 on: January 12, 2020, 01:12:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Bump.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41865
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #88 on: January 12, 2020, 01:32:46 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Matthew shut down the poll on the basis of this not being a democracy and that it was some kind of lynch mob.  Nobody ever said that Matthew was obliged to act on the poll.  He had already said he would not ban him.  I was just trying to get a feel for how prevailing the sentiment is for banning him.

    It's become obvious that poche is just yanking our chains and probably sits there snickering that he can get away with this nonsense.  I can see no real reason for letting him stick around just so he can mock Traditional Catholicism (which is obviously what he's doing).  But poche does drive up traffic to the forum both directly (with 15,000+ posts) and indirectly by all the responses he elicits (usually by posting outrageous nonsense).
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
    « Reply #89 on: January 12, 2020, 01:34:54 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 12, 2020, 01:32:46 PM
    Matthew shut down the poll on the basis of this not being a democracy and that it was some kind of lynch mob.  Nobody ever said that Matthew was obliged to act on the poll.  He had already said he would not ban him.  I was just trying to get a feel for how prevailing the sentiment is for banning him.

    It's become obvious that poche is just yanking our chains and probably sits there snickering that he can get away with this nonsense.  I can see no real reason for letting him stick around just so he can mock Traditional Catholicism (which is obviously what he's doing).  But poche does drive up traffic to the forum both directly (with 15,000+ posts) and indirectly by all the responses he elicits (usually by posting outrageous nonsense).
    The fact that he has over 15,000 posts and is still here speaks volumes.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
    « previous next »