Does that mean no one may cite LifeSite either?If it is true that Life Site misquotes scriptures, then what else are they misquoting and misrepresenting?
They have recently been taking quotations out of context as well which is a shame because they used to be reliable. The internet is just gotten much worse in terms of even the old reliable sites, so hopefully Poche was a victim of a bad website.
Does that mean no one may cite LifeSite either?I don't think it a good idea to smear Lifesite without giving a verified example of accusations. Besides your question is irrelevent to this thread - Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
They have recently been taking quotations out of context as well which is a shame because they used to be reliable. The internet is just gotten much worse in terms of even the old reliable sites, so hopefully Poche was a victim of a bad website.
2. Using quotation marks to signify a direct quotation, where the quotation in question never existed.This is relevant since I recently tried to use the site for a college paper as a source and the articles I was going to use had misquoted someone.
This is relevant since I recently tried to use the site for a college paper as a source and the articles I was going to use had misquoted someone.Please share a link to those articles.
I don't think it a good idea to smear Lifesite without giving a verified example of accusations. Besides your question is irrelevent to this thread - Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal WarningCondemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning
This is relevant since I recently tried to use the site for a college paper as a source and the articles I was going to use had misquoted someone.But still you don't provide evidence that Lifesite took quotations out of context and you imply they can no longer be considered reliable because of an alledged misquote which may (if it exists) have been an honest mistake with no ill intent. One has to be careful about such iinsinuations, and even more so because they do such valuable service.
Poche visited:You jinxed us.....see the Friday dinner thread.
Last Active: Today at 01:03:15 AM
but posted nothing! Not even his dinner.
Entering the word “corrections” in the LifeSite search immediately returns a fair number of titles indicating that LifeSite has corrected various stories thanks to reader or other input.This comes from Life Site themselves saying why they are accurate in opposition to other news sites. One may wonder how accurate they can be before publishing news stories if you can find according to them a fair number of titles.
You jinxed us.....see the Friday dinner thread.Then all the more revealing.
No public acknowledgment of a public condemnation. No abjuration. No reparation.
Is it ok to periodically refer to the Latin Vulgate?Re-read the explicit condemnation.
With Mark79's assistance, it has come to my attention that Poche has posted known, concrete errors on CathInfo. This is in violation of CathInfo rules forbidding *any* falsehoods of any kind.
1. Falsifying a Scripture quote -- in a signficant manner, which actually changes the meaning -- and not taking correction when his error was pointed out.
2. Using quotations marks when the quote was never uttered
3. Claiming that Pope Francis "preached against the тαℓмυd" when the allocution itself didn't mention the тαℓмυd at all. As I will mention later, quotation marks MEAN SOMETHING and intellectual honesty must be maintained on a written discussion forum. If the words weren't uttered, don't place them in quotation marks.
4. Placing St. Pius X's stance on the тαℓмυd and the Jews on the same level as Pope Francis.
So I condemn and correct Poche's errors including:
1. Mis-quoting Scripture
Scripture itself must NOT be twisted to win an argument, look better, save face, defend yourself, or even to defend someone else -- even someone as important as the Pope. One cannot do evil that good might come from it. That is basic Catholic moral theology.
The official, preferred translation used by most Traditional Catholics, and therefore CathInfo as well, is the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation (also acceptable: the original Douay-Rheims). In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself. But nowadays, few Catholics, even within Tradition, can read Latin. So I recommend the Douay-Rheims which is just as accurate but in English. I recommend you bookmark www.drbo.org (http://www.drbo.org/) to look up Scripture quotes; it even has a handy search function.
2. Using quotation marks to signify a direct quotation, where the quotation in question never existed.
Just like Abraham Lincoln told me a few days ago, "That's death to any Internet forum, Matthew!"
This can't be allowed on any written discussion forum. Quotation marks should only be used when the person in question actually uttered those words verbatim. If you wish to paraphrase or summarize, you must leave the quote marks off. And NEVER put words in anyone's mouth. That includes during arguments, where combatants are wont to quote their opponent, change their quote, and say "fixed it for you" to make a point, as a device of sorts. But it's crude and dishonest to put words into your opponent's mouth, so it's not allowed on this forum (as well as most other fora out there).
3. Claiming Pope Francis did or said something he did not
The truth doesn't need you to "modify", spin, or twist it. State the truth simply and let the chips fall where they may. You never know, it might open your eyes to the truth in other areas as well. Willfully deceiving yourself, or accepting a lie in place of the truth, eventually leads to a complete inability to perceive the truth. In the end, the miserable soul can even worship satan (the father of lies) in place of God (who is Truth).
4. Claiming there is no Crisis in the Church, Pope St. Pius X had basically the same stance on the Jews/тαℓмυd as Pope Francis, etc.
I allow members to deal with the Crisis in the Church according to their own lights, prudence, and conscience. However, denying the Crisis altogether puts you completely outside the Traditional Catholic movement. This is a Traditional Catholic forum. If you want to ask questions of the many well informed and educated Catholics here, be my guest. But you must respect the Traditional Catholic beliefs and position. Even many conservative Novus Ordo Catholics know that Pope Francis is a different kind of Pope (in a bad way) than good old popes like St. Pius X. Even many who choose to say in the Novus Ordo acknowledge there is a huge Crisis in the Church.
5. Failure to acknowledge some actual errors in the modern Catholic Church, for example the post-Vatican II errors on the Jews ("Elder brothers in the Church", "Their covenant is still valid", "They don't need to convert") which is in direct contradiction to pre-Vatican II Popes, including St. Peter: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation." (Acts 2:36-40)
This is a formal warning for Poche, that he cease posting these errors on CathInfo and abide by the forum rules as I have described them. Failure to comply could result in further moderator action(s).
CathInfo members are encouraged to report any violations of these rules, by Poche or any other member. Please use the "Report to Moderator" link in the lower-right corner of each post, send me a PM, or e-mail me: matthew at cathinfo dot com.
Here you go:https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-re-names-cardinal-burke-to-vaticans-highest-court-68003
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-corrects-lifesitenews-i-have-never-worked-with-steve-bannon-89660 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-corrects-lifesitenews-i-have-never-worked-with-steve-bannon-89660)
Is it ok to periodically refer to the Latin Vulgate?
Go to town. Hebrew and Greek are also welcome here.
The official, preferred translation used by most Traditional Catholics, and therefore CathInfo as well, is the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation (also acceptable: the original Douay-Rheims). In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself. But nowadays, few Catholics, even within Tradition, can read Latin. So I recommend the Douay-Rheims which is just as accurate but in English. I recommend you bookmark www.drbo.org to look up Scripture quotes; it even has a handy search function.…
The official, preferred translation used by most Traditional Catholics, and therefore CathInfo as well, is the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation (also acceptable: the original Douay-Rheims). In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself.
I fear that our fearless owner-moderator suffered a brief brain-cramp. His praise for the "original Douay-Rheims" as I faithfully quoted it, should instead have been "slavishly-faithful-to-the-original Latin of the of the Vulgate itself".No, he was referring to the English translation as being slavishly faithful to the original Latin Vulgate. The syntax was a bit confusing, but I understood exactly what he was saying. The DRV feels a bit "clunky" sometimes precisely for this reason --- it doesn't "flow" as well as the Latin does, but the translators opted for fidelity over elegance.
In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original▓English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself.
No, he was referring to the English translation as being slavishly faithful to the original Latin Vulgate. The syntax was a bit confusing, but I understood exactly what he was saying.
1. Mis-quoting Scripture
Scripture itself must NOT be twisted to win an argument, look better, save face, defend yourself, or even to defend someone else -- even someone as important as the Pope. One cannot do evil that good might come from it. That is basic Catholic moral theology.
Matthew and Mark79 are right. I did make a mistake in quoting from Matthew. I apologize.
If you made a mistake, singular, why did you defend the "mistake" with additional "mistakes"?In each of these three examples I was responding to the OP and not to your off the subject entries.
a) pretending that your initial quote "mistake" was just an inference that the Gates of Hell didn't prevail against Peter personally:
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/novus-ordo-hs-student-dilemma/msg680060/#msg680060
b) pretending that your "mistake" was “prudential silence,” as if words are any kind of “silence”:
https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/advice-concerning-detraction/msg679757/#msg679757
c) continuing to pretend that there is no difference between “you” and “it”:
https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/friday-or-not-whats-your-dinner/msg680141/#msg680141
With Mark79's assistance, it has come to my attention that Poche has posted known, concrete errors on CathInfo. This is in violation of CathInfo rules forbidding *any* falsehoods of any kind.Well worth Poche's re-reading!
1. Falsifying a Scripture quote -- in a signficant manner, which actually changes the meaning -- and not taking correction when his error was pointed out.
2. Using quotations marks when the quote was never uttered
3. Claiming that Pope Francis "preached against the тαℓмυd" when the allocution itself didn't mention the тαℓмυd at all. As I will mention later, quotation marks MEAN SOMETHING and intellectual honesty must be maintained on a written discussion forum. If the words weren't uttered, don't place them in quotation marks.
4. Placing St. Pius X's stance on the тαℓмυd and the Jews on the same level as Pope Francis.
So I condemn and correct Poche's errors including:
1. Mis-quoting Scripture
Scripture itself must NOT be twisted to win an argument, look better, save face, defend yourself, or even to defend someone else -- even someone as important as the Pope. One cannot do evil that good might come from it. That is basic Catholic moral theology.
The official, preferred translation used by most Traditional Catholics, and therefore CathInfo as well, is the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation (also acceptable: the original Douay-Rheims). In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself. But nowadays, few Catholics, even within Tradition, can read Latin. So I recommend the Douay-Rheims which is just as accurate but in English. I recommend you bookmark www.drbo.org to look up Scripture quotes; it even has a handy search function.
2. Using quotation marks to signify a direct quotation, where the quotation in question never existed.
Just like Abraham Lincoln told me a few days ago, "That's death to any Internet forum, Matthew!"
This can't be allowed on any written discussion forum. Quotation marks should only be used when the person in question actually uttered those words verbatim. If you wish to paraphrase or summarize, you must leave the quote marks off. And NEVER put words in anyone's mouth. That includes during arguments, where combatants are wont to quote their opponent, change their quote, and say "fixed it for you" to make a point, as a device of sorts. But it's crude and dishonest to put words into your opponent's mouth, so it's not allowed on this forum (as well as most other fora out there).
3. Claiming Pope Francis did or said something he did not
The truth doesn't need you to "modify", spin, or twist it. State the truth simply and let the chips fall where they may. You never know, it might open your eyes to the truth in other areas as well. Willfully deceiving yourself, or accepting a lie in place of the truth, eventually leads to a complete inability to perceive the truth. In the end, the miserable soul can even worship satan (the father of lies) in place of God (who is Truth).
4. Claiming there is no Crisis in the Church, Pope St. Pius X had basically the same stance on the Jews/тαℓмυd as Pope Francis, etc.
I allow members to deal with the Crisis in the Church according to their own lights, prudence, and conscience. However, denying the Crisis altogether puts you completely outside the Traditional Catholic movement. This is a Traditional Catholic forum. If you want to ask questions of the many well informed and educated Catholics here, be my guest. But you must respect the Traditional Catholic beliefs and position. Even many conservative Novus Ordo Catholics know that Pope Francis is a different kind of Pope (in a bad way) than good old popes like St. Pius X. Even many who choose to say in the Novus Ordo acknowledge there is a huge Crisis in the Church.
5. Failure to acknowledge some actual errors in the modern Catholic Church, for example the post-Vatican II errors on the Jews ("Elder brothers in the Church", "Their covenant is still valid", "They don't need to convert") which is in direct contradiction to pre-Vatican II Popes, including St. Peter: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation." (Acts 2:36-40)
This is a formal warning for Poche, that he cease posting these errors on CathInfo and abide by the forum rules as I have described them. Failure to comply could result in further moderator action(s).
CathInfo members are encouraged to report any violations of these rules, by Poche or any other member. Please use the "Report to Moderator" link in the lower-right corner of each post, send me a PM, or e-mail me: matthew at cathinfo dot com.
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.You are right. I had a larger idea that I was trying to convey. It is the truth that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ. It was he who instituted the papacy and it was he who named Peter to be the first Pope. Jesus promise is; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You are right. I had a larger idea that I was trying to convey. It is the truth that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ. It was he who instituted the papacy and it was he who named Peter to be the first Pope. Jesus promise is; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
There have been times during the Roman Empire that almost the entire hierarchy was arrested and put to death. In the early part of the 19th century, Napoleon invaded Italy and arrested the Pope. Napoleon declared, "I shall destroy your Catholic Church!" Where is that Pope now? Or better yet, where is Napoleon today?
Not to say that there are no problems today. But the promise of Christ remains. He also said, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. "
144 words that really do not address the heart of your problem or the solution to your problem.!!!
You could have said: "I faked a biblical quote to make my point. I'm sorry. I won't do it again."
For about a month you have been evading the authentic Catholic response to getting caught in multiple lies. 16 words would have acknowledged and corrected the entire problem.
Poche, stop your B.S. You are supposed to be a 60 year-old Catholic man. Quit acting like a prissy little fαɢɢօt.
144 words that really do not address the heart of your problem or the solution to your problem.I see a huge difference between a deliberate lie and an honest mistake.
You could have said: "I faked a biblical quote to make my point. I'm sorry. I won't do it again."
For about a month you have been evading the authentic Catholic response to getting caught in multiple lies. 16 words would have acknowledged and corrected the entire problem.
Poche, stop your B.S. You are supposed to be a 60 year-old Catholic man. Quit acting like a prissy little fαɢɢօt.
You are right. I had a larger idea that I was trying to convey. It is the truth that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ. It was he who instituted the papacy and it was he who named Peter to be the first Pope. Jesus promise is; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.LOL!Larger idea!!!!Just to distract from the original lie, you misdirected and made the lie larger, and to your favor of course! Poche, you have proven to be a master of deflection! Jesus said to make your yes, yes and your no, no. We all know what Jesus said about the Church and Peter. That's the problem. You changed scripture and we all know it!!!!!. JUST SAY THAT YOU DID and don't go off on a grandiose tangent to show how holy and harmless you are. ( because you are not) You are just proving the theory that you are here for less than admirable intentions . Your persistent dishonesty amazes me.
There have been times during the Roman Empire that almost the entire hierarchy was arrested and put to death. In the early part of the 19th century, Napoleon invaded Italy and arrested the Pope. Napoleon declared, "I shall destroy your Catholic Church!" Where is that Pope now? Or better yet, where is Napoleon today?
Not to say that there are no problems today. But the promise of Christ remains. He also said, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. "
I see a huge difference between a deliberate lie and an honest mistake.
It's almost that time when Poche does his drive-by. At the risk of repeating myself…Now you mock his confessions?
Honest mistakes are random. Your "mistakes" are not random, but are always skewed to support your Judaizing.
An honest man does not defend honest mistakes by piling lies on top of lies.
You falsified Scripture about 2 months ago: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301)
You were immediately called on it.
Instead of immediately claiming it was a mistake, it took you about 5 weeks to pile on another lie pretending you meant to make an inference, a rather tangential and contrived inference, "that those who invincibly do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church can be saved."
Then you claimed your lies were "prudential silence."
Then you made your fake apology without admitting your lie.
You even claimed you went to confession. What did you confess? "Bless me Father for I have made a mistake"???
That sequence of behavior is NOT a "mistake."
You have displayed the same pattern with your other lies, e.g., "preached against the тαℓмυd," "paraphrasing St. Paul," "the same view [Pope St. Pius X v. Jorge the Worst]," etc.
An honest man called on a genuine mistake would have immediately said two months ago: "Oh, I made a mistake. Sorry."
But you are not an honest man, you are an abject, willful, habitual, unrepentant, serial liar.
Aleah, once again you fail to keep your eye on the ball. It is Poche himself who mocked confession.Passing judgment on his confession is a mockery of the sacrament and should be admonished.
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.
Poche is a liar and he mocked confession as an alibi and misdirection, feigned contrition for something he claimed repeatedly before and after his "confession," was not a sinful lie, but only a "mistake."
I'm still trying to get my head around that one. How does one, on the one hand, claim that only a simple mistake has occurred (and thus not sinful), but yet on the other hand assert that one has gone to confession with implication that said "sin of mistake" was confessed? It makes no sense.
Aleah, once again you fail to keep your eye on the ball. It is Poche himself who mocked confession.How have I mocked the Sacrament of Confession?
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.
It's almost that time when Poche does his drive-by. At the risk of repeating myself…It took me awhile to understand what you were talking about.
Honest mistakes are random. Your "mistakes" are not random, but are always skewed to support your Judaizing.
An honest man does not defend honest mistakes by piling lies on top of lies.
You falsified Scripture about 2 months ago: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301)
You were immediately called on it.
Instead of immediately claiming it was a mistake, it took you about 5 weeks to pile on another lie pretending you meant to make an inference, a rather tangential and contrived inference, "that those who invincibly do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church can be saved."
Then you claimed your lies were "prudential silence."
Then you made your fake apology without admitting your lie.
You even claimed you went to confession. What did you confess? "Bless me Father for I have made a mistake"???
That sequence of behavior is NOT a "mistake."
You have displayed the same pattern with your other lies, e.g., "preached against the тαℓмυd," "paraphrasing St. Paul," "the same view [Pope St. Pius X v. Jorge the Worst]," etc.
An honest man called on a genuine mistake would have immediately said two months ago: "Oh, I made a mistake. Sorry."
But you are not an honest man, you are an abject, willful, habitual, unrepentant, serial liar.
Exactly. It reminds me of one of the craziest and most contemptible passages in the тαℓмυd excusing “unwitting” sodomy [Sanhedrin 54b] as if such an unnatural and intrinsically difficult act could be accidental or a "mistake."I am sorry but I am not familiar with the тαℓмυd. I prefer to study the Sacred Scripture and the Catechism the study of the тαℓмυd.
Analogously, Poche had his "greater idea" and wanted to justify his "greater idea," so he accidentally made a "mistake" of falsifying Scripture to accomplish his goal—and then publicizes his confession of his "mistake"?
Who is stupid enough to such a sequence of blatant manipulative lies and misdirection? Oh wait, we know who.
I'm still trying to get my head around that one. How does one, on the one hand, claim that only a simple mistake has occurred (and thus not sinful), but yet on the other hand assert that one has gone to confession with implication that said "sin of mistake" was confessed? It makes no sense.I don't discuss what I said in confession.
I am sorry but I am not familiar with the тαℓмυd. I prefer to study the Sacred Scripture and the Catechism the study of the тαℓмυd.Let it not be lost on us that you slithered past your own "mistakes."
I don't discuss what I said in confession.
Let it not be lost on us that you slithered past your own "mistakes."I am sorry but I don't recognize the authority of the тαℓмυd.
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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.
*****************
Yet, in sneaking away from your own responsibilities, you confess unfamiliarity with the precepts of those you repeatedly rush to defend.
Since I am familiar with the Master Race genocidal fundamentals of Judaism, I think you are not only stupid, but traitorous, to defend the most misanthropic and most organized opposition to Jesus Christ.
Only-Jews-are-human and "Kill even the best of Gentiles" is what you defend.
“You are called men, but non-Jews are not called men.”
Bava Metzia 114b
Note Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s ruling: “…only ‘you,’ the members of the Jєωιѕн people, are called men, but non-Jews are not called men.”
(http://judaism.is/images/bava%20metzia%20114b.jpg?crc=342463783)
“…although our Sages declared, ‘Kill even the best of the gentiles,’ and that, as mentioned above, the Rambam [Maimonides] states in Hilchot Melachim 8:10 that any gentile who does not accept the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants should be slain. These directives, however. can be interpreted to apply only in a time of war or in a time when the Jews have control over the gentiles.”
(http://judaism.is/images/full%20size%20kill550x648.jpg?crc=3894507051)
Snake, this is about YOU.You are the one who has been quoting the тαℓмυd.
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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.
With Mark79's assistance, it has come to my attention that Poche has posted known, concrete errors on CathInfo. This is in violation of CathInfo rules forbidding *any* falsehoods of any kind.Just as Matthew's original post was about you.
1. Falsifying a Scripture quote -- in a signficant manner, which actually changes the meaning -- and not taking correction when his error was pointed out.
2. Using quotations marks when the quote was never uttered
3. Claiming that Pope Francis "preached against the тαℓмυd" when the allocution itself didn't mention the тαℓмυd at all. As I will mention later, quotation marks MEAN SOMETHING and intellectual honesty must be maintained on a written discussion forum. If the words weren't uttered, don't place them in quotation marks.
4. Placing St. Pius X's stance on the тαℓмυd and the Jews on the same level as Pope Francis.
So I condemn and correct Poche's errors including:
1. Mis-quoting Scripture
Scripture itself must NOT be twisted to win an argument, look better, save face, defend yourself, or even to defend someone else -- even someone as important as the Pope. One cannot do evil that good might come from it. That is basic Catholic moral theology.
The official, preferred translation used by most Traditional Catholics, and therefore CathInfo as well, is the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation (also acceptable: the original Douay-Rheims). In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself. But nowadays, few Catholics, even within Tradition, can read Latin. So I recommend the Douay-Rheims which is just as accurate but in English. I recommend you bookmark www.drbo.org to look up Scripture quotes; it even has a handy search function.
2. Using quotation marks to signify a direct quotation, where the quotation in question never existed.
Just like Abraham Lincoln told me a few days ago, "That's death to any Internet forum, Matthew!"
This can't be allowed on any written discussion forum. Quotation marks should only be used when the person in question actually uttered those words verbatim. If you wish to paraphrase or summarize, you must leave the quote marks off. And NEVER put words in anyone's mouth. That includes during arguments, where combatants are wont to quote their opponent, change their quote, and say "fixed it for you" to make a point, as a device of sorts. But it's crude and dishonest to put words into your opponent's mouth, so it's not allowed on this forum (as well as most other fora out there).
3. Claiming Pope Francis did or said something he did not
The truth doesn't need you to "modify", spin, or twist it. State the truth simply and let the chips fall where they may. You never know, it might open your eyes to the truth in other areas as well. Willfully deceiving yourself, or accepting a lie in place of the truth, eventually leads to a complete inability to perceive the truth. In the end, the miserable soul can even worship satan (the father of lies) in place of God (who is Truth).
4. Claiming there is no Crisis in the Church, Pope St. Pius X had basically the same stance on the Jews/тαℓмυd as Pope Francis, etc.
I allow members to deal with the Crisis in the Church according to their own lights, prudence, and conscience. However, denying the Crisis altogether puts you completely outside the Traditional Catholic movement. This is a Traditional Catholic forum. If you want to ask questions of the many well informed and educated Catholics here, be my guest. But you must respect the Traditional Catholic beliefs and position. Even many conservative Novus Ordo Catholics know that Pope Francis is a different kind of Pope (in a bad way) than good old popes like St. Pius X. Even many who choose to say in the Novus Ordo acknowledge there is a huge Crisis in the Church.
5. Failure to acknowledge some actual errors in the modern Catholic Church, for example the post-Vatican II errors on the Jews ("Elder brothers in the Church", "Their covenant is still valid", "They don't need to convert") which is in direct contradiction to pre-Vatican II Popes, including St. Peter: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation." (Acts 2:36-40)
This is a formal warning for Poche, that he cease posting these errors on CathInfo and abide by the forum rules as I have described them. Failure to comply could result in further moderator action(s).
CathInfo members are encouraged to report any violations of these rules, by Poche or any other member. Please use the "Report to Moderator" link in the lower-right corner of each post, send me a PM, or e-mail me: matthew at cathinfo dot com.
I went to confession this morning and the priest gave me absolution..
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681110/#msg681110 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/poche-please-explain/msg681110/#msg681110)
I don't discuss what I said in confession.
Poche, you just continue to lie and/or make misleading comments. You have no integrity.
I am sorry but I am not familiar with the тαℓмυd. I prefer to study the Sacred Scripture and the Catechism the study of the тαℓмυd.
Poche is fishing for souls with poison zio-Novus Ordo bait. In otherwords, souls swayed by Poche's "cutsie" false piety will be severely damaged and steered away from the truth.( Is that the goal, Poche?)
And why would anyone want to study the тαℓмυd, unless they are Jєωιѕн. I certainly don't have any interest in it.Quintessential Meg, misses the obvious.… again.
Quintessential Meg, misses the obvious.… again.
The Jews are the most organized earthly opposition to Jesus Christ, His Church, His Law, and His People.
Whether to convert them or oppose them, a thinking person wants to understand what God's enemies believe.
But then there are some people who operate almost exclusively at sub-cortical amygdaloid.
What the heck does sub-cortical amygdaloid mean, in English? You are obviously trying to show off for your adoring fans here.
I'm pretty sure that we Catholics aren't supposed to read that тαℓмυdic crap. But you don't seem to mind at all.
It means you are slightly more functional than brain dead.
Once again you are "pretty sure," but wrong.
I am sorry but I am not familiar with the тαℓмυd. I prefer to study the Sacred Scripture and the Catechism the study of the тαℓмυd.
What the heck does sub-cortical amygdaloid mean, in English? You are obviously trying to show off for your adoring fans here.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:
I'm pretty sure that we Catholics aren't supposed to read that тαℓмυdic crap. But you don't seem to mind at all.
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:"Certainly"? "Imagine"? Really?
poche refused to answer my question about what his intentions are here, for being so active (4th in terms of total posts in CI history) on a forum on which absolutely no one agrees with him. So we can only assume that it's either something nefarious or else he's just trolling. Or we could entertain some conspiracy theories, that he's actually a Traditional Catholic deliberately playing the part of a Novus Ordo devil's advocate, or else he's actually Matthew :laugh1:.I am interested in an exchange of ideas.
Lover of Truth used to post tirelessly against Feeneyism, and that was because he had almost become a Feeneyite and therefore has some psychological need to comat this "pernicious heresy" that ALMOST took him down. So perhaps poche too has had some personal run-in with Traditional Catholics. No one knows, since he refuses to come clean. I strongly believe that, if he doesn't explain himself, he should be banned. He's wasting a lot of people's time on this forum. While once could advise just to ignore him, he keeps posting Novus Ordo and Bergoglio propaganda that many posters feel the need to combat.
I am interested in an exchange of ideas.Ideas like the Blessed Mother was prefigured by a demon's star?
How did you choose he name "Poche"?This is how I chose the name Poche;
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?
"Certainly"? "Imagine"? Really?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?
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 (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/06/losservatore-romano-reccomends-daf-yomi.html)(http://judaism.is/images/l%20osservatore%20romano%20тαℓмυd%20lessons.jpg?crc=3770624196)scroll to page 6:L’Osservatore Romano, Anno CLIII n. 96 (46.340), venerdì 26 aprile 2013, Il тαℓмυd giorno per giorno, pagina 6.http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/096q01.pdf (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/096q01.pdf)
Ideas like the Blessed Mother was prefigured by a demon's star?The Holy Virgin is the star of the Sea. According to John the Evangelist, she wears a crown of twelve stars.
"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.
(http://judaism.is/images/poche%20sauce.jpg?crc=279876973)
The Holy Virgin is the star of the Sea. According to John the Evangelist, she wears a crown of twelve stars.The Star of the DEMON Rempham is NOT the Star of the Sea.
1] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=12&l=1-#x) 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 only star I am interested in is the Holy Virgin;
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."
| [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 |
The only star I am interested in is the Holy Virgin;That is a lie.
That is a lie.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.
You suggested that the "star of the Jews" (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-jew'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.It is typical of both you and Satan to admix truth and lies.
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.
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.The fact that he has over 15,000 posts and is still here speaks volumes.
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).
"Certainly"? "Imagine"? Really?Pls quote source for the last sentence...
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?
Pls quote source for the last sentence...
I have never heard this b4. :popcorn:
"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? [see above]
Lazy. You can't lift a finger to do your own search? It is not an obscure fact. Choose your favorite source:In order to refute this poster i would advise those interested to consult Plot Against The Church by Pinay. See pages 141, 150-151 and also 658. It says that Leo X CONDEMNED the тαℓмυd, that the book was ordered burned by Paul IV, ....etc :popcorn:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Pope+Leo+X+тαℓмυd&t=brave&ia=web (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Pope+Leo+X+тαℓмυd&t=brave&ia=web)
Your turn. Please provide your references.
Sorry, Roscoe, I'd need a reliable reference substantiating that the тαℓмυd was still on the Index during the papacy of Pope Pius XII, the last true Pope. (Was it ever on the Index under any true Pope???)
MO is that, while the diction is bad, it means to INCLUDE Pope Leo X :popcorn:
More later...
My apologies to Mark as I have just re-read the chapter on Spanish INQ in Walsh Bio of Philip II. I had forgotten that the Renaissance/ Reformation pope Leo did authorize publication of тαℓмυd. This is later stopped by Paul IV as he burned the book.
If Mark has some evidence that тαℓмυd is supported by Pius XII . pls post... :popcorn: