Here you go:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-corrects-lifesitenews-i-have-never-worked-with-steve-bannon-89660

Regarding "Lifesitenews":  Aren't they fully on board with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo sect?  And if so, shouldn't we always take their reporting with a grain of salt?

Is it ok to periodically refer to the Latin Vulgate?

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 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.

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.

I fear that our fearless owner-moderator suffered a brief brain-cramp. His endorsement for the "original Douay-Rheims" as I faithfully quoted it, should instead have been "slavishly-faithful-to-the-original Latin of the Vulgate itself".  I'm sure that he would agree, whenever he can unwind from his family's Christmas rush".

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.

Sigh.  It appears that the "brain-cramp" was my own.  I've done my due diligence by refreshing the Web page containg the original posting by ‘Matthew’.  Amazing what syntactic difference is made by the presence or absence of the tiny mark known as the hyphen (its absence signified above by ‘▓English’).
• Its presence makes the disputed phrase "original-English", which is incorrect, but that's how I read it, despite knowing fully well that none of the New Testament was "original[ly]" written in English.
• Its absence makes the phrase "slavishly-faithful-to-the-original▓", which as a substantive phrase, implies the Vulgate, and modifies "English translation" which is, of course, what ‘Matthew’ intended.

Sooo, mea culpa.  And I wish you & yours a Merry Feast of, ironically, St. John the Evangelist.

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"?

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

And what about all those other lies?

d) Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 and that

e) Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082

f) Jorge has “the same view” on the Jews as Pope St. Pius X. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367

g) Jorge preached "how Christianity is distinct from the Jєωιѕн religion" in the allocution you cited  https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784

And those are just your recent lies from the last month or so. What about all your lies from the last 7 years?

What is your problem?

What will you do to solve your problem?